||||| From: Nomen Nescio Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus) H, Minton Testimony first day only Message-ID: <3213d8644bcbd597f54912ed2c862d16@dizum.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:00:03 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 341 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.itconsult.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550800 comp.org.eff.talk:105638 misc.legal:433664 H. MINTON TESTIMONY DAY ONE (VOLUMR ONE), 17/may/2002, ===================================================== in Estate of MacPherson vs Church of Scientology FSO, Pinellas County (FLA), CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 ===================================================== ANALYSIS At(P04) Mr Minton is sworn and at(P05) [privilege against] production of documents is discussed; also at(P09) laws on cross-border money transfer. At(P14) Mr Howie will accept service of papers for the witness's admitted perjury. At(P15) direct examination of the witness begins. At(P16) Mr Fugate places before him the "recantation", "2nd affidavit", and "3rd affidavit", which he identifies and affirms as his testimony. At(P18) he has been added to the counter-claim, and read the transcripts so far; he acknowledges that he is the Robert Minton mentioned therein. At(P19) he admits under questioning that he has funded this and other cases to the tune of about ten million dollars. It is the alleged Church's belief that it can do anything it likes including killing parishioners by neglect, and that anyone who reproves it for this is a criminal and/or out to extort money not due them. The alleged Church believes all these lawsuits, in many of which it is suing others For publishing the instruments of its fraud, are one grand conspiracy against it; and it has entered exhibits in which it wants to make this insane scenario law as a RICO suit, with Mr Minton at the center. Mr Minton has agreed to endorse this analysis, though he says the lives of his wife and children were at risk if he did not, and the Nigerian government is mentioned in the same context; perhaps the alleged Church is in a position to have his family assassinated by third parties if not. PRIOR CASES. The next section itemizes the funding to each group. In each case Scientology tries to blacken the name of the litigant in one or other way. We agree with the Court that nothing about each litigant, other than the amount funded, should be admitted into the hearing. Enough prejudicial material has crept in already, and the Church's prejudicial remarks should be excluded from anything which gets to go before a jury. --There were donations to Wollersheim, who sued Scientology for harm it did him and was stonewalled for twenty years in collecting damages due... and the related Fact-Net, a Colorado non-profit corporation, which Minton curiously describes as an "enterprise" (not something he would credibly say off his own bat). Fact-Net was sued for publishing materials which the alleged Church uses as the instrument of financial deceit. Minton negotiated a stipulated settlement of one million dollars for any future violations. The Court asked who paid this, when of course it has not been paid but only might be in some circumstances. It would be interesting to know who signed as guarantor that they would pay if it became due. Mr Minton met attorney Dan Liepold through this case. --Keith Henson(P27) was sued for publishing works which show the alleged Church practices medicine without a license, and lost for $70,000 plus costs. The prejudicial remarks by the Church here should be struck out by for information, and not for hearing, he was set up on strange charges of threatening people with cruise missiles he did not possess and nearly all of his defense excluded; he has fled seeking asylum in Canada after threats were published that he would be killed in prison. --Arnie Lerma was(P29) again sued by RTC over publishing copyright material which the alleged Church uses to defraud people; he was found against, but in the minimum amount of $500 x each of five infractions. He was paid about $60,000 mainly as living expenses. Mr Lerma was on the advisory board of LMT as was Mr Henson, and also Gerry Armstrong. --Gerry Armstrong was(p31) a Canadian citizen who, while in scientology, married an planned to settle in America. The prejudicial remarks by the Church here should be struck out by for information, and not for hearing, there was a settlement in which Armstrong and the alleged Church agreed not to defame each other. The Church flagrantly broke Their end and got away with it, when Armstrong replied they obtained Endless court orders against him, until he fled back to Canada so that He could enjoy freedom of speech. --Grady Ward was(p31) sued by RTC over publishing copyright material which the alleged Church uses to defraud people. The prejudicial remarks by the Church here should be struck out by for information, and not for hearing, he was never proved liable. Rather, the court drafted a settlement for him, and told him he had signed it. That these litigants have had bad luck in the courts may be put down to the fact Scientology has a large litigation budget, and evil but efficient attorneys on call. Minton says he is paying Ward to this day. Since Ward ceased making public comment on Scientology some time back, it should be asked whether (as with Mr Prince) his silence was a condition of continued payment. Funding of cases should be listed separate from salaries for work done. Money was also given to cases in Germany and France, which are outside the jurisdiction of Florida, or U.S., courts. FUNDING HERE. The whole spending (p34) on the Lisa MacPherson case and Lisa MacPherson Trust, capital and current, is about two million dollars. There is a discussion of Mr Dandar's objection to the disclosure of his finances, and for what areas are still protected. A series of cheques are produced(P40), exhibits 93-A,B,C, D,E,F, on the personal account of Bob Minton, and G,H,I, on disbursement accounts held by foreign banks which Mr Minton paid to have issued. The system (P42) by which such cashiers' cheques are issued is discussed; such cheques (p48) do not bear any information saying who paid for them to be issued. The amount paid is $1.1M in personal cheques, plus $0.75M in cashier's cheques, plus another disputed $0.2M, total $2.05M. Aside from that $2.5M went on capital and revenue spending of the LMT, and just under $2.5M on the film THE PROFIT, plus some money on Mr Prince and Ms Brooks. Jesse was a stranger working for salary, who only later became a close friend; Mr Minton and Ms Brooks were living as man and wife, so money to her was just supporting her as expected. The Court (P55) is skeptical whether the film has yet been shown to have anything to do with the case; it had one showing to 2,000 people, which is hardly a professional circulation. Mr Fugate(P61) tried to show a connection between Bob Minton, LMT, and Courage Productions which made the film. The Court was called away on other business, and there was a BRIEF RECESS ending Volume One. Mr Fugate(P64) who it came about that Bob came to Florida and Set up the LMT. Mr Wollersheim introduced Bob to Mr Dandar, after Bob had come to a picket against CofS in Clearwater in mar/1997. In oct/1997(p69) Bob got back in contact with Mr Dandar and Offered the first $100,000 of funding, cheque 93-A. He examines what discussion Bob had with Mr Dandar, and what terms were set out(P71) in the original letter accepting funding. It was only later(P74) that Bob Minton met Mr Dandar's clients, and purportedly entered into the purported secret agreement. He asks(P76) what return or benefit Bob expected to get for providing this money. Bob had thought to concentrate money in a single focused campaign against the abuses of Scientology. Bob had then(p78) been elected to the board of Fact-Net, but Looked forward to a more potent organisation against Scn. INTERNET POSTINGS. Mr Fugate(p80) now produced a bundle of internet postings 94-A,B,C... by Bob Minton. Postings A,B,C,D, show little except that Minton wrote strident criticism of the Scientology Corporation, its mafia entertainers, and its evil but effective attorneys; another boasts of acquiring Mr Prince on the payroll and how much inside knowledge he has of Scientology misdeeds. This was meant to discomfort Scientology after a meeting with them broke up acrimoniously. Posting 93-F of july/1999 (p83)boasts how Bob Minton had phoned David Miscavige's mother Loretta, leaving a message which politely gave name and number for callback, saying he was a prominent opponent of Scientology. It is worth noticing that most people on the newsgroup disapproved of such tactics: one might do it if pushed far enough and without legal recourse, as one might punch back if punched enough times with no lawful protection. But it is a very bad idea to initiate such behaviour. For example From: Wulfen - www.total.net/~wulfen/scn/ (wulfen@NOSPAMtotal.net) Subject: Re: Loretta Miscavige gets a call Date: 1999/07/21 I meant, and perhaps didn't make clear... Scientologists scare the hell out of Mrs Hagglund Sr. The Scns either knew this or should have known this when Buttnor and Ramsay contacted the Hagglunds in Ottawa, given Scientology's reputation in Canada. So, their actions seem to be deliberately done to "get at", ie harrass, Gregg through his parents. Instead of taking the high road and going directly to (in their view) the source of their problems, they chose to take action in a way designed to cause the maximum (within the law) possible suffering to Gregg and his family. Conversely: Suppressive Persons (perhaps, educated guesswork on my part) scare the hell out of elderly Scientologists. Bob Minton either knew this or should have known this when he called Loretta Miscavige, given an SP's reputation to a Scientologist. So, what else can I conclude? Bob Minton appears to have taken this course of action to "get at", ie harrass, David Miscavige through his mother. Instead of leaving innocent family members out of it, Bob Minton chose to act in a way apparently designed to maximize the emotional upset to L. Miscavige and her son. Such conduct has been rare or nearly absent among critics, but frequent by the Scientology Corporation. Scientology has Also behaved much worse i.e. it has been harassment in person, which was persistent, and which was loud or profane in tone. Minton's own "timeline of harassment" details how Scientologists Yelled abuse at him in airports, or came and yelled abuse At him and Ms Brooks as they swum in the pool behind his house 200 metres inside the boundary fence, or sent people after his wife and children to distribute offensive leaflets around the schools and neighbourhoods. Likewise Scientology private investigator Eugene Engram called on Mr Ward's elderly mother to trick her out of information, using the name "Jack Hoff". So Mr Fugate's examination here legitimately opens the way for the plaintiffs to discuss harassment, and the have a lot more, more persistent, and more severe harassment to raise. At(P86), Mr Hoover could pride himself on being the Mafia's "enemy number one" too, at least until they had blackmail material about his transvestite activities; a case which somewhat parallels Mr Minton's own ignominious pants-down turn-around. There is no particular reason why Ms Liebrich or Mr Dandar should not find and read such material with approval, which does not mean they either commission or formally sanctioned it. The Court is right not to seek out and read contentious comment about the case, but Mr Dandar is not in the same position of having to render impartial judgment. The truth(P89) of the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup is that the alleged Church +chooses+ never to argue on the issues, where it would lose, but has a motto of "always attack, never defend", and has expressed itself by personal attacks on critics, irrelevant rants about psychiatry, unauthorized removal of other people's articles, and commissioning others to flood the group with vast quantities on unreadable gibberish. It is not even wrong, as best we know, for Mr Dandar(P91) wanting the alleged Church to know, in general terms, that he was well funded. Mr Fugate then makes a big performance(P92) of Minton paying Ms Brooks and Mr Prince to work as expert witnesses for Mr Dandar. As the court points out, there is nothing very Irregular in attorneys having specialist consultants. In the case of Ms Brooks, Mr Minton was simply supporting The woman he lived with as man and wife. In the case of Mr Prince, it is fair to say he was first a stranger paid for work, and that later the two became close friends (until Mr Prince would no longer be paid to shut up, shortly before the present hearing). The top and bottom of it(P96) is that both were present in Florida to work for Mr Dandar as consultants in the wrongful death case, and there is nothing of itself irregular in that. Mr Minton says they were at Dandar's to report back everything which happened and, according to Brooks, to give instructions as well; but we have only Brooks' and Minton's word on this, which by now is not worth much at all. At(P100) Mr Dandar makes a clumsy attempt to establish a massive Conspiracy probably of psychiatrists, by adding that the writing Of affidavits was also then published on the newsgroup but, again, there is nothing of itself improper in telling a newspaper or newsgroup what, in general terms, you are doing. Mr Fugate tries to demonstrate(P101) case control, but all we have is innuendo and the worthless word of a proven perjurer which was probably got out of him by blackmail anyway. PHONE SCRAMBLER. Mr Fugate then(P104) moves on, rather pointlessly, to the provision of a phone encryption device. Mr Minton was to pay for it at his own expense. In the event it was never used. To prove that it was preparation for something improper which in the event never proceeded to completion requires more evidence than is yet provided here. The whole exercise seems distinctly irrelevant. Mr Minton's current denials(P110) that he ever feared an illegal phone-tap on his line are distinctly unconvincing. CELL-PHONE BILLS. Mr Fugate moves on(P114) to the sub-poena'ing of LMT's cell-phone bills... via a small pointless digression about Mr Minton helping to set up Mr Dandar's office web-site. After a FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS (P119) the phone bills were entered as defense exhibit#97. Mr Dandar has an objection that the first four months were paid for by Dandar & Dandar so are his records; at no time was he given a notice that any of his records were to be seized, so that he could lodge objection. They were also demanded as "ducus tecum" to a regular Deposition which was then cancelled; yet the defendant Received them before the deposition date, and hung onto them anyway. The Court(P127) is minded to exclude these Dandar & Dandar cell-phone bills. Mr Dandar then moved to the meeting of aug/1999 in Philadelphia, and cheque 93-E issued there. The Court is interrupted by other business, and(P129) a BRIEF RECESS is taken. Mr Weinberg(P130) then resumed argument on the phone-bills. They had requested fits "LMT" phone-bills and then, when there was none as such, Minton phone-bills. He maintained that the Dandar & Dandar records contain data relevant to the case, and of themselves demonstrate association. The Court was clear than anything directly privileged e.g. the office calling clients would not be admitted. Mr Moxon(P135) tried to argue it was OK because Mr Dandar had been served a notice which did not indicate any of +his+ records were to be produced. The procedure was irregular)P137) in demanding records for a deposition and keeping them anyway. Mr McGowan negotiated (p141) release of records belonging to his client Bob Minton, but nobody noticed or negotiated release of Mr Dandar's own records with him. This will be re-visited on Tuesday. PHILADELPHIA MEETING. Mr Fugate(P143) now re-visits the meeting in Philadelphia on 26/aug 1999 and the cheque issued there. As in the Brooks testimony, this is the one where Bob supposedly directed that the case be more about Scientology. Mr Dandar's only objection was that it was expensive to litigate and otherwise agreed, presumably in consultation with his clients, that the idea was a good one; Mr Minton responded by saying he would provide a higher level of funding to cover the cost. This in itself hardly sounds to be improper. A further meeting took place(P149) in the late fall which discussed adding Miscavige as defendant in his capacity as captain of the Sea Org. As the witness says Judge Moody(p152) had opened the way for this, by being specific About the corporations which were excluded. Mr Minton is somewhat unconvincing about when he understood the agreement not to add Scientology corporations as defendants (which was not breached anyway). Mr Fugate(P154) returns to how people reacted at the second meeting: Minton says that, far from exercising control in return for his donations, he said very little and went along with the others' line. Minton(P157) says he supposedly had to keep the existence of the meeting secret, yet nothing improper had happened at it: this is not very credible. CONFIDENTIAL PAPERS. Minton alleges, however, that he received(P158) a number of case papers while they were confidential. The article in defence#98 (P159) shows some knowledge in general terms of a settlement conference in the case. He says he received(P162) other confidential depositions such as the Theresa Summers deposition. Mr Fugate(P163) raises the knowledge report of Brenda Hubert. This was placed on a web-site with the idea that word of it would reach Ms Hubert and she would be under pressure to tell the truth of hat she knew, though this did not constitute direct contact. Mr Minton now says (P167) he also phoned Ms Hubert as a defense witness. THE LMT BOARD. Minton brought attorneys Dan Liepold and Ford Greene to Florida, to assist on the areas(P169)of what is religious and corporate Alter egos. This was assistance offered rather than requested [but so what?]. Since they were not given a percentage of the contingency fee, Mr Liepold was paid hourly. Mr Fugate raises the issue of Gerry Armstrong(P174) and whether there were restrictions on his appearing as a witness, objected to since it calls for a legal conclusion He tries to raise Mr Ward's presence (P176), which is outside the scope of any motion before the court. Mr Dandar asks(P177) about the reason for having LMT directly Confront the Scientology HQ in Clearwater, and hastily blocks any mention of helping people who had trouble with Scientology. He asks(P178) about discussion with Dandar about founding it here, and with the relatives(P179) about using the dead girl's name; though there is nothing improper in this anyway. A younger relative of the victim, Kim Krenek(p180), is on the board for long-term continuity of the connection. Mr Fugate then turns to the question of picketing. This being a new topic, and towards the end if the afternoon, the court then WENT INTO RECESS until Tuesday, which is the end of Volume Two in the testimony of Bob Minton. ENDS. ||||| From: Nomen Nescio Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus) B, Source Documents Message-ID: <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:10:04 +0200 (CEST) Sender: remailer@dizum.com Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 19 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550802 comp.org.eff.talk:105639 misc.legal:433665 B. SOURCE DOCS The following source documents are available on file and not included in the printed version: Stacy Brooks, second affidavit Stacy Brooks, testimony volume one Stacy Brooks, testimony volume two Stacy Brooks, our own summary of vols one and two Bob Minton, second affidavit Bob Minton, testimony volume one Bob Minton, testimony volume two Bob Minton, our own summary of vols one and two (our summaries are for our internal purposes and don't really add any new information). ||||| From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus) G, Brooks Testimony first day only B Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1201 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550805 comp.org.eff.talk:105640 misc.legal:433666 At(P167) the court does not get to the bottom of why abusive discovery for one very simple reason: the witness has gone over to the defendant Scientology Corporation, and is not going to help the complainant by giving the true reasons. 7 Q But why? I guess I just -- I'm just beside myself 8 trying to figure out why? Was there something illegal about 9 LMT? And I'm talking now about was it doing drugs, was it 10 doing some criminal activity, was there something wrong with 11 it? 12 A No, your Honor. 13 Q It was set up to -- to -- to be what? An 14 anti-Scientology organization? 15 A It was set up to expose the deceptive and abusive 16 processes of Scientology. 17 Q Okay. And then -- so there was nothing illegal 18 about that. 19 A No. 20 Q I mean, that's free speech. It was set up as a 21 for-profit organization, as I remember. If there was an 22 agreement, if there was an agreement that said that, golly, 23 if the aunts of Lisa McPherson got a bundle of money, 24 they'll contribute to this group so that they would have 25 some money, there isn't anything illegal about that, that 0168 1 you knew of? 2 A Right. 3 Q Well, then what in the -- what in the hell were 4 you hiding stuff for? 5 A Because Mr. Dandar was so adamant about not 6 letting Scientology delve into the connection between the 7 LMT and the case. The real reasons, which Ms Brooks is not going to give are --we suggest -- much more like those in our analysis above. The court's summary hits the nail on the head. Ms Brooks is too intelligent and educated to say she innocently tricked into this. It does not make sense, if all defendant's theory is believed, that she did not simply have the sense to refuse. Why should they lie or conceal material about an entity that is legal? Well, there are some reasons: it would expose people seeking help to illegal harassment and the case to illegal disruption. It is supposedly because Mr Dandar insists they must do it to stop the case being derailed, even though at(P169) Ms Brooks says she did not believe this. She comes out with the usual conspiracy nonsense, that she felt under peer loyalty pressure in the "fraternity" of critics. And these people regard her present behaviour as treason. God knows why: helping a rapacious and harassive business corporation not only parch someone's daughter to death but then bully their way out of facing the consequences, and fine the dead girl's family large losses for daring to seek redress, is thoroughly citizenly behaviour. Isn't it? And why should this fraternity be so fired up with passion. The Mafia never does anything wrong, says the Mafia, so it must Be that these people's true motivation for pursuing the Mafia (disguised as opposing its crimes) is to do down Italian-Americans: 17 I mean, it just -- it was -- you know, we were 18 part of a very, very, very tightknit group of people with a 19 very, very strong purpose: To destroy Scientology. At(P171) the Court asks... 3 Q Why didn't you go back to New Hampshire, wherever 4 Mr. Minton is, and say, "See ya, sayonara, bye." This opens up a number of interesting questions. We believe Mr Minton was doing something improper with those cashier's cheques, probably paying for them form money abroad on which tax was due and had been evaded. Therefore HE wanted to deny that they came from him, ultimately swear falsely that they were not from him. Once he had done this, he had given a hostage to fortune -- he wasn't in a position to say " at this point, folks, I am no longer playing in the ball game but taking my bat home and leaving you to it," with no looking back and no further consequences. The courts would continue to demand deposition and discovery until past non-disclosure was cleared up. The Scientology Corporation would continue pursuing him, because what they demanded to withhold the consequences they could rain on him was a lot more than "stop now and walk away." It was, "not only will you stop funding and testifying, but you will become a defendant's witness and actively seek to sink the case you once supported (by forwarding our pack of lies about the purported secret agreement), and pay us compensation for causing us costs in it, and actually you will do the same for every other case you have been involved in." Because, by golly, we have only to observe his behaviour to see that's exactly what he's doing. They must have something pretty extreme on him to make him, not only turnaround, but also drop his pants and take it up the ass in such a way. At(P172) The question is, did they then really think, "Oh well if we just change our testimony and that will wipe the slate clean, with no consequences for our past false testimony." Clearly not. I think the most likely interpretation is this: whatever the consequences of recanting, they must have felt the consequences of not recanting would hurt them a good deal more. Maybe that was repeat jail for contempt on not coming clean about the cheques; or maybe it was a good deal more. Anyway... 7 Q Did you ever, in your smartest -- I mean, as I 8 said, I look at you and I look at you as a -- as a bright 9 woman who is very articulate, who -- who I don't know what 10 your level of education, but you certainly sound like -- did 11 it ever occur to you that once you said -- took the tack 12 that you're taking now, which is boy, this is a bunch of 13 lies, that somebody like me might not be most upset? 14 A You know, your Honor -- 15 Q Or did you think that I'd say, "Well, finally 16 we're all getting to the truth of this" and I'd just be 17 happy as a clam? [This caused a good deal of amusement, given Hubbard's dictum in "A History Of Man" that human beings evolved from clams, which were the first animals to come on land]. Anyway, at(P173), she thinks the way out is to get the case dropped: 8 And -- and so either we could start telling the 9 truth and derail the case or we could go to jail. And from 10 August 15th forward, that's the way I started seeing it. 11 And so I went up to New Hampshire after that 12 deposition, and I asked Mr. Minton if I could please call 13 Dell Liebreich and tell her what was going on. Further down, 21 And you know, I said, There is no way Dell 22 Liebreich knows that this is going on. If she knew this was 23 going on, she would never allow it to happen. She will drop 24 this case. Because you know, the only way we could get out 25 of it was for -- for the case to get dropped. Otherwise, 0174 1 you know, we were going to go to jail You know, we think this paragraph becomes more believable with some small deletions. Ms Brooks feels that everyone will drop their own interests and do what is best for Ms Brooks own safety and comfort, if only sufficient whining and wheedling is applied. So the conversation more likely went something like, "I'm sure Dell doesn't know the consequence for me and you could be jail" (though quite possibly the consequence of Bob hiding his connection with cashiers' cheques he paid for from tax-evaded money). And Bob says, quite reasonably, "Dell had her grand-daughter killed by the Scientology Corporation in horrible circumstances, and she isn't going to let that go just to help us get out of a fix." But Ms Brooks still believes Dell might do, so it at least has to be tried. So, further down: 18 And -- but in any case, so I called {Dell] and -- and 19 I asked her if we could meet. I asked -- actually, I -- I 20 believe I asked her if I could fly to Texas to talk to her. Ms Brooks had, as she admits, repeatedly talked to Mr Dandar about him getting Dell to drop the case, but never Dell directly. Well, this is fairly understandable: her contact with the case is mainly through the Estate's attorney as is proper, who then asks his client for decision on things which need formal decision. Brooks works as a paralegal, or expert witness, in the attorney's office. Now Brooks and Minton have set up a trust to campaign against a particular abuse, in the name of a victim that abuse has killed. And those two have invited the victim's next of kin to sit, in a symbolic way, on the governing board. But their likely reaction to Dell Liebrich is not just "Oh, Hello." They and other LMT people are likely to be considerably in awe of her ("that's the victims next of kin. THE VICTIMS NEXT OF KIN. Really. She's quite human really if you talk to her"). I bet they all treated Dell with considerable awe, courtesy, and respect. So it is indeed an extreme step for Ms Brooks to pick up the phone to call THE VICTIM'S NEXT OF KIN at her home, perhaps for the first time or anyway not having done so often, and ask for a meeting: especially with what Ms Brooks knows she has in mind for that meeting. Remember, her contact with Kennan Dandar has been repeated and informal, and included wheedling to get the case dropped, so Dandar knows exactly what she is up to. Her contact with Dell Liebrich has been occasional, brief, and respectful --- Ms Liebrich has no reason to suspect what the meeting will be about, and Brooks is not likely to tell her in advance, with a strong risk of the meeting being vigorously refused once the reason was known. At(P175) she says Dandar's reaction was as follows: 18 A Yes. I had talked to him about it. And he 19 said -- you know, "This is -- this is a just and noble thing 20 that we're doing, and this has to continue forward. We have 21 to get justice for Lisa McPherson." Pass the sick bag, Alice. When Ms Brooks called Dell, she naturally contacted her attorney for advice (like, "I had a call from Ms Brooks saying she wanted to fly down here for an urgent meeting, she wouldn't say why. You work with her, Ken, have you any idea what she wants?"). Mr Dandar knew exactly what Brooks wanted, and advised Dell not to touch it with a bargepole. Dell, once she knew the background, agreed with him wholeheartedly and rang back declining the meeting. It does not look as if anything improper was done here, at least by Dell or Ken. Now, remember the sequence of events. Ms Brooks and Mr Minton are in difficulty, probably because of Mr Minton's involvement with tax-evaded money and then lying to cover it up. Ms Brooks wants the dead girl's family to drop their wrongful death suit against the Scientology Corporation which killed Lisa, to get Ms Brooks out of a hole (Bob always knew they would refuse, and did not involve himself in asking them). Ms Brooks is, however, outraged they would not do so. Her next step is as follows... 25 Okay. So then when that happened, then I said, 0177 1 you know, these people -- I mean, Mr. Dandar and 2 Ms. Liebreich do not care what happens to Bob Minton or me. Translation: they will not stop seeking redress for Lisa's death just to get Bob and Stacy out of a hole those two have dug themselves into through Bob's financial improprieties. 3 And -- and -- and I said that to Bob Minton. And I said, 4 "You have got -- we have got to distance ourself from this 5 case in every possible way. I've got to tell Jesse to 6 withdraw as an expert witness; you have got to stop giving 7 him any more money. I'm withdrawing as a witness. We have 8 to -- we have to withdraw in every way we possibly can to -- 9 so that the court will stop letting Scientology depose us 10 and get discovery of us." Oh what a give-away. Listen to what is being described here, without the idiot-narrator's spin that it is justified. Note also who is giving the orders. BROOKS told Bob to get out of the case. BROOKS would order Jesse to withdraw. BROOKS told Bob to cease funding. And Brooks herself would also withdraw as a witness (not, "Bob told me to withdraw as a witness"). The impetus to withdraw from the case, if it cannot be dropped to save those two from the consequences of their own dishonesty, comes from Brooks. One cannot help thinking of Lady MacBeth. The sequence was that she phoned Dell in the mid-evening, had lengthy discussions with Bob that night, and gave Bob his battle orders in the morning: 16 A The next day. The next day, because I called her 17 at night. And then Mr. Minton and I talked about this into 18 the night, trying to figure out what to do. [...] At first she hoped the two of the could, as the court suggested, say Sayonara Florida and go back to New Hampshire in a clean break: 23 We were going to try to distance ourselves from it 24 so that we could get protection so that it could move 25 forward without hurting us. At this stage it is quite credible that Ms Brooks would only stop helping the wrongful death suit and not start harming it: she didn't want to harm the case for the sake of harming it, she was just prepared to what was needed to get her out of a fix of her own making at other people's expense. I think it is Brooks and to a lesser extent Minton, rather than Dandar, who did all the urging to cover up Bob's financial improprieties. And she does something here psychiatry calls "projection", she accuses others of doing what she has done and they have not: sort of like the pot calling the china bowl black. So it was not Dandar and Liebrich backed by the purported fraternity of critics who thought that a righteous end justified dishonest means, and would "do whatever it took" to stop the case being derailed. Rather, it was Brooks (and Minton) who thought that the crucial goal of protecting Brooks (and Minton) from the consequences of their own financial misdeeds was a righteous end which justified complete ruthlessness of means, and would "do whatever it took" to preserve her own miserable ass from the flames. However, the situation now has its own logic. Those two would just like to walk away in a clean break: well, in their situation, who wouldn't desire exactly that. However, the plain fact is that they get no rest until Scientology decided to call off Judge Beech's court, which is now convinced into helping Scientology get the intelligence to track down and ruin every- one even slightly connected with the LMT in any of its cases. Those two only get off the hook on Scientology's terms, which are, not just withdrawing help from the case, but doing a turnaround and pants drop to actively sink it -- and the same for all the other cases they are involved in -- on Scientology's behalf. Meanwhile, in what is a systematic pattern of trying to bully The Estate's attorney out of representing and the Estate's witnesses one by one out of testifying, the alleged Church has framed Jesse Prince by planting a small number of "pot" plants in his home, and had him prosecuted on dodgy charges. At(P177), Dandar reacts as follows: 9 A So then Mr. Dandar decided to file a motion for 10 severe sanctions against Scientology for -- because his 11 expert witnesses had had to withdraw, because he was in such 12 fear of Scientology. Dandar is outraged and rightly defends his client's interests. He shrewdly files for sanctions on the blackmail pressure he can PROVE i.e. Jesse said, and believed, "I withdrew because Scientology framed me on improper criminal charges," and indeed the court accepts there is impropriety in those charges intended at removing Mr Prince as a witness, and is drafting the order for sanctions. We hope it enjoins the Church, on pain of jail for contempt, from putting improper pressure on any other of the Estate's witnesses. Of course Jesse may also have said, and believed "...and Stacy says she will make Bob stop issuing cheques for my living expenses if I don't withdraw, when I have no recent employment record except working for a lunatic cult and nothing else to live on." If, hypothetically, Jesse also had also said that, then there was nothing Ken could do about it. Were it the case that Ms Brooks (and Mr Minton) did do an active turnaround and pants-drop to save themselves from the worse alternative of Scientology disclosing their improprieties, then they are hardly going to give Ken an affidavit saying they withdrew for those reasons. Nor that Ms Brooks ordered Mr Prince, as she says she intended, to withdraw from the case for those reasons. In fact they would actively swear to the opposite. But part of the blackmail reasons for Jesse's withdrawal is the framing for a drug offence, and Dandar is a shrewd enough lawyer to know he can get the alleged Church for sanctions on that then bide his time on the rest. Picking up at(P179)... 10 Q And then you said that this affidavit -- did you 11 see the affidavit -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- that Mr. Prince signed? 14 A After he signed it, he brought it in and showed it 15 to me and -- 16 Q When was that? And where? 17 A In my office in the LMT -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A You know, it must have been in September. Because 20 all of these things happened in pretty rapid succession by 21 now. We get the impression of Mr Prince as a strong, proud, and self- willed man, not easy to manipulate, and ashamed to be manipulated to the extent he was. Ms Brooks says the opposed the affidavit because it put Mr Prince at risk. More likely Ms Brooks opposed it for the only reason anything really alarms her, because it put Ms Brooks at risk. Jesse would, reluctantly, withdraw from the case, but was not cowed enough to conceal the pressure put on him to do so. He says words to the effect that yes, he had sometimes used small amounts of marijuana, but that in this case crooked PIs and corrupt policemen had connived to deceitfully place marijuana plants in his home. Putting himself at risk in this way, rather than let the blackmailers get away with it, strikes us as the act of a brave man. A shrewd blackmailer will always pick on a vulnerable area where the victim risks related losses if he resist For example, they might falsely accuse a man of picking up under-age boys which is not true; but, if he resists, he risks it getting out that he is an undisclosed homosexual and frequents gay bars, which is true. Thus a secondary blackmail threat acts as a "lock" against disclosure of the first. At(P180) the court in effect blocks Ms Brooks from denying the clearly true allegations of framing to put pressure on Mr Prince: 5 It was because of what Mr. Dandar alleged was 6 wrongdoing on the part of the church as it pertained 7 to Mr. Prince. And my -- my order, which has yet to 8 be signed, that -- because we can't seem to agree on 9 the order because I was, quite frankly, trying to 10 make it fairly to keep the peace -- was because I 11 had found that the church had -- had acted 12 improperly in that criminal episode against 13 Mr. Prince. That's the order regarding severe 14 sanctions that I mean to sign when I can get around 15 it to. As to whether it was the whole reason for his withdrawal, we don't know. As to whether he will come back as a witness even at the risk of further framing, we doubt it... 16 That was what they said. As far as Mr. Prince 17 and his -- his reason for not being a witness, I 18 never bought it. Didn't buy it at that hearing, 19 don't buy it to this day. I think that if 20 Mr. Dandar wants to use Mr. Prince as a witness in 21 this case, he'll testify gladly. At(P181), Ms Brooks says she did order Mr Prince to withdraw from the case; which, on its own, may be true: 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q Well, what -- did you direct -- did you and 17 Mr. Minton direct Mr. Prince to no longer be an expert 18 witness for Mr. Dandar? 19 A Yes. We ordered him to resign immediately. 20 Q And was he still being paid by funds from either 21 Mr. Minton or LMT at this point in history? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And did he tell you that he had withdrawn as an 24 expert witness? 25 A Yes. 0182 1 Q And did you -- when I say you, LMT or Mr. Minton, 2 continue to pay him? 3 A Yes. Suppose the situation were as follows. Ms Brooks goes to Mr Prince and says: "Look, Jesse, there are many reason why you can't afford for your family's sake to go on being a witness. First is, you know what the Lawn Ornament is like -- you worked for him as his deputy. The Clams will find some way to frame your ass into jail, and who will look after your family then? The second is, you have to drop it or me and Bob will end up in jail ourselves. So if you don't help us out, I'll tell Bob to stop authorising those expenses cheques and I'll stop writing them, then you and your family will be on welfare. So what's it to be?" Just hypothesising, of course. But the basis of control would be a continuing professional relationship with, and continuing payment of, Mr Prince: only then could any threat of withdrawing payment for non-cooperation remain effective. [Just as members of the Society of Friends, because the founder wrote a line about "fear and trembling at the power of God", are unflatteringly called Quakers... so Scientologists, because the founder wrote about humans having incidents from their past lives as clams, are unflatteringly called Clams]. When did the relationship break down? 4 Q And did until when? 5 A Well, the last time he got paid was a check from me on April 4th of this year. [4/apr/2002] These were irregular cheques for living expenses of around four to five thousand dollars paid roughly monthly (earlier testimony), probably around the start of the month. So it is reasonable to assume the next one would have occurred around 4, 5, 6/may/2002 had not the relationship broken down. Is there any relevant material from that period to show why? THIRD AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT S. MINTON Robert S. Minton, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am over 18 years old, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and am otherwise competent to testify in this matter. 2. Jesse Prince attended the hearing on April 9, 2002, during which I testified before Judge Baird to purge myself of contempt. I later was told that Mr. Prince became very upset when he saw me testifying. 3. On Friday, April 12, 2002, Mr. Prince came to see Ms. Brooks and me at the Adam's Mark Hotel on Clearwater Beach. [...] 4. On Sunday night, April 14, 2002, Mr. Prince came to see Ms. Brooks and me at the hotel we had moved to, the Radisson on Sand Key. He came up to our room and at first he seemed fine, although he was obviously intoxicated. I brought up the subject of Judge Schaeffer's March 8, 2002, hearing and that he had no credibility with Judge Schaeffer. He became very antagonistic and angry. Again, we need not believe Mr Minton's biased interpretation, but the events described probably took place at the times and places described i.e. there was a loud argument between Mr Minton and Mr Prince, in a Clearwater hotel during mid apr/2000, over Mr Prince having less enthusiasm for selling out the wrongful death case than Mr Minton, and it led to a breakdown of the professional relationship. That is, the likely threat to cut off payment if Mr Prince did not fully toe the line was now carried out. At(P183), we can believe Ms Brooks was against Mr Prince putting himself at risk by saying, yes, he had used marijuana at times, if that was the price of not submitting to being framed this time: this prosecution, though extremely dodgy, only resulted in a hung jury (and decision not to proceed) rather than acquittal. Her reason, however, might have been more born out of concern for protecting herself than protecting Mr Prince. At(P184) she wisely does not dispute that there was impropriety in the prosecution, as has been already ruled, but disputes that this was Mr Prince's main or only reason for withdrawing. Indeed, it may be that Mr Prince was also under pressure because Bob Minton said "I'm paying you now to stay away from the case and not complain about it either, and if you don't do what you're told the money would stop." And he didn't, so it did. But, if so, this reflects no credit on Ms Brooks or the defendant Church. 16 Q At or about this same time frame that this 17 affidavit by Mr. Prince was signed, had Mr. Minton, to your 18 knowledge, communicated to Mr. Dandar that he wasn't going 19 to fund him anymore? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And did there come a time in that -- I think if 22 I'm correct, where I think we are is August, September of 23 2001 -- did there come a time after that where you know that 24 Mr. Minton gave additional funding to Mr. Dandar? 25 A Yes Prior to analysing the testimony we thought it odd that Mr Minton would, after the falling out in aug and sept/2001, decide to make any further payment into the case after all. Having read the evidence, we think it is queer as a thirteen dollar bill. It just does not indicate to us as true. The only plausible scenario is that the alleged Church instructed him to "give Dandar another of those cashier's cheques, and make absolutely sure this time that we can set Dandar up so it looks like he fraudulently concealed its origin." At(P186) Ms Brooks first goes into further denials at deposition of the earlier cashier's cheques... 1 Q Can you tell us about that? 2 A Can -- I just want to mention one thing that 3 happened in October with Judge Baird that led up to this. 4 Q All right. 5 A The first time that Mr. Minton started to get that 6 his commitment to the case began to crack, I suppose would 7 be the way to put it, was in October of 2001 when Judge 8 Baird almost put him in jail. And he was evading discovery 9 and trying everything he could think of to keep from having 10 to answer these questions in deposition about these checks 11 and all this stuff. And you know, to the point where at one 12 point he refused to even go to Florida to testify in the 13 deposition. And I went into that hearing -- 14 THE COURT: I really don't think we have to go 15 here. No, you can't go there. You're going to 16 answer his question. Move to your question. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Well, was there a time -- and this will get to the 20 next question -- was there a time when Mr. Minton took the 21 Fifth Amendment or invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege in 22 some deposition or a deposition? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And was there ever a discussion about the 25 questions that he had invoked the Fifth Amendment on, with 0186 1 Mr. Dandar, that you were present? 2 A Yes. With regard to the checks. Again, let us ignore the idiot-narrator's interpretation and analyse only the facts and dates which she unintentionally let's slip along the way. Strangely, there is almost nothing here about false sworn denials of a secret agreement but only of cashier's cheques. Those cheques feature a lot and, you know, the purported secret agreement only even begins to exist after Mr Minton is forced to discuss settlement terms with the defendant. At(P186) Ms Brooks say she, Minton, and Dandar discussed using the fifth amendment re the cheques in New Hampshire in sep/2001. At(P187) there are two cheques, for $500,000 and $250,000. At(P188) she says Mr Minton's personal attorney, John Merrett, counselled Minton to take the 5th on these matters. Ms brooks is examined by the Court, and in Ms brooks terms It is clearly the need to deny the cheques which is the problem. 19 BY THE COURT: 20 Q Why -- okay. Tell me this: We just talked about 21 how foolish it was to -- I hope you realize now how foolish 22 it was -- 23 A Yes, your Honor, I do. 24 Q -- to try to hide this agreement and try to hide 25 whatever this -- if it was legitimate, if -- if LMT was 0189 1 legitimate -- I don't know if it was or not. You said it 2 was -- but if it was and if there was nothing wrong with the 3 agreement, how silly it was to tell a bunch of lies about 4 that. 5 What's the deal with the checks? What's -- why is 6 somebody going to take the Fifth Amendment over a check? 7 Why is somebody not going to talk about a check? What in 8 Mr. Minton's mind or your mind, when you and he talked, was 9 wrong with that? 10 A With the check? 11 Q Where you lie about it, take the Fifth Amendment. 12 Fifth Amendment says I'm going not going to incriminate 13 myself. What was the problem with him writing a check to 14 Mr. Dandar for $500,000? 15 A Well, in fact, there wasn't anything wrong with 16 it. We suggest the reason there was a problem with the cheques is that there was some financial impropriety -- that Mr Minton did have a need to conceal them - and the likely reason is that they were paid for with funds abroad on which tax was due and had been evaded. At(P190)... 1 Q Okay. Now, I guess what I'm asking you now, then, 2 is, why would anybody think there's something wrong with it? 3 Criminal. Criminal. Fifth Amendment, we think of as 3 somebody saying, "I don't want to incriminate myself." Her answer, that Mr Minton pleaded he was at risk of criminal prosecution so would not himself supply the evidence needed for prosecution, because Mr Dandar had a need to conceal from his employees that there were case funds which could have been used to pay their salaries, is frankly not very credible. 17 Q Does Mr. Minton care that little for the truth? 18 A No. No. But again, he was trying to protect 19 Mr. Dandar; he was trying to protect the case. It took 20 quite an enormous amount of pressure being put on him and me 21 for us to make the decision to break with the critic 22 community and come forward and tell the truth. It took an 23 enormous, enormous amount of pressure on us to -- to -- 24 Q Pressure brought on you by whom? 25 A By the courts, by -- by the courts. And perhaps by the alleged Church, who threatened a lot more than minor troubles for contempt? At(P191)... 5 And so that by December, 6 when Mr. Dandar again approached him for more funding and -- 7 you know, really Mr. Minton and I, by that time, were 8 basically staying in his house in New Hampshire and never 9 going out. The situation is such that volunteering further funds seemed a very, very unlikely thing to do. Unless settlement discussions were already underway with the alleged Church, and they wanted this done so Mr Dandar could be set up as concealing it. At(P192)... 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 3 A So anyway, Judge Baird -- I mean, it was -- you 4 know, he had to post a $20,000 bond. Sandy Rosen was the 5 attorney who was trying to -- everything he could to get the 6 judge to put him in jail for coercive, whatever, 7 incarceration. And it was only, you know, by the skin of 8 his teeth that he avoided sitting in jail for a week before 9 the deposition went forward. 10 Well -- so then Mr. Dandar in December started 11 calling and, you know, saying, "Look --" 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q December of -- 14 A Of 2001. Just now. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And started saying, you know, "I need more money, 17 you need to help, you've just got to help he me out, this 18 kind of stuff." And Mr Minton, out of the goodness of his heart, had a change of mind and gave him some money after all. Ho hum. Further down... 23 Now we're going into January[2002]. Mr. Dandar wants 24 Mr. Minton to meet him. And I know about this because I was 25 there and I heard these conversations. He wants him to meet 0193 1 him in Nashville [...] 13 And so finally, Mr. Minton said, you know, if you 14 want to come up to see me at my house in New Hampshire, you 15 can. And that's when -- 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Did -- did Mr. Dandar come up to New Hampshire? 19 A Yes, he did. 20 Q When was that? 21 A I think it was the last weekend -- weekend in 22 February [2002], and he brought Dr. Garko with him. And so the meeting finally takes place. At(P194) Ms Brooks raises the idea that Bob is upset and in a hissy fit because people have bad-mouthed him on the Internet. 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q This is February of 2002? 9 A Yeah. Just now. 10 That he felt that Mr. Dandar had this group of 11 people that were -- that had launched a smear campaign 12 against him on the Internet. 13 Your Honor, you probably don't frequent the 14 Internet very much, but -- 15 [no, because it might taint fair judgement of the case] 24 A You couldn't even believe it. You couldn't 25 believe what you'd see. There a re a number of things the Court might bear in mind to get a feel of Internet newsgroups. First is, we say newspapers and magazines have played a vital role in issues of free speech and political liberty -- meaning, a small amount of what they carry is vital, most of it is gossip and rubbish. Well, doubly so for the Internet because there is a lot more text written per day and anyone can write what they please. Second is, people on there are self-willed and mutable, and trying to lead them is like herding cats. So I very much doubt that these are "Mr Dandar's people". One of the maddest Minton-Baiters is in Finland, and has never met either Minton or Dandar. Third is, yes the language and images get pretty rough, because quite often the only way you can get back at a bully who silences people by force is by fierce and obscene taunting. Thus there was a lot of talk about the public buggering of Mr Miscavige. But, when Miscavige actually made a big fuss about this in deposition in another case, most people (even though they didn't like Miscavige) thought he was a damn fool to rise to the bait, and do exactly what his taunters wanted by making a fuss about it: they post the transcript of Miscavige complaining about it, because his complaint makes him look like a pompous ass. These people were not in a position to meet Miscavige or lay a finger on him; all concerned knew it was just empty talk. You see, most Internet software comes with a thing called a "kill-file": it's not people you want to kill, it's people whose writings are automatically killed (binned) when they hit your machine. That's what you do with people who really annoy you, you just put their material on automatic ignore. Only a complete idiot would be influenced in any practical or financial matter by the sort of tittle-tattle forming the routine content of newsgroups. 0195 1 This newsgroup, ARS - [slight interruption] 6 A This newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology, is a 7 place -- it's where Mr. Minton first found out about 8 Scientology. You know, he frequents it all the time. It's, 9 you know, for the critics -- 10 BY THE COURT: 11 Q What is it? 12 A It's a newsgroup. It's sort of like a bulletin 13 board. It's sort of like an electronic bulletin board. 14 People go in there and post messages. And then somebody can 15 go in and post a response to that message and then somebody 16 else can and then somebody else can and then you end up 17 with, you know, sometimes a hundred or more, basically, 18 conversations going on about a subject. This is a more or less accurate descriptions. 19 And you know, I have asked Mr. Minton, so many 20 times, "Please, stop looking at this stuff." But you know, 21 he's -- he's an Internet person. And you know, all these 22 critics go on this thing and, you know, he wants to see what 23 they're saying. 24 So it's a very good place to go to attack him, if 25 you want to upset him. Only a complete fool would take any notice of it. 0196 1 And so from the time that Mr. Minton informed 2 Mr. Dandar that he was longer in the wrongful death case, 3 that was in September, I think, of 2001, a campaign was 4 launched on this newsgroup that was saying very, very 5 hurtful things about Mr. Minton, about me, about the LMT, 6 you know, about how -- 7 Q Like what? I mean, a lot of money had been given. 8 What was -- what was being said? 9 A You know -- God, you'd have to read these things 10 to believe it. That, you know, Mr. Minton was working for 11 Scientology all along; that he was selling everybody out 12 from the very beginning; that I was an agent for 13 Scientology; that, you know, we were betraying everybody; What I think it was, a bunch of people knew behind the scenes that Minton had withdrawn as a funder, tried to get the case dropped, or even begun actively working for the other side. So, there wasn't any proof -- and many people refused to believe without evidence that Minton could be such an utter douchebag -- but rumours and arguments abounded. 17 Q Well, these -- these people that were saying these 18 awful things, surely you didn't -- didn't necessarily -- you 19 didn't believe anything else they were saying, why did you 20 believe that? 21 A It wasn't -- 22 Why do we believe that they were talking to Ken 23 Dandar? 24 Q Yeah. 25 A Just from the things that they were writing, it 0198 1 looked like he really was giving them information and giving 2 this one woman permission to start a -- a -- a thing on -- 3 on the Internet to try to raise funds -- Well, it was a pretty awful thing that Brooks or Minton would phone up the dead girl's family and order them to stop seeking redress for her death, just to keep those two from going to jail over Minton cheating on his taxes. And, top and bottom of it, that was pretty much what had happened. Plus a lot of the evidence was confidential and couldn't be disclosed. So people, maybe who weren't even parties to the case but who met the dead girl's family at vigils on the anniversary of her death, felt personally involved and tried to do what they could for alternative funding: nothing says Mr Dandar actually told them to. They felt it was pretty terrible that Mr Minton wanted to lose the family any redress for Lisa's death, just to save his own ass from jail for tax dodging. Naturally they tried to take matters into their own hands as best they could, and raise alternative funds. Most of this was at the "jumble sale" level, of symbolic rather than practical worth. 0199 1 A Yeah. And then -- sorry -- and then there were a 2 lot of conversations that were had. I had a very lengthy 3 conversation with Mr. Dandar, just the two of us, about some 4 of the attacks that have happened against me, against 5 Mr. Minton -- 6 Q What attack? I mean, I don't know what -- I don't 7 know what you're talking about. 8 A Smear campaign -- 9 Q On the Internet again? 10 A -- whispering campaign. Here, Ms Brooks is advancing the preposterous theory that Mr Minton finally decided to put another $250,000 in as a quid pro quo for Mr Dandar shutting up the screaming complaints about his withdrawal and turnaround coming from people whom she says (we have only her word for this) that Mr Dandar controlled. And the proof of this control is, when he put more money in the complaining stopped. Well it would, wouldn't it. Suppose he allowed it to be known by indirect means "nah, I've not stopped funding, look -- I've out another $250,000 in -- and that shows we never told Dell to drop the case, or started to work for the other side against the case." Hey presto, the complaining stopped. What a surprise. Even the handful of people who knew in confidence from being around the case that Minton had in fact told Dell to drop the suit were confounded and disbelieved: "it can't be true, he's just put more money in." In fact we think there is only one reason to put money in at this stage, i.e. to set Mr Dandar up and purport that he was the one behind falsely concealing the origin of the cashier's cheques. Oh what a tangled web we weave... At(P200) 13 A -- he was trying to put pressure on Bob to 14 continue funding the case, and that he knew how important it 15 was to Bob to be well thought of in the critic community. 16 And he knew how bad it would make Bob feel that the whole 17 critic community was turning against him because he was 18 stopping the funding. A likely tale) At(P201) 9 A That's right. 10 So Mr. Dandar said, "Listen, I will get them to 11 stop this" -- 12 Q Who is -- who is they? I'll get them? 13 A These people that he had~-- 14 Q The Internet people. 15 A Yeah, the Internet people -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A -- that were posting this stuff. And he said, 18 "I'll get them to stop." I mean -- and in fact, later he 19 called -- he called to speak to Mr. Minton, but he was 20 asleep and I spoke to him. And he called to say, "Listen, 21 these people, the people that were doing all this posting 22 and everything, said that they'll stop doing it if you guys 23 will take a certain thing off of our Web site." You know 24 what a Web site is? So, they'll stop the taunting if Mr Minton resumes funding (and also removes something they don't like from the LMT web-site). Hmm, still not very credible. At(P202)... 11 We had it taken off and -- you couldn't believe 12 how instantly the criticism and the attacks stopped on the 13 Internet. Minton and Brooks stopped doing something people were up in arms about, and they stopped being up in arms about it. Perhaps they were up in arms about the stuff on the web-site? Plus those two implicitly denied they had withdrawn funding, pressured the family to drop the case and, if they wouldn't, agreed to work for the other side to sink it. The words "there will be another cheque" into behind-the-scenes discussions were enough to imply a denial of all three factors. Those who knew it to be true that Ms Brooks was pressuring the dead girl's family to drop THEIR redress to save HER ass must have been spitting in impotent fury. At(P203) 8 A Listen, your Honor, the anti-Scientologists have 9 been angrier at us and more threatening at us and more 10 intimidating of us than Scientology ever even thought of 11 being. I'm not kidding. That's how we feel. Brooks and Minton have themselves told how Scientologists followed them round at airports yelling insults, even turned up at the swimming pool 400 metres inside Bob's estate yelling insults at them as they had a swim, put pressure on their families in their homes, and leafleted the area district with hostile leaflets. Critics of Scientology abuses have done no more than taunt them on the Internet, and then only after they had tried to sink the wrongful death case. None of the critics are alleged to have caused the wrongful death of a Scientologist. 22 A You know, your Honor, the way I look at it now is, 23 this is -- you know, people have turned this whole thing 24 into a holy war, and both sides, you know, are dug in to 25 their perspective. And you know, what's needed in this 0204 1 whole thing is dialogue. That's how I feel about it. 2 Q Maybe what's needed is resolution. 3 A Resolution would be wonderful. But dialogue could 4 perhaps start that path. Pass the sick-bag Alice. The kind of dialogue the Scientology Corporation have with a family after having killed their daughter is exemplified by the Corporation's conduct in this case. And "amicable dialogue" in not the phrase I'd use. 9 the situation. And what Mr. Dandar did was, on Sunday 10 morning before they left, he got out the questions that you 11 had ordered Mr. Minton to answer that he had previously put 12 the Fifth Amendment to. He got out those questions and he 13 started coaching Mr. Minton on how to answer the questions. 14 Q Okay. There are two possible interpretations here. One is that Mr Minton is the one who needed to conceal information about the cashiers' cheques. That Minton told Dandar "I feel they are setting me up to bring a criminal complaint about those cheques", and Dandar replied "don't say any more; brief your personal attorney about the defence; this is how you should invoke the fifth amendment... which is perfectly proper for Dandar to do. The other view is that Mr Dandar is dragging Mr Minton unwillingly into perjured denial of the cheques to stop the case being derailed. 15 A And -- 16 Q Go ahead. 17 A And this was in my presence. I saw this myself. 18 He was coaching Mr. Minton to answer the questions 19 untruthfully. 20 Q Like what? Which ones? 21 A Well, this is where this fat man thing came up. 22 For example -- [interruption from a mobile phone]. We don't believe her. At(P206) Ms Brooks brings in the "fat man", and the court says. 1 BY THE COURT: 2 Q I only care about coaching, I suppose, on issues 3 that have been brought to my attention that may be relevant 4 to what I'm doing. That would be as to the money and as to 5 the agreement and as to -- I don't know, you can -- I know 6 the money and the agreement. If there's something else, you 7 can raise it. Purportedly Minton would use a silly code-word, especially when people not in the know were present, that the cashier's cheques had been paid for by a mysterious "fat man" rather by himself. Even if this were believed, it is not incompatible with the Need and impetus to conceal coming from Minton. 8 A The money. 9 Q The money meaning the two checks, that there was 10 nothing wrong with it. Indeed, there was nothing improper in the donation of the money, though they might have been in the way Minton had earned and paid, or failed to pay, tax upon it. 11 A There were -- 12 Q At that time was there two checks? 13 A Well, there weren't two checks yet. OK, so, there had been just one large cashier's cheque. At this stage relations are in severe breakdown, yet Minton still donates another $250,000 because "he was under pressure to donate"... or perhaps because he wanted to set Dandar up so Dandar could be accused of originating and aiding the concealment. At(P207), Brooks says Dandar told Minton to acknowledge only the cheques he had written i.e. personal or corporate cheques he had signed from bank accounts under his control, and not any cashiers' cheques which he had paid to have issued on the account of various bank branches. The date of the first $500,000 cashier's cheque is not specified. At(P208) she alleges, for which we only have her word, that Dandar was coaching Minton in how best to make false answers and not be caught. At(P209), these discussions include the handing over of another cashier's cheque for $2500,000 paid for, and caused to be issued, by Bob Minton. Apparently these arrangement can be made by telephone, on the issuing of an appropriate security code. At(P210)... 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q All right. And was there any more discussion, to 19 your knowledge, about that check to Mr. Minton -- to your 20 knowledge, with Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar about whether that 21 should be reviewed -- that check? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q And what was that? 24 A Well, then -- I mean, you know, this was the 25 beginning of March, and meanwhile, you remember that I'm 0211 1 having Mr. Howie call and initiate settlement talks with 2 Scientology. So now -- 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY THE COURT: 5 Q You're trying to negotiate a settlement with 6 Scientology. In the meantime -- 7 A And meanwhile, Mr. Minton is continuing -- 8 Q -- putting out a quarter of a million bucks -- 9 A Right. 10 Q -- to try to help -- 11 A I'm saying, "Jeesh, don't --" 12 Q Tough to negotiate a settlement like that. I.E. pull the other one, it's got bells on. 13 A Don't -- how are we going to settle it if you're 14 continuing to fund the case? Exactly. Exactly. This brings us again back to the deposition of 9th/april 2002, where the falling out with Jess Prince (around p182) occurred. 16 about that. And then we get word from Mr. Howie that, you 17 know, these two contempt hearings are going forward in -- 18 you know, in the beginning of April, in which Mr. Minton is 19 going to be put in jail for contempt either by Judge 20 Schaeffer or by Judge Baird. [...] 24 Q Would it please you to know that I've never put 25 anybody in jail for contempt in 21 years? Now might be a good time to start. At(P212)... 9 Q The maximum time that anybody can be put in jail 10 for criminal contempt is five months and 29 days. And that might be about the right period for these new perjuries. At(P213)... 4 Q I don't hesitate -- I wouldn't hesitate to use it. 5 I mean, I'm sure your lawyer or somebody said I'm not happy 6 with the fact that you and Mr. Minton have admitted that you 7 committed perjury. [...] 13 Now, you know, I don't know what you thought 14 before, but I mean, we're going to have to come to some -- 15 some day there's going to be a day of reckoning. I'm not 16 saying I'm going to put you in jail. Please don't think I'm 17 threatening you. Wouldn't do that to you. But you just 18 don't get to commit perjury in any judge's court. Say 19 you've committed perjury and then expect the judge to say, 20 "Well, thanks a lot for coming in." At(P214)... 6 Q All right. My question was, was there any other 7 discussion, to your knowledge, between Mr. Minton, 8 Mr. Dandar about whether or not to reveal the last $250,000 9 payment or check? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And what was that? 12 A Mr. Minton had by now gotten in touch with his 13 counsel, not only in Florida but also in Boston. And he was 14 now aware that he was going to have to tell the truth about 15 these checks. [...] 23 A Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that he was going to 24 have to tell the truth about the checks. And Mr. Dandar got 25 very distraught about that. And said, "Bob, you know, you 0216 1 only have to testify about the checks you've written. You 2 don't have to bring that up." And the timing was...? 3 THE COURT: When was this, ma'am, again? 4 THE WITNESS: Sometime in mid-March. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Of 2002? 7 A Yeah. And then we -- Mr. Minton and I had a 8 meeting in New York with Sandy Rosen, Mike Rinder and 9 Monique Yingling, who's another attorney for Scientology. 10 And we sat down with them, with Mr. Minton's Boston counsel, 11 Steve Jonas. You know, it would be easy (and convenient) for the witness to make a small slip in timing here. Perhaps the settlement talks began a little time before the cheque, and setting up Dandar as concealing a new cheque was one of the terms of them? So, the settlement talks open. What Brooks and Minton want is to withdraw testimony and funding, and walk away without further consequences; which seems fairly natural in the circumstances. 17 A Boston. 18 And Mr. Minton and I went into this meeting with 19 every intention of settling with Scientology and getting out 20 of this litigation altogether, in whatever way -- well, not 21 in whatever way, but by severing all ties. And we sat down 22 and we told them that -- 23 THE COURT: This is going to go on for a long 24 time, isn't it? 25 THE WITNESS: No. He's almost over. It's like 0217 1 another two sentences, if you want me to hurry. [...] 18 A Anyway, we told them that we wanted to walk away; 19 that we wanted -- Mr. Minton was going to stop funding; that 20 I was going to stop providing any declarations; that I would 21 withdraw my declarations that I already filed; that we 22 didn't want anything more to do with Scientology litigation 23 anymore and to please just let us walk away. 24 Well, much to our horror, what {Scientology 25 via their attorney Mr Rosen] said was 25 that -- -- they wanted a whole lot more. What, exactly, that was, is yet to be seen. Here is Ms Brooks version of it. At(P218)... 5 A Mr. Rosen said that they would be more than happy 6 to sit down with us and talk settlement once we set the 7 record straight in the Florida cases. And we said, "What do 8 you mean?" And he said, "Well, we have reason to believe 9 that you have not been forthcoming in your testimony in 10 discovery in those cases. And before we'll talk to you 11 about settlement in any way, you're going to have to set 12 those records straight." This can be unpacked in a number of ways. Note that the emphasis is on discovery. We would guess that it unpacks as "this endless abusive discovery for intelligence gathering purposes has led us to things which, we believe, will put your ass in jail. And we have no intention of letting you off the hook unless you do everything we want. Just to start with that will involve, not just dropping but actively reversing your testimony, in not just that case but every case you are involved in against us. And helping attack the other side's attorney in those cases. And anything else we happen to think of." Not just a turnaround but (to use a slightly informal description) a complete and ignominious pants-down turn-around take-it-up-the-ass. 15 THE COURT: Do you remember what date this was? 16 THE WITNESS: I think it was -- 17 THE COURT: Day? 18 THE WITNESS: Maybe it was March 28th. According to Brooks, she then phoned Brooks phones Dandar saying she and Minton were in settlement talks with Scientology. Brooks and Minton want to meet Dandar in Cleveland, and push back the date of the contempt hearings so they have more room to manoeuvre. At(P220), Mr Rosen refuses to delay those hearings. 16 Well, Mr. Rosen said, "We're not stopping 17 anything. You know, those things are going to go forward as 18 scheduled. At(P221), Mr Minton has made many extreme statements about the constant harassment he suffered from the Scientology Corporation, and in particular the dire consequences if he and and Stacy could not make the dead girl's family drop the case. It certainly makes one wonder whether his ignominious turnaround did result from blackmail pressure. 1 that night we called Mr. Dandar again. And that was the 2 famous phone conversation where Mr. Minton said, you know, 3 "You're going to have the blood of -- my blood and the blood 4 of my family on your hands if you -- if you won't agree to 5 drop this case." 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q Why was he asking him to drop the case? Was that 9 a demand made by Mr. Rosen? 10 A No. No. I bet it wasn't him, or his client. I bet a penny knowing I'll lose. 17 We're in all this trouble. And 18 you know, we were trying to shortcut, shortcircuit the whole 19 process by just getting him to drop the case. You know, 20 hoping to avoid having to testify that Mr. Dandar had 21 encouraged us to commit perjury. 22 And you know, all these different things that were 23 going on in our mind, we thought that Mr. Dandar would be 24 more -- would rather have that, have the -- you know, have 25 the case dropped than go through all this. Let's examine the events without the witnesses's interpretation. One, Stacy (and Bob) are in all this trouble. Two, they could get out of it if Kennan Dandar had the dead girl's family drop their case, and no doubt Scientology wanted this: well, what tough-minded defendant with one of the complainant's witnesses over a barrel wouldn't be tempted to ask for that. Three, if not, then those two would testify that Ken Dandar Had committed perjury; not testify truthfully, of course, Just join the alleged Church in its all-out effort to demolish the Estate's attorney by whatever means necessary. No doubt Scientology wanted them to do that, too. Or else the blackmail threats would be realised. If Mr Minton's words are to be taken literally, this perhaps included getting political opponents in Nigeria to have his wife and children assassinated. At(P222)... 19 Q Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen -- did they tell you 20 before they would settle the case you had to get this case 21 dropped? Before they would settle with you, whatever it was 22 that was, you had to get this case dropped. 23 A No, your Honor. What they said was, "You -- you 24 have to set the record straight in this case. We have 25 reason to believe that if the truth really comes out in this 0223 1 case, that this case will -- that the judge will probably 2 throw it out. Again, let us take the events the witness states, stripped of interpetation she puts on them. We can quite believe that Mssrs Rinder and Rosen said "no, if you give the testimony we demand of you, then it won't be necessary to do that because we believe that testimony is enough to get a summary dismissal of the case. The defendant Church have often accused the complainant's team of setting up false testimony (for instance that David Miscavige is Captain and Fuhrer of the Sea Org, which he clearly is as stated repeatedly in the Church's own publications and which the Church are estopped from denying) in order to drive through some motion in the case (to get him added in that role if he can't be in a corporate role). Well, in these things it is often the pot calling the kettle black, or indeed even the pot calling the china bowl black. It is just as arguable that the defence have suborned this ignominous perjured turnaround from Mr Minton to drive through motions of their own. It is not hard to see what motions or theories they have advanced based on the second affidavits. The defence are saying that the improprieties alleged in the second affidavits justify removal of Mr Dandar as defence attorney, and taint the case as a whole so much the appropriate sanction is dismissal. So what happened next? 7 Q Okay. So you called Mr. Dandar that night and 8 asked him to drought drop the case. 9 A Yes. 10 Q That was March the 30th, I take it? 11 A That was March the 29th. So, let's get this right. Ms Brooks contention is that the alleged Church had, in negotiations, said that they want new testimony from her which they think will sink the case. Ms Brooks, being a merciful woman, rings Dandar up and says "wouldn't it be easier for you to just get the case dropped?" Otherwise, to save her own skin, she would be forced to testify (whether or not truthfully) that Mr Dandar had suborned perjury. And her second affidavit? The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me to be true and correct to the best of her ability this 29th day of April, 2002, by Stacy Brooks. She has produced Georgia DL # (Number intentionally omitted) (ID) as identification and did take an oath. She had already sworn it earlier that day, during office hours. And Robert Minton's second affidavit... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me to be true and correct to the best of his ability this 24th day of April, 2002, by Robert S. Minton. He is personally known to me and did take an oath. He had already sworn it FIVE DAYS earlier; in fact four days before Ms Brooks says settlement talks actually started. Indeed it is likely that the main thing the defendant Church was a complete turnaround by Bob Minton, and that a confirmatory affidavit by Ms Brooks was an afterthought. Perhaps she is mistaken about the date of the talks. What is the date of the new cashier's cheque? At(P224) we now reach the hearings of April 9th mentioned passim. Mr Minton was not found guilty through a technical defect in the prosecution case: 10 And then he gets to this one -- I can't remember 11 what the affidavit was about -- but you know, it was the one 12 that just didn't match anything else that Mr. Minton had 13 said. You might remember that. And I thought, oh, you 14 know, she's going to find him guilty. 15 And then Mr. Howie got up and he did this judgment 16 of acquittal argument and found this technicality. And you 17 had to throw it out and find him not guilty on a 18 technicality. 19 Q I didn't have to throw it out. I threw it out 20 because he didn't -- Mr. Moxon didn't meet the -- didn't 21 make it stick. 22 A Right. 23 Q In other words, it was -- there was a technical 24 error. And by law, he was not guilty. On a criminal charge like criminal contempt the defendant is innocent until proved guilty. If the prosecution fails to bring admissible evidence, then the Court rules the defendant not guilty, and he is not guilty and not punished. Perhaps Ms Borks is saying she has some private information suggesting that Mr Minton did, in reality, do what he accused of, although it could not be proved upon him. Sometimes what likely happened in reality differs from what can be proved on evidence against the perpetrator. For example, what exactly caused Joan Woods to have a sudden breakdown and end up on a psychiatric ward at Morton Plant Hospital may fall into this category. ||||| From: Anonymous User Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus) E, Brooks Affidavit Message-ID: <9347ffce2bd2f556acf502242e6e3051@remailer.havenco.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 13:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 240 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550811 comp.org.eff.talk:105641 misc.legal:433667 E. BROOKS AFFIDAVIT The following ideas or phrases do not ring true" as what the supposed author would actually say. SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF STACY BROOKS. In (3) "Paid" is superfluous since expert witnesses are usually paid; "primary source of income" is over-egging the pudding even if true. "To get a large settlement" reads as if written by a Martian or to imply something improper... is there complainant's attorney not out to get the maximum settlement for his client? if so, remind us not to hire him. "To harass him" simply does not ring true; even if she were apologising because she had done this through animosity over things that happened during their time in Scientology, it would not be phrased like this The phrase "anti-Scientology litigation" is risible (what it reminds us of exactly is a book called the Brainwashing Manual, which purports to be by a Soviet Communist official about how Communism wants to wipe out that great threat to its existence the Scientology religion; it is then written in the name of this official as if that fantasy were true). It is Scientology that believes anyone litigating against it for the harm it has done them is part of a conspiracy to persecute it. No normal person would write this, even if they felt they had been misguided in supporting those who litigated against Scientology for damage done. Suggesting that such litigation forms part of a "pattern" or conspiracy which continues into the present case reads as frankly mad. In (4) we would expect expert witnesses to state an opinion about what happened in new circumstances based on long previous experience of that field. The whole business of constructing "theories" etc sounds like the confession an insane paranoid has finally forced his doctors to sign, at gunpoint, of conspiring to medicate him on behalf of the CIA. In particular, the business of "creating a [false] impression without actually lying" which she was "paid to do" sounds like a purported admission that perjury was suborned (since one swears not only to tell nothing which is not the truth but to tell "the whole truth" i.e. not to mislead by selection or omission). The assertion of common pattern sounds admitting these attorneys were in a conspiracy. In (5) she raises the death of Flo Barnett, mother of David Miscavige's wife Michelle Barnett Miscavige. The allegation is that Mr Berry suborned perjury, getting her to testify to Miscavige's involvement in the death when he knew it was not true. This presents a difficulty that testimony in this case is being used to smuggle in allegations against a third party, who is not represented in the hearings to defend himself, when determination of said allegations has no probative value in determining the outcome of the wrongful death case. This part of the affidavit should probably be stricken. Alternatively, the facts of Mrs Barnett's death, shooting herself twice in the head with a long rifle suggest, either that it was murder by Miscavige or others (over her embarrassing involvement with non-Church Scientologists), or that it was an assisted suicide (because she was terminally ill and in pain). In (6) she again makes similar allegations of suborning perjury against Dan Liepold, in this case over Scientology's corporate structure. It is frankly not credible that she "did not have any firsthand knowledge of the corporate structure of Scientology." She was a senior official in department twenty, the legal, propaganda, and harassment division now renamed the "Office of Special Affairs". There is some question of what his meant by "firsthand knowledge of the corporate structure" but I would say that, as a senior official in the organisation who knew what its corporate fronts were and had a practical understanding that they all served the same organisation, she had exactly that. In (7) it is reasonable that Mr Dandar approach someone who was an established expert witness on the organisation. He already intended to include Miscavige and asked a reasonable question what direct knowledge Miscavige would have about persons in isolation. If the issue comes up for determination, it is likely Miscavige will be shown to have such direct knowledge: the allegation is likely not a falsehood. Even if it were false, Ms Brooks testimony that Dandar suborned her to give false evidence which they knew to be false is not very credible. The issue of "personal knowledge" of the specific case facts is clearly a red herring, for someone who puts themselves forward as an expert witness rather than testifying to personal knowledge of the case facts. In (8), I doubt that any reasonable person, i.e. not a Scientologist, would describe Ms Brooks earlier work as some type of "anti-Scientology" crusade, rather than helping the victims of Scientology get compensation for harm done; even if she since regretted that help. The continuing narrative is trying to set up a conspiracy which does not exist. In (9), "pay me" is strange and seeming to imply something improper when there is nothing wrong in paying someone for work done. To "assist him in his anti-Scientology activities" has the same faintly demented air of paranoia about it. In (10) it is not unusual for a complainant's attorney to be pushing to get his client the highest possible settlement: it is expected. In (11), again this is presented as some sort of wrongful conspiracy to involve Miscavige knowing he was not involved. We believe this will fall at the first hurdle, i.e. a determination of whether or not Miscavige was involved will show that he was... and, even if Miscavige is excluded from the present case, such a determination will occur as soon as they sue for wrongdoing based on this affidavit. In (12) we see the allegation that Mr Minton forced the issues in the case not just to be a routine wrongful death case but much more about Scientology. Before deciding the truth or falsity of this view, it would be relevant to ask Brooks just what on earth is meant by making the case more about Scientology. When we have the alleged wrongful death of Lisa MacPherson, at the hands of a defendant called the Church of Scientology in their spiritual headquarters building, while by their own admission she was held on the Isolation Step of the Introspection Rundown (a Scientology procedure), it is hard to see how Scientology could become "more involved" than it already was. In (13), this re-iterates the same wilful understanding as in (4) of what an expert witness does. It is perfectly proper for an expert witness on the procedures of the organisation to say that, based on their years of working in those procedures, their informed opinion is that the chief executive "would have known" about a given action. Again, our primary purpose in this analysis is to show the text is NOT WHAT THE PURPORTED AUTHOR WOULD PLAUSIBLY HAVE WRITTEN, even had she undergone a genuine change of heart and thought the complainants she once supported had been unworthy of her help. In (14) note that the reason for not including Miscavige, who surely is involved as any opening up of this issue over the present affidavit would show, was simply because the complainants had for whatever reason signed a contract not to. Indeed it could be argued that, by lodging this affidavit, the defendants have voided their side of the contract and opened the issue of Miscavige's involvement for examination. In (15) Books again alleges that Dandar had suborned perjury by inducing her to make a claim, which he knew to be false, that "Mr. Miscavige had a different role as head of the Sea Organization apart from his corporate position in RTC. I reiterated my ideas in the meeting. I knew there wasn't really such a thing as a 'head of the Sea Org', but Dandar thought it could work." There are two issues about this claim. The first is whether Miscavige had a role in the Sea Org distinct from his role in RTC. The second was whether any such post as a 'head of the Sea Org' exists. These need to be explored separately but if, as we believe , it can be demonstrated that they are true (and that Brooks would clearly know them to be true) then she has perjured herself in signing the new affidavit drafted for her by CofS attorneys, allegedly on the basis of clearing up her original perjuries. In (16) it is for the reader to judge whether they believe Brooks' assertion that the meeting was, presumably on the basis it had done something improper, to be kept concealed. In (17) we can imagine that Mr Minton would want the organisation commemorating Lisa to be in direct confrontation with CofS, but the idea he had an "investment" in the case which would pay him personal profits is absurd, and not plausibly what Brooks herself would write. In addition, the defendant is pushing the idea that the Lisa MacPherson Trust and the Estate of Lisa MacPherson as plaintiff, are later egos of each other. It is not exactly true, or what Ms Brooks would write. In (18) clearly it is being represented that there was a pro-active conspiracy, presumably of cases which just sprang from nowhere for the purpose, of many linked lawsuits against Scientology (actually in most of them Scientology is the instant or original plaintiff). This is not particularly credible. When a British policemen wants to frame a suspect then he is said to write the man's statement as "OK, guv, it's a fair cop, I dunnit, and I'll do me time for it, lawks-a-mercy." It seems here that Brooks and Minton are here signing exactly such risible dictated confessions to a forthcoming RICO complaint against everyone involved in the LMT, for being a conspiracy to persecute poor scientology with complaints from those it cheated and allegedly killed. In (19) and (20) Brooks again puts forward a theory that the Lisa MacPherson Trust wholeheartedly supported, and was an alter ego with, the Lisa MacPherson Estate as plaintiff in the instant case. The reader should make their own evaluation whether this is true. In (21) the role of the Trust in the grand conspiracy become clear: is the para-military publicity and direct action wing of the two law offices concerned. Again, readers should take this with a pinch of salt. In (22) the allegation is that, while Brooks appears to be an expert witness whom Minton has furnished and paid for to the law office of Dandar and Dandar out of the goodness of his heart, she goes into a telephone box and changes into Super-Agent directing the conduct of the case on Mr Minton's behalf (and it would be clearly improper for him to not just fund the case but take control). Perhaps this is alleged because Brooks was there is regular enough contact to allow a plausible, but false, allegation that she was exercising continual control. It has to be said that at this time and since Minton and Brooks were together as a couple, and it no doubt suited Minton to find a position for and pay a salary to his mistress in this way; the whole business is distinctly murky. In (23), Brooks tries to rope John Merrett into the whole grand plot, and again everything in sight is described as "anti-scientology": persecuting the poor innocent corporation, instead of merely complaining when it cheated or killed people. In (24), the allegations shriek for themselves, and readers will either judge them preposterous or not. In (25) there is another possibility that deserves exploration. A check against other testimony could well show that Minton and Brooks were already in discussion with Scientology about selling out. It seems very odd, then, that at precisely this time and after refusals to fund, Minton issues a further cashier's cheque for $250,000. It is a distinct possibility that this was done to set Mr Dandar up, and provide evidence of alleged wrongdoing. I doubt that Scientology would sting at such a small sum for that gain - especially if it was someone else's money. In (26) and (27) the allegation is that Brooks knowingly lied in deposition about the production of materials, and that John Merrett represented her knowing she was lying. It is for the reader to estimate the truthfulness of each of these propositions. In (28) again there is an alternative interpretation. Contrary to what she says in (22), it seems here that the time Minton and Brooks improperly demanded control of the case - to have it dropped because it was costing them to much, or because the pressure scientology was putting on them - was then. Dell Liebrich acted properly, in wanting her attorney present and then taking his advice not to meet at all. In (29) likewise it seems wore likely that Ms Liebrich's attorney quite properly told Brooks and Minton off for trying to exert pressure on his client directly, bypassing him, to drop the case. In (30) there is an alternative interpretation that after the August 15th deposition, having conceded to Scientology pressure to halt the case, they began at this time (as instructed) with improper attempts to make the plaintiff drop the case and, when this did not succeed, withdrew themselves as funders and as witnesses in the case. In (31) "Mr. Dandar then contrived a 'reason' for Mr. Prince's withdrawal and drafted a motion for severe sanctions against Scientology for having harassed Mr. Prince and forcing him to withdraw from the case out of fear." This is a risible and obvious lie which, at very least, opens for examination the reasons why Mr Prince withdrew. The alternative explanation is that he was framed for possession of a small amount of drugs planted in his house. It is the obvious stratagem to use on a black man: after all, "they all do drugs, don't they?" In (32) Brooks insists that Mr Dandar insisted on a meeting - Mr Dandar might have a different opinion who convened it. In (33) Brooks alleges that Dandar coached Minton in false answers. Again, it is for the reader to judge whether they believe her. In (34) she says "I have written this affidavit for no other reason than to tell the truth." Somehow, we very much doubt it. Actually, by having their attorneys write and force Brooks to sign a wildly strange confession in which everything in one big conspiracy to persecute poor Scientology for its frauds and alleged wrongful killings, in apparently serious preparation for a RICO suit against all the lawyers and critics involved plus the dead girls family for daring to let their daughter be killed on Scientology premises, the defendants have discredited themselves far more than anything the complainant could say about them. END. ||||| From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Testimony day1 (afternoon) Message-ID: <7a665076f1bb7fb5114cedcff42cce58@paranoici.org> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:16:03 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1142 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550818 comp.org.eff.talk:105642 misc.legal:433668 1 you don't know that, then you can't -- 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 3 A So anyway, Judge Baird -- I mean, it was -- you 4 know, he had to post a $20,000 bond. Sandy Rosen was the 5 attorney who was trying to -- everything he could to get the 6 judge to put him in jail for coercive, whatever, 7 incarceration. And it was only, you know, by the skin of 8 his teeth that he avoided sitting in jail for a week before 9 the deposition went forward. 10 Well -- so then Mr. Dandar in December started 11 calling and, you know, saying, "Look --" 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q December of -- 14 A Of 2001. Just now. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And started saying, you know, "I need more money, 17 you need to help, you've just got to help he me out, this 18 kind of stuff." And I was up in New Hampshire with 19 Mr. Minton, and I was saying, "Don't you dare give him any 20 more money. Don't even think about it. Do not give him 21 another penny." And Mr. Minton was telling Mr. Dandar, you 22 know, "No, I can't do it," whatever. 23 Now we're going into January. Mr. Dandar wants 24 Mr. Minton to meet him. And I know about this because I was 25 there and I heard these conversations. He wants him to meet 0193------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 him in Nashville. He wants him to meet him in the Cayman 2 Islands. You know, "Please, please." He's e-mailing him. 3 He's -- and I saw the e-mails. "Please, you know -- please, 4 you can't let me down. You know, you've got to come through 5 for the case." You know, this kind of thing. All caps, you 6 know. E-mail all caps. 7 And Bob is like, "Oh, God, you know, this is 8 terrible." And I'm saying, you know, "Don't give him any 9 more money. He doesn't care what's going to happen to you. 10 He's only trying to get more money, you know, for his own 11 reasons." And I was totally -- had a break with Mr. Dandar 12 by that time. 13 And so finally, Mr. Minton said, you know, if you 14 want to come up to see me at my house in New Hampshire, you 15 can. And that's when -- 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Did -- did Mr. Dandar come up to New Hampshire? 19 A Yes, he did. 20 Q When was that? 21 A I think it was the last weekend -- weekend in 22 February, and he brought Dr. Garko with him. 23 Q What happened at that meeting? 24 A The first thing -- pretty much the first thing 25 that happened was Mr. Minton absolutely broke down and got 0194------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 hysterical. He was crying. You know, he was very, very, 2 very distraught about feeling that he couldn't trust -- 3 sorry, it's making me shiver -- that he couldn't trust 4 Mr. Dandar; he couldn't trust Dell Liebreich; he couldn't 5 trust the estate. That he felt like he was being used. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q This is February of 2002? 9 A Yeah. Just now. 10 That he felt that Mr. Dandar had this group of 11 people that were -- that had launched a smear campaign 12 against him on the Internet. 13 Your Honor, you probably don't frequent the 14 Internet very much, but -- 15 Q I'm petrified to even think about looking on one 16 of these here now Internet. I might like to look just to 17 see, but I'm afraid somebody might turn it into something 18 suspicious in this case. So I have never looked. I'd like 19 to. If the lawyers give me permission, I wouldn't mind 20 fishing around and seeing what in the world's out there, but 21 I'm afraid somebody's -- 22 Q You can't even -- 23 Q -- going to make it -- 24 A You couldn't even believe it. You couldn't 25 believe what you'd see. 0195------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 This newsgroup, ARS -- 2 MR. LIROT: Just listening. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 THE COURT: Sit down, Counselor. If you've got 5 an objection -- if you don't, sit down. 6 A This newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology, is a 7 place -- it's where Mr. Minton first found out about 8 Scientology. You know, he frequents it all the time. It's, 9 you know, for the critics -- 10 BY THE COURT: 11 Q What is it? 12 A It's a newsgroup. It's sort of like a bulletin 13 board. It's sort of like an electronic bulletin board. 14 People go in there and post messages. And then somebody can 15 go in and post a response to that message and then somebody 16 else can and then somebody else can and then you end up 17 with, you know, sometimes a hundred or more, basically, 18 conversations going on about a subject. 19 And you know, I have asked Mr. Minton, so many 20 times, "Please, stop looking at this stuff." But you know, 21 he's -- he's an Internet person. And you know, all these 22 critics go on this thing and, you know, he wants to see what 23 they're saying. 24 So it's a very good place to go to attack him, if 25 you want to upset him. 0196------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 And so from the time that Mr. Minton informed 2 Mr. Dandar that he was longer in the wrongful death case, 3 that was in September, I think, of 2001, a campaign was 4 launched on this newsgroup that was saying very, very 5 hurtful things about Mr. Minton, about me, about the LMT, 6 you know, about how -- 7 Q Like what? I mean, a lot of money had been given. 8 What was -- what was being said? 9 A You know -- God, you'd have to read these things 10 to believe it. That, you know, Mr. Minton was working for 11 Scientology all along; that he was selling everybody out 12 from the very beginning; that I was an agent for 13 Scientology; that, you know, we were betraying everybody; 14 that the Lisa McPherson case was the most important thing in 15 the world and that we were doing everything we could to 16 destroy the case now. And you know, this may not sound like 17 terrible things to you, but after what Mr. Minton had done 18 for the case, it was very hurtful to him. Particularly to 19 feel that Mr. Minton -- Mr. Dandar was encouraging -- at 20 least encouraging this. 21 Q But you have no way of knowing that. 22 A Yes, we did. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Yes, we did. 25 Q How was that? 0197------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Because the people who were writing these things 2 were posting that they were talking to Mr. Dandar. 3 Q What does that mean, posting? I don't understand 4 the Internet. 5 A Posting means you write a thing on your computer 6 and then you punch a button that says "send now" and it gets 7 posted. You know, like if you take a piece of paper and 8 post it on the bulletin board? You send it electronically 9 and it gets posted on this newsgroup. And then once it's 10 posted, everybody else all over the world, they log on -- 11 Q I mean, are they saying -- I guess what I'm asking 12 you is, you said, yes, we do know. Is that -- is that 13 because it was saying that -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q -- Ken Dandar says -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q Well, these -- these people that were saying these 18 awful things, surely you didn't -- didn't necessarily -- you 19 didn't believe anything else they were saying, why did you 20 believe that? 21 A It wasn't -- 22 Why do we believe that they were talking to Ken 23 Dandar? 24 Q Yeah. 25 A Just from the things that they were writing, it 0198------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 looked like he really was giving them information and giving 2 this one woman permission to start a -- a -- a thing on -- 3 on the Internet to try to raise funds -- 4 Q Did he tell you he was that desperate to get more 5 money? 6 A Mm-hmm. 7 Q Did he tell you he was pretty desperate, that he 8 was running out of money? 9 A Oh, yes. 10 Q And he wasn't going to be able to continue the 11 case without it? 12 A Yes. 13 Q So you really felt he was desperate? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. 16 A I think he really was. 17 So anyway, I was describing this conversation when 18 they came up to New Hampshire. 19 Q So what you had said, I think, is that Mr. Minton 20 broke down. 21 A Yes. 22 Q And you said he couldn't trust anybody and -- 23 A No. He said he couldn't trust -- 24 Q -- he couldn't trust Ken and couldn't trust 25 Ms -- trust Ms. Liebreich. 0199------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Yeah. And then -- sorry -- and then there were a 2 lot of conversations that were had. I had a very lengthy 3 conversation with Mr. Dandar, just the two of us, about some 4 of the attacks that have happened against me, against 5 Mr. Minton -- 6 Q What attack? I mean, I don't know what -- I don't 7 know what you're talking about. 8 A Smear campaign -- 9 Q On the Internet again? 10 A -- whispering campaign. 11 On the Internet and -- within the critic community 12 there, you know, I -- you know, I felt that there had been a 13 fairly concerted effort to drive a wedge between me and 14 other critics of Scientology, you know, sort of basically 15 to -- to isolate us. 16 Q What -- at this point in time -- 17 A From our friends. 18 Q -- you hadn't come forward and recanted. You'd 19 lied for the case. Mr. Minton had provided an inordinate 20 amount of money, more money that I can imagine. I mean, why 21 in the world would -- I mean, why would Mr. Dandar be 22 suggesting anything about this when everything you had done, 23 as you've just testified here, was at his request? And plus 24 a lot of money to boot. 25 A But -- 0200------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Why would you 2 think this? 3 A Why would I think what? 4 Q That Mr. Dandar was out trying to drive a edge 5 between the critics and you. 6 A Well, in fact, your Honor, it turned out to be the 7 truth, and he said so at -- in New Hampshire to us. 8 Q Well, why? Was it 'cause there was not enough -- 9 more money? 10 A Because he was trying to put -- I mean, this is my 11 belief. That -- 12 Q What did he say? 13 A -- he was trying to put pressure on Bob to 14 continue funding the case, and that he knew how important it 15 was to Bob to be well thought of in the critic community. 16 And he knew how bad it would make Bob feel that the whole 17 critic community was turning against him because he was 18 stopping the funding. 19 Q So in your mind the whole thing then, this whole 20 thing being done by Mr. Dandar, was wrapped around money -- 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- it wasn't as if you haven't -- you, Mr. Minton, 23 hadn't done plenty to help -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q -- to the tune of lying for him, as your testimony 0201------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 is, to the tune of giving a whole slew of money. So you 2 think all this happened because Mr. Dandar, gee, he'd only 3 had 1.8 million at that time? 4 MR. FUGATE: I think it's 1.8-50 -- 5 THE COURT: -- 8-something. 6 MR. FUGATE: Yeah. 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q And he needed more. 9 A That's right. 10 So Mr. Dandar said, "Listen, I will get them to 11 stop this" -- 12 Q Who is -- who is they? I'll get them? 13 A These people that he had~-- 14 Q The Internet people. 15 A Yeah, the Internet people -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A -- that were posting this stuff. And he said, 18 "I'll get them to stop." I mean -- and in fact, later he 19 called -- he called to speak to Mr. Minton, but he was 20 asleep and I spoke to him. And he called to say, "Listen, 21 these people, the people that were doing all this posting 22 and everything, said that they'll stop doing it if you guys 23 will take a certain thing off of our Web site." You know 24 what a Web site is? 25 Q Mm-hmm. Well, I don't know if I do or not, but -- 0202------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Well, it's just a place where people can go to get 2 information. 3 Q Right. What is "our Web site," though? 4 A The LMT Web site. 5 Q Okay. 6 A The LMT Web site. "If you guys will take this 7 stuff off of your Web site that they don't like." Well, I 8 wasn't sure that Mr. Minton would agree to do that, if I 9 asked him, so I made a unilateral decision to take it off -- 10 to have it taken off myself without asking him that. 11 We had it taken off and -- you couldn't believe 12 how instantly the criticism and the attacks stopped on the 13 Internet. 14 Q What Web site is this? The LMT Web site? 15 A We took some information off of our LMT Web 16 site -- 17 Q What information? 18 A It was some little snippets of this movie, The 19 Profit -- I don't know. 20 Q You mean you could actually watch some little 21 snippets? 22 A Like a minute. I think there were five one-minute 23 snippets of the movie. 24 Q Okay. 25 A And these people were really mad about those 0203------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 snippets being up on the Web site. 2 Q Why? These are -- I don't even know who's who. 3 Are these the anti-Scientologists -- 4 A Yeah. 5 Q -- or the pro-Scientologists? 6 A The anti-Scientologists. 7 Q The anti-Scientologists. 8 A Listen, your Honor, the anti-Scientologists have 9 been angrier at us and more threatening at us and more 10 intimidating of us than Scientology ever even thought of 11 being. I'm not kidding. That's how we feel. 12 Q Okay. 13 A So you know, if we -- 14 Q There are those, you know, that might say the same 15 thing about Mr. Minton? 16 A About what? 17 Q About Mr. Minton. That he might -- that the -- he 18 was part of this antigroup, right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q They may say that he was just as dangerous anti as 21 the Scientologists were pro. 22 A You know, your Honor, the way I look at it now is, 23 this is -- you know, people have turned this whole thing 24 into a holy war, and both sides, you know, are dug in to 25 their perspective. And you know, what's needed in this 0204------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 whole thing is dialogue. That's how I feel about it. 2 Q Maybe what's needed is resolution. 3 A Resolution would be wonderful. But dialogue could 4 perhaps start that path. 5 In any case, at the end of that -- at tend of that 6 weekend Mr. Dandar -- when Mr. Minton broke down on 7 Saturday, I think Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko both realized 8 that Mr. Minton was seriously, seriously distraught about 9 the situation. And what Mr. Dandar did was, on Sunday 10 morning before they left, he got out the questions that you 11 had ordered Mr. Minton to answer that he had previously put 12 the Fifth Amendment to. He got out those questions and he 13 started coaching Mr. Minton on how to answer the questions. 14 Q Okay. 15 A And -- 16 Q Go ahead. 17 A And this was in my presence. I saw this myself. 18 He was coaching Mr. Minton to answer the questions 19 untruthfully. 20 Q Like what? Which ones? 21 A Well, this is where this fat man thing came up. 22 For example -- 23 (There was an interruption in the proceedings.) 24 THE COURT: I'm not going to have it. 25 Mr. Bailiff, you go out there and you find out if 0205------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 anybody else has got a phone on. Talk to them one 2 at a time. Next person whose phone goes off in this 3 courtroom is going to be barred permanently. I'm 4 not going to have it. If you've got a cell phone 5 out there, turn it off. 6 Go on ahead. 7 THE WITNESS: What was I saying? 8 MR. FUGATE: I don't even remember. That was 9 sort of an interesting tune. 10 I think you were talking about -- 11 THE COURT: It was, and that's why -- it's very 12 disconcerting, because out of the clear blue you 13 start thinking da-da, da-da, da-da-da-da-da-da. 14 MR. FUGATE: She was talking about -- I know 15 what she was talking about. She was talking 16 about -- 17 You were talking about Mr. Dandar -- 18 THE WITNESS: Oh, coaching. 19 MR. FUGATE: Going through the questions. 20 THE WITNESS: The coaching. Oh, yeah. And you 21 wanted to know an example. 22 THE COURT: Right. 23 THE WITNESS: And I said, "This is where the 24 fat man came up." 25 THE COURT: Right. The fat man came up. 0206------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY THE COURT: 2 Q I only care about coaching, I suppose, on issues 3 that have been brought to my attention that may be relevant 4 to what I'm doing. That would be as to the money and as to 5 the agreement and as to -- I don't know, you can -- I know 6 the money and the agreement. If there's something else, you 7 can raise it. 8 A The money. 9 Q The money meaning the two checks, that there was 10 nothing wrong with it. 11 A There were -- 12 Q At that time was there two checks? 13 A Well, there weren't two checks yet. There 14 weren't -- 15 Q Okay. One check. 16 A -- two checks until a couple days later. But 17 there was -- there were questions that were going to that 18 issue, and then there were also questions that were going to 19 the issue of funds to the LMT. 20 Q Okay. Let's talk about the check. And you said 21 he told him how to handle it. What did he tell him to say? 22 A Well, he said, "You only have to concern yourself 23 with the checks you've written, Bob. You know, what's the 24 problem here? You only have to concern yourself with the 25 checks you've written." 0207------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q What did you understand that to mean? 5 A Don't talk about that other $500,000 check because 6 you didn't write it. You didn't actually write the check. 7 Q And what did you understand "you didn't actually 8 write it" to mean? 9 THE COURT: I've never had this kind of money. 10 How does one get somebody to send $500,000 without 11 the -- 12 THE WITNESS: It was a bank -- it was a bank 13 check. 14 THE COURT: Well, you just pick up the phone, 15 call your bank, say, "Send $500,00"0? Is that how 16 it works? I don't know. I'm not rich. 17 THE WITNESS: It seems -- it seems to be 18 something like that. 19 THE COURT: Really? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q So in -- 23 THE COURT: How do they know it's the right 24 person on the telephone? 25 MR. WEINBERG: It's a little more than that. 0208------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: I would hope so. Otherwise give me 2 the number. 3 MR. FUGATE: I can't help you 'cause -- 4 THE WITNESS: I don't really know. 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY THE COURT: 7 Q So he said, "You only have to concern yourself 8 with the checks you've written"? 9 A Yes, your honor. 10 Q Okay. 11 A And there was another thing about the fat man, but 12 that doesn't concern that particular check, so -- 13 Q Okay. 14 A In any case, it was my understanding that 15 Mr. Dandar now understood how distraught Mr. Minton was 16 about having to -- about putting himself in danger by 17 perjury, and that Mr. Dandar was now helping him ease his 18 concerns by helping him -- by coaching him about how to 19 answer the questions so that he wouldn't be caught, I guess. 20 So then they left -- 21 Q They being? 22 A Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko. And I said, "Don't even 23 think the thought of giving him any more money. I hope 24 you're not." And Mr. Minton said, "Well, you know, I just 25 kind of feel like I'm in so deep now that it's really not 0209------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 going to make any difference at this point." 2 Because you know, Mr. Dandar had really, really 3 begged him to give him enough money to get him through the 4 trial. And he had really appealed to Mr. Minton's 5 commitment to this case; commitment to, you know, his 6 anti-Scientology work. You know, "you've come this far, you 7 know, don't -- you know, please help me, you know, get this 8 thing through to the end." You know, that kind of thing. 9 And so, you know, Mr. Dandar made several phone 10 calls to Mr. Minton; you know, "Have you written it? Is it 11 coming?" I found out from Mr. Minton that he had, in fact, 12 written another check -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- not written 13 another check, but caused another check to be issued. 14 Q One of those magical phone calls? 15 A One of those phone calls. 16 Q Right. 17 A You know, I don't have -- 18 Q That none of us knows how to do. 19 A But -- but -- 20 Q I mean, I know this is true, this is how it 21 happens, I just don't really -- we'll ask Mr. Minton when he 22 comes in. I mean, there must be a code or something. I 23 mean, it's late in the day. There's just got to be a code. 24 Just got to be able to call and give a number. 25 MR. WEINBERG: He'd probably like to tell you 0210------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 that off the record. 2 THE COURT: I wasn't going to ask him that, but 3 there's got to be some things that one goes through. 4 Go ahead. I'm sorry. We'll probably stop at 5 the end of your case 'cause I just really have a 6 huge headache. 7 So if you could -- 8 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm -- 9 THE COURT: Not you, him. He's -- if you could 10 get done with the direct -- 11 MR. FUGATE: I'll try to shut up, Judge -- 12 THE COURT: -- of the witness that we were 13 going to finish today. 14 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 15 A So he sent the check. 16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q All right. And was there any more discussion, to 19 your knowledge, about that check to Mr. Minton -- to your 20 knowledge, with Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar about whether that 21 should be reviewed -- that check? 22 A Yeah. 23 Q And what was that? 24 A Well, then -- I mean, you know, this was the 25 beginning of March, and meanwhile, you remember that I'm 0211------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 having Mr. Howie call and initiate settlement talks with 2 Scientology. So now -- 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY THE COURT: 5 Q You're trying to negotiate a settlement with 6 Scientology. In the meantime -- 7 A And meanwhile, Mr. Minton is continuing -- 8 Q -- putting out a quarter of a million bucks -- 9 A Right. 10 Q -- to try to help -- 11 A I'm saying, "Jeesh, don't --" 12 Q Tough to negotiate a settlement like that. 13 A Don't -- how are we going to settle it if you're 14 continuing to fund the case? Exactly. 15 And so Mr. Minton is being a little bit sheepish 16 about that. And then we get word from Mr. Howie that, you 17 know, these two contempt hearings are going forward in -- 18 you know, in the beginning of April, in which Mr. Minton is 19 going to be put in jail for contempt either by Judge 20 Schaeffer or by Judge Baird. 21 Q Or both. 22 A Or by both. 23 And so -- 24 Q Would it please you to know that I've never put 25 anybody in jail for contempt in 21 years? 0212------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A You haven't? Because your Honor, you said on the 2 record one time that you'd be perfectly happy to put 3 somebody in jail for six years -- 4 Q Well, I don't know if I said for six years, but I 5 have always said that, and that's what I use to get results, 6 but -- 7 A I'll tell you something. We believed you. And 8 that was a lot of the reason why -- 9 Q The maximum time that anybody can be put in jail 10 for criminal contempt is five months and 29 days. 11 A Is that right? 12 Q That is right. So that is the maximum sentence, 13 okay. So if anybody ever told you differently, that's it. 14 A Well, I -- 15 Q And I guess I did put one defendant in jail once 16 for that amount of time. I couldn't even remember what it 17 was. He started swearing at me in court. And we had -- he 18 was on the floor, swearing at me. He called me every rotten 19 name in the book. And finally called me a woman. I mean, 20 that was the -- bailiff arrest him -- he was calling F -- 21 all in all I figured I had to do something. I didn't know 22 what it was because I'd never used this contempt power that 23 I had. And I did it very poorly, I might add. But I tried 24 to get a contempt hearing going so that the next several 25 people appearing wouldn't think that was good procedure. 0213------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 I threaten a lot. I've never held anybody in 2 contempt except him. 3 A Well, we believed you. 4 Q I don't hesitate -- I wouldn't hesitate to use it. 5 I mean, I'm sure your lawyer or somebody said I'm not happy 6 with the fact that you and Mr. Minton have admitted that you 7 committed perjury. I'm sitting here today, you know? I'm 8 sitting here today, it's quarter to 6 on a Friday afternoon, 9 trying to buy a new house. I'm absolutely beat. I'm 10 sitting up nights reading this that you see. And I'm not 11 saying that it's just you all. But certainly I know it's 12 you all because you said it is. 13 Now, you know, I don't know what you thought 14 before, but I mean, we're going to have to come to some -- 15 some day there's going to be a day of reckoning. I'm not 16 saying I'm going to put you in jail. Please don't think I'm 17 threatening you. Wouldn't do that to you. But you just 18 don't get to commit perjury in any judge's court. Say 19 you've committed perjury and then expect the judge to say, 20 "Well, thanks a lot for coming in." 21 I mean, do you understand what's going on here? 22 What you've caused, helped to cause? And I'm not saying 23 it's just you. Do you understand that you've created some 24 chaos here? 25 A Your Honor, I understand it very well. 0214------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Okay. Let's try to get through the 2 direct, if we can. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 THE COURT: And as I said, I don't mean to be 5 threatening. Now that you know I've never held 6 anybody in contempt in 21 years. I used to teach 7 it. I used to have a wonderful time teaching it to 8 new judges. And I'd always tell them, "Don't do 9 it." If you have to hold somebody in contempt you 10 don't have control of your courtroom. So you know, 11 I thought I had pretty good control of my courtroom 12 so I didn't have to use it. 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q My question was -- 16 THE COURT: Don't be afraid just because you've 17 heard from somebody that I said that. I mean, as I 18 said, I'm very frustrated. I'm very frustrated that 19 we're -- we're having to go through this. We're 20 going to go through it Monday. We're going to go 21 through it Tuesday. And I've got a couple motions 22 they want me to hear about the issues in the case. 23 And I'm having to deal with all this. 24 So it is frustrating and -- 25 THE WITNESS: At best. At best. 0215------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: All right. If I were you, I would 2 never do it again. 3 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I promise I never 4 will. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q All right. My question was, was there any other 7 discussion, to your knowledge, between Mr. Minton, 8 Mr. Dandar about whether or not to reveal the last $250,000 9 payment or check? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And what was that? 12 A Mr. Minton had by now gotten in touch with his 13 counsel, not only in Florida but also in Boston. And he was 14 now aware that he was going to have to tell the truth about 15 these checks. 16 Q And the "he" is -- 17 A Mr. Minton. 18 Q Okay. 19 A And he told Mr. Dandar that -- 20 Q He, Mr. Minton? 21 A -- in a phone conversation. 22 Q He, Mr. Minton, told -- 23 A Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that he was going to 24 have to tell the truth about the checks. And Mr. Dandar got 25 very distraught about that. And said, "Bob, you know, you 0216------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 only have to testify about the checks you've written. You 2 don't have to bring that up." 3 THE COURT: When was this, ma'am, again? 4 THE WITNESS: Sometime in mid-March. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Of 2002? 7 A Yeah. And then we -- Mr. Minton and I had a 8 meeting in New York with Sandy Rosen, Mike Rinder and 9 Monique Yingling, who's another attorney for Scientology. 10 And we sat down with them, with Mr. Minton's Boston counsel, 11 Steve Jonas. 12 Q Steve -- 13 A Steven Jonas. 14 THE COURT: Boss? Did you say boss? 15 THE WITNESS: Boston. 16 THE COURT: Oh, Boston. 17 A Boston. 18 And Mr. Minton and I went into this meeting with 19 every intention of settling with Scientology and getting out 20 of this litigation altogether, in whatever way -- well, not 21 in whatever way, but by severing all ties. And we sat down 22 and we told them that -- 23 THE COURT: This is going to go on for a long 24 time, isn't it? 25 THE WITNESS: No. He's almost over. It's like 0217------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 another two sentences, if you want me to hurry. 2 THE COURT: Oh. Are we on your affidavits, you 3 mean? 4 THE WITNESS: No. We're on the settlement 5 talks. 6 THE COURT: Oh. 7 THE WITNESS: And I'll make it fast. 8 THE COURT: I'm talking about your direct 9 testimony. I'd like to get through the direct. How 10 much longer is it? 11 MR. FUGATE: If she said two sentences, I'm 12 guessing two sentences, Judge. 13 THE COURT: I'm guessing two hours. Go on 14 ahead. 15 MR. FUGATE: I didn't say how long they were 16 going to be. 17 THE COURT: I know. 18 A Anyway, we told them that we wanted to walk away; 19 that we wanted -- Mr. Minton was going to stop funding; that 20 I was going to stop providing any declarations; that I would 21 withdraw my declarations that I already filed; that we 22 didn't want anything more to do with Scientology litigation 23 anymore and to please just let us walk away. 24 Well, much to our horror, what they said was 25 that -- 0218------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Who's they? Tell us -- let's say 2 who said what. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Rosen. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Rosen. 5 A Mr. Rosen said that they would be more than happy 6 to sit down with us and talk settlement once we set the 7 record straight in the Florida cases. And we said, "What do 8 you mean?" And he said, "Well, we have reason to believe 9 that you have not been forthcoming in your testimony in 10 discovery in those cases. And before we'll talk to you 11 about settlement in any way, you're going to have to set 12 those records straight." 13 And that night Mr. Minton and I called Mr. Dandar 14 and -- 15 THE COURT: Do you remember what date this was? 16 THE WITNESS: I think it was -- 17 THE COURT: Day? 18 THE WITNESS: Maybe it was March 28th. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Are we still in the dep- -- 20 am I -- am I -- 21 MR. FUGATE: I think you've gone beyond now. I 22 think she's talking about why she -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 A And -- no. 'Cause I'm telling you about another 25 conversation that happened about the checks. 0219------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Actually, I did ask that, so -- 3 A Yeah. 4 EXAMINATION 5 BY THE COURT: 6 Q So you called Mr. Minton -- Mr. Dandar -- 7 A Mr. Dandar. 8 Q On March 28th. 9 A On March 28th, and told him that -- and Mr. Minton 10 told him that he was going to have to start telling the 11 truth about what had been going on. And -- 12 Q He, meaning Mr. Minton, told he, Mr. Dandar -- 13 A Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar -- 14 Q -- was going to have to start telling the truth. 15 A No. No. Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that 16 Mr. Minton was going to have to start telling the truth. 17 Q I got you. 18 A And you know, it was sort of warning him, you 19 know, sort of letting him know that this was happening. 20 And -- and we had a little bit more of a 21 conversation on that night, but basically we ended it that 22 night by Mr. Dandar saying, "Look, let's get together in 23 Cleveland. I have to go to Cleveland for a heart --" 24 Q -- checkup. 25 A "Checkup. And let's meet there --" 0220------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just 2 trying to -- 3 A Yeah. Checkup. 4 Q Okay. 5 A Well, next night -- so then the next day we went 6 into the settlement talks again and -- and we said, "Listen, 7 you know, we'll get started on setting the record straight, 8 but we want you to put back -- push back these two contempt 9 hearings that are just about to come up next week." 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Continue the contempt hearings? 13 A We want you to continue those contempt hearings so 14 that, you know, Mr. Minton doesn't have that hanging over 15 his head while we're trying to sort this out. 16 Well, Mr. Rosen said, "We're not stopping 17 anything. You know, those things are going to go forward as 18 scheduled. You know, we'll be glad to arrange for -- you 19 know, to pick back up on the settlement talks when you've 20 set the record straight. But you know, you'll have an 21 opportunity to do that in these hearings down in Florida or, 22 you know, however you want to do it. But we aren't 23 continuing with the settlement talks until that happens and 24 we're not putting off anything." 25 Well, then we were really, really upset. And then 0221------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 that night we called Mr. Dandar again. And that was the 2 famous phone conversation where Mr. Minton said, you know, 3 "You're going to have the blood of -- my blood and the blood 4 of my family on your hands if you -- if you won't agree to 5 drop this case." 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q Why was he asking him to drop the case? Was that 9 a demand made by Mr. Rosen? 10 A No. No. 11 Q Where did it come from? Where did Mr. Minton pick 12 this up? 13 A Well, it was because that was the only way we 14 could think of to save the case from having what's now 15 happening happen. Where all this -- you know, he and I are 16 both having to recant testimony. You know, the critic 17 community is in an uproar. We're in all this trouble. And 18 you know, we were trying to shortcut, shortcircuit the whole 19 process by just getting him to drop the case. You know, 20 hoping to avoid having to testify that Mr. Dandar had 21 encouraged us to commit perjury. 22 And you know, all these different things that were 23 going on in our mind, we thought that Mr. Dandar would be 24 more -- would rather have that, have the -- you know, have 25 the case dropped than go through all this. 0222------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q So what was it that -- 2 A That's what we thought. 3 Q I don't know. I've read this somewhere. I've 4 read so much I don't remember. But somebody says under 5 oath, or maybe not under oath, that the request to have the 6 case dropped came from the Scientologists. If you want 7 to -- us to discuss this, you're going to have to get the 8 case dropped. This case, dropped. 9 Are you suggesting that was never said? Was it 10 just something that you and Mr. Minton came up with? 11 A Well, I've been trying to get them to drop the 12 case since the summer before, your Honor. 13 Q Well, when you met with the Scientologists -- 14 whoever, Mr. Rosen and Mr. who? 15 A Mr. Rinder and Ms. Yingling. 16 Q And Ms. -- is it a Ms.? It's a woman, 17 Ms. Yingling. 18 A It's a woman, yes. 19 Q Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen -- did they tell you 20 before they would settle the case you had to get this case 21 dropped? Before they would settle with you, whatever it was 22 that was, you had to get this case dropped. 23 A No, your Honor. What they said was, "You -- you 24 have to set the record straight in this case. We have 25 reason to believe that if the truth really comes out in this 0223------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 case, that this case will -- that the judge will probably 2 throw it out. We have reason to believe --" you know, 3 basically it was like that. "We have reason to believe that 4 there's been so much -- God -- you know, whatever, bad -- so 5 much bad stuff that's happened in the case that that may 6 well be the result it." 7 Q Okay. So you called Mr. Dandar that night and 8 asked him to drought drop the case. 9 A Yes. 10 Q That was March the 30th, I take it? 11 A That was March the 29th. 12 Q Oh, okay, March the 29th. Right. Okay. 13 A And you know, he got very upset. He said, 14 "There's no way. You know, this case is too important. I 15 can't believe you're saying these things. You know, I can't 16 believe you would do that --" 17 Q Did he know you were meeting with Mr. Rosen and 18 Mr. Rinder? I mean, had you all told him that? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. 21 A I believe so. 22 Oh, oh, yeah. And you're -- you know, they're 23 threatening you. They've got something on you. You know, 24 this is when this all started. 25 And you know, Bob was very upset. I was very 0224------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 upset. Mr. Dandar was very upset. Everybody was very 2 upset. And so then -- and I'm sorry this is -- I'm going to 3 do this as fast as I can. 4 But your hearing then happened the next Friday, 5 where Mr. Minton was on trial for contempt, for criminal 6 contempt. And that was the hearing when Mr. Moxon was going 7 through, you know, this -- this history of -- of discovery 8 with Mr. Minton. And you know, I'm sitting there in the 9 courtroom and I'm listening to all this. 10 And then he gets to this one -- I can't remember 11 what the affidavit was about -- but you know, it was the one 12 that just didn't match anything else that Mr. Minton had 13 said. You might remember that. And I thought, oh, you 14 know, she's going to find him guilty. 15 And then Mr. Howie got up and he did this judgment 16 of acquittal argument and found this technicality. And you 17 had to throw it out and find him not guilty on a 18 technicality. 19 Q I didn't have to throw it out. I threw it out 20 because he didn't -- Mr. Moxon didn't meet the -- didn't 21 make it stick. 22 A Right. 23 Q In other words, it was -- there was a technical 24 error. And by law, he was not guilty. 25 A Right. But -- 0225------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q A judgment -- 2 A But -- 3 Q -- of acquittal. It had to be. 4 A But as far as we were concerned, it was a miracle. 5 Q Okay. 6 A Because if that technicality hadn't happened, he'd 7 be in jail. You tell me now you don't put people in jail, 8 but -- 9 Q No. I never have. I was not happy with 10 Mr. Minton. 11 A Well, we believed with all our heart that you 12 would have put him in jail. 13 Q Okay. 14 A And we -- and at that point, after that hearing 15 before you, and you admonished him that you -- he was -- I 16 don't think you said this exactly, but what you meant was, 17 "You got away with it this time, but you better not try it 18 again." That's what I heard. 19 Q Sounds like me. 20 A Yeah. And that's what Mr. Minton heard too. And 21 so the next day we went over to Wally Pope's office, and we 22 spoke to Mr. Rinder and Ms. Yingling. And we told them that 23 we were ready to start the process of correcting the record. 24 And there came a point during that afternoon where 25 Mr. Minton was ready to start telling them what had really 0226------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 been going on and he started to gag, and he went outside and 2 he was really sick at the thought of doing this. But you 3 know, I said, "This is our only hope. It's our only hope. 4 We have to do this and we have to trust them." 5 You know, because -- you know, here we are, now 6 we're talking to Scientology, you know, these people that we 7 have been fighting for so long, that -- you know, or these 8 horrible, evil people. And you know, now we're -- we're 9 going in there and now we're going to start telling them the 10 truth about what's been going on. I mean, it was like -- 11 you know, it was -- it was just almost unbearable. And -- 12 Q Well, we've already established that what you were 13 going to tell them the truth about were two things that were 14 fairly insignificant except for the fact that Mr. Dandar was 15 a part of it. You were going to tell them about an 16 agreement that was perfectly all right. You were going to 17 tell them about a -- some checks that were perfectly all 18 right. 19 A Well, it may seem that simple to you now, but to 20 us at that time, what we were about to do was change sides, 21 totally turn our backs on all the people that we had been 22 working with so hard, admit to perjury, admit to discovery 23 abuse. I mean, pretty serious discovery abuse. And we 24 were -- we really had no idea what was going to happen to 25 us. But we didn't feel that there was any other choice that 0227------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 we had. 2 And I wish I could tell you that, you know, I woke 3 up one morning and I thought, I have to tell the truth 4 because it's the right thing to do. But really what 5 happened was that Saturday -- 6 Q That would have been March 30th? 7 A No. That was after the day after your hearing, so 8 it was April 6th. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Really what happened was that Saturday we went 11 outside in the front parking lot of Wally Pope's office and 12 said, "We have no choice but to recant our testimony and put 13 ourselves on the mercy of these courts." 14 And that's what happened. 15 MR. FUGATE: I have no more questions. 16 THE COURT: All right. Seems like a good time 17 to take our break. Now, look, this is an awfully 18 long weekend. I am going to permit you, ma'am -- 19 you're still on the stand. Cross examination will 20 come on Monday. I'm going to treat this like I 21 would treat something and I'm going to let you talk 22 to your lawyer. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: But I am not going to let you -- 25 you are on the stand. You cannot talk to anybody 0228------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 else. Now I understand how tough that might be, but 2 clearly, obviously, that means Mr. Minton, he's a 3 witness, the rule's been invoked -- 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: And you can't talk to any of these 6 people. You can't talk to any of those people. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Okay? But I'm not going to 9 preclude her from talking to her lawyer 'cause I 10 think that's -- it's a long weekend and she ought to 11 have somebody she can talk to about what's going on 12 if she needs to. Is that fair? 13 MR. LIROT: To speak with her attorney and no 14 one else. 15 THE COURT: With her attorney. 16 MR. LIROT: That's fair. 17 THE COURT: She can speak to -- you can speak 18 to anybody you want to, but you just can't -- 19 THE WITNESS: But not about this. 20 THE COURT: Not about this. Not about your 21 testimony. Not about what your testimony that's 22 going on, it's going to go on. But you can talk to 23 your lawyer about anything involving this case. Is 24 that okay with you, Counsel? 25 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge, we just as a reminder 0229------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 ask her to comply with all the requests for 2 production and all the documents that were shown to 3 her at those meetings. 4 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 5 MR. LIROT: Meetings with Scientology. We'd 6 like her to bring those with her on Monday. 7 THE COURT: What? I don't know what you're 8 talking about? 9 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, there was a request 10 to produce that was filed as a request to produce -- 11 THE COURT: In the other case? 12 13 MR. MCGOWAN: Pardon? 14 THE COURT: In the other case or in this case? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: No, in this case. 16 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 17 MR. MCGOWAN: But it's a request to produce, 18 like a 30-day request to produce, that asks for all 19 the documents that admits extortion and blackmail 20 and so forth. 21 THE COURT: I saw that, but I thought that 22 was -- honestly I thought that was in the other 23 case. 24 MR. MCGOWAN: It was in this case. But in 25 either case, it was a 30-day request to produce. 0230------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Okay. To be honest with you, what 2 does that mean? They've had 30 days to produce it? 3 MR. MCGOWAN: They've had 30 days for these 4 documents that they'll tell you don't exist. 5 THE COURT: Well, look, if you've got them and 6 you can bring them, please don't make me have 7 another hearing, Counsel. 8 MR. MCGOWAN: I won't, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: So she's got a notice to produce 10 and it's going to be something they need for their 11 cross examination and you've got them in hand, 12 forget the 30 days. Give them to her, let her bring 13 them in so that they can talk to her about it. 14 Okay? 15 MR. MCGOWAN: Certainly. 16 THE COURT: I don't want to have another 17 hearing after 30 days, and she doesn't either. Fair 18 enough? 19 MR. MCGOWAN: I think no one does, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. LIROT: Judge -- 22 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, if it -- if it please 23 the court, I have another case besides this one, and 24 I have a commitment at 9:00 Monday morning. I'll be 25 out of it by about 10:15. 0231------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: You know what, I think I remember 2 my secretary telling me we didn't start until 1:30 3 on Monday? 4 MR. MCGOWAN: Oh, is that right? 5 MR. FUGATE: 1:30 on Monday and then 9:00, if 6 we go, on Tuesday. 7 THE COURT: If we go? Come on, Mr. Fugate. 8 MR. FUGATE: I'm just telling you what you said 9 to me, Judge. 10 THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Who else do you have 11 to call in your case? 12 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Minton. 13 THE COURT: And then at that time you're going 14 to rest? 15 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 16 THE COURT: And then at that time I'm going to 17 hear legal argument from you, is that right? 18 MR. LIROT: Yes, please. 19 THE COURT: We might get that far, maybe, by 20 Tuesday. Maybe. I doubt it. But we might. 21 You understand, ma'am, the admonition I've 22 given you? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: If they come in and ask you, "Who 25 have you talked to over the weekend" and you say, 0232------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 "I've talked to Mr. Minton about it and I've talked 2 to Mr. Moxon about it, Mr. Fugate about it," I'm 3 going to be livid, right? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Do the best you can. Don't talk to 6 anybody about your testimony. You're on the stand. 7 THE WITNESS: I promise I won't, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Except him. You can talk to your 9 lawyer. 10 All right. That's it. We'll see you all 1:30 11 Monday. 12 (A recess was taken.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0233------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 5 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 6 I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 7 proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 8 I further certify that I am not a relative, 9 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or 10 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 11 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of May, 2002. 12 13 ______________________________ DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||||| Date: 5 Sep 2002 00:00:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20020905000002.3752.qmail@nym.alias.net> From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer X-Comment1: This message did not originate from the X-Comment2: above address. It was automatically remailed X-Comment3: by an anonymous mail service. Please report X-Comment4: problems or inappropriate use to X-Comment5: References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Testimony day1 (afternoon) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1323 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550952 comp.org.eff.talk:105660 misc.legal:433688 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 0145------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 4 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 5 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. VOLUME 2 9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 11 Defendants. 12 _______________________________________/ 13 14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 15 DATE: May 3, 2002, afternoon session. 16 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding 17 St. Petersburg, Florida. 18 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 19 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, 20 Notary Public, State of Florida at large. 21 22 23 24 25 0146------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 MS. HELENA KOBRIN 12 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 13 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for David Houghton. 14 MR. LEE FUGATE and 15 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 16 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 17 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 18 MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 19 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor New York, New York 10003 20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 21 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 22 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 23 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 24 Organization. 25 0147------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 APPEARANCES (Continued) 2 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 3 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 4 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. 5 ALSO PRESENT: 6 Ms. Donna West 7 Ms. Dell Liebreich Mr. Rick Spector 8 Mr. Allan Cartwright Ms. Lara Cartwright 9 Ms. Sarah Heller Mr. Ben Shaw 10 Ms. Joyce Earl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0148------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 2 PAGE LINE 3 EXAMINATION The Court 155 20 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 181 14 4 EXAMINATION The Court 186 24 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 193 16 5 EXAMINATION The Court 194 6 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 207 2 6 EXAMINATION The Court 208 5 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 210 16 7 EXAMINATION The Court 211 3 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 214 13 8 EXAMINATION The Court 219 4 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 220 10 9 EXAMINATION The Court 221 6 Recess 232 12 10 Reporter's Certificate 233 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0149------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Okay. Continue on. 2 MR. LIROT: We'll wait for Mr. Fugate, but I 3 want to make a statement before we start. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. FUGATE: Sorry, Judge, actually I was in 6 line at the men's room. Believe it or not. 7 THE COURT: Counsel wanted to make a statement. 8 MR. LIROT: The only thing, Judge, he made a 9 comment about Mr. Dandar participating in the 10 pickets. And I know I talked to him about it -- 11 Mr. Dandar never participated in any picket. I 12 think his statement was he was in a vigil or 13 something like that. But he was just very concerned 14 about that. 15 THE COURT: All I know is I saw a picture of 16 Mr. Dandar carrying a sign that appeared like what 17 somebody might carry in a picket, vigil, whatever 18 one wanted to call it. I don't know that it was a 19 picket, to tell you the truth. I don't know what it 20 was. But I know I saw Mr. Dandar with a sign 21 involving this case. 22 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge. 23 THE COURT: Involving Lisa McPherson. But I, 24 quite frankly -- 25 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your 0150------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Honor? I'd offer -- 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q Well, first of all, do you recognize the folks in 4 the photo there that I've just handed up, which would be our 5 Exhibit 74? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And can you identify it, please? 8 A Well, it's the trial team. 9 Q Okay. And the trial team would be -- who is on 10 the far left, as you look at the photo? 11 A That's Jesse Prince. 12 Q Okay. And what is he holding in his hand? 13 A He's holding -- 14 THE COURT: Did you not just put this into 15 evidence? 16 MR. FUGATE: Yes. Well, I tried -- 17 THE COURT: Did I not see it? 18 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge. 19 THE COURT: I mean, we can see it. It's in 20 evidence, right? It's a picture of -- what do you 21 want her to explain? It's in evidence. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Okay. Is Mr. Dandar in the photograph? 24 A Yes, he is. 25 Q Okay. And is this outside the criminal court -- 0151------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Yes. 2 Q -- in Pinellas County? 3 THE COURT: And whatever -- this is isn't the 4 one I saw. I saw a picture with Mr. Dandar holding 5 a sign himself. 6 MR. FUGATE: Yeah. I've got those, Judge -- 7 THE COURT: I think. 8 MR. FUGATE: -- as well. Put those in here -- 9 Well, let's try to address the judge's concerns 10 and move forward. Would that be 74, or you say it's 11 already in? 12 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, did you get your copy? 13 THE CLERK: Yes, Judge. 14 THE COURT: I believe that's 74. 15 THE CLERK: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Here, did you get this, Madam 17 Clerk? 18 Continue. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q And to follow up, did Mr. Dandar, to your 21 observation, participate in picketing? 22 A Yes. I do believe I recall him actually holding a 23 sign a couple of times, but you know, he also participated 24 in the -- what sort of became known as the annual memorial 25 for Lisa McPherson. 0152------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Which is -- 2 A A lot of people would come to Clearwater -- 3 Q December 4th and 5th or thereabouts each year? 4 A It was on the anniversary of her death, on 5 December 5th. 6 Q Now, in your affidavit, you -- you have a term, 7 the secret agreement. And to go right to the heart of that 8 issue, can you describe what you mean -- what you're 9 describing in your affidavit as the secret agreement and how 10 it differs from the other funding agreement as you 11 understood it? 12 A Well, as I -- 13 MR. LIROT: Objection. No foundation. I don't 14 know what the other agreement is. I don't know what 15 the secret agreement is. I need a foundation for 16 this, Judge, at least. 17 THE COURT: Well, it's her affidavit. She's 18 called it secret agreement, so we need to know -- 19 she needs to testify about it. 20 MR. FUGATE: I'm asking her to do it in her 21 words, Judge. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 A Okay. I said before, that there was an agreement 24 between Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and the estate that the bulk 25 of the proceeds from the wrongful death case would go to the 0153------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 LMT. 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q Okay. 4 THE COURT: And I think that what -- what's 5 fair here, if this was counsel's objection, we need 6 to know, ma'am, not what you -- we need to know sort 7 of what you participated in. In other words, when 8 you say there was an agreement between this one, 9 this one and this one, where you participated and 10 what parties were present and this type of thing. 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 THE COURT: Okay? 13 A I was told by Mr. Minton that this agreement 14 existed; it was mentioned at the -- when Mr. Dandar and 15 Ms. Liebreich attended the first board meeting of the LMT; 16 we all greeted each other and chatted afterwards and talked 17 about how exciting this was and -- 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Was there specifically conversation about the 20 funding by Mr. Minton and -- 21 A Yeah. How exciting it was that the bulk of the 22 proceeds was going to go to the LMT and -- 23 Q All right. Did -- you identified Ms. Liebreich. 24 Were those words that came out of her mouth? 25 A Those were words that came out of Mr. Dandar's 0154------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 mouth, but she was there and she was -- she nodded in 2 agreement, and she was very appreciative of Mr. Minton's 3 help and -- 4 Q And was there an understanding in that discussion 5 that there would be a payback of the moneys that had been 6 put into the case? 7 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q If you know. 10 THE COURT: With that, if she knows. I mean, 11 it seems like we started off talking about the 12 proceeds from recovery. 13 MR. FUGATE: No. The -- 14 THE COURT: Talking about something else now? 15 THE WITNESS: The secret agreement, your Honor, 16 wasn't that he would get -- that he would get the -- 17 his loan back; the secret agreement -- I mean, that 18 was just a regular loan agreement that he had made 19 with the estate and Mr. Dandar at the beginning; 20 that, you know, he would be repaid the money that he 21 had loaned them from the proceeds of the case. 22 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. Apparently best 24 evidence would be nice if we had something in 25 writing, but we don't apparently. 0155------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE WITNESS: But the agreement that I'm 2 referring to was an agreement that was separate from 3 that loan agreement. 4 THE COURT: Yeah. This was the agreement 5 you're talking about that the -- that the -- 6 THE WITNESS: Bulk. 7 THE COURT: -- bulk -- 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 9 THE COURT: The bulk of the proceeds -- 10 THE WITNESS: The bulk of the proceeds. 11 THE COURT: -- would go to the -- 12 THE WITNESS: -- LMT. And Mr. Minton was very 13 excited about this and talked about it on the 14 Internet. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q Published it. 17 A On the Internet. 18 And also talked about it on a radio show that he 19 was on and -- and this was -- 20 EXAMINATION 21 BY THE COURT: 22 Q How could it be secret if it was on the Internet? 23 A It wasn't secret at that time. 24 Q You put it in your affidavit. 25 A Yeah. And the -- well, I'll get to the secret 0156------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 part -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A -- in just a second. But you know, the people at 4 the LMT knew about it and it was sort of a happy thing. I 5 mean, everybody was very happy about it. 6 Q And everybody who read the Internet knew about it, 7 I guess. 8 A Yeah. For sure, that's true. 9 Q Okay. 10 A And then -- then what happened was Scientology 11 started to interject an argument into the wrongful death 12 case saying that, you know, this was all a business deal; 13 Minton was going to benefit from this case; this was -- you 14 know, he was -- you know, doing all these things for 15 business reasons. And Mr. Dandar got, you know, really 16 upset that Scientology was doing this. You know, we had a 17 couple of conversations in which I said to him, Mr. Dandar, 18 there's nothing wrong with the bulk of the proceeds going to 19 the Lisa McPherson Trust. And you know, so what if 20 Scientology says that about it? 21 But Mr. Dandar was -- 22 THE COURT: Sounds like me, doesn't it? Isn't 23 that what I said? 24 Okay. Sorry. 25 A Yeah. 0157------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 But Mr. Dandar was really concerned about it. You 2 know, the Scientology attorneys were really turning this 3 into a major issue. And so Mr. Dandar told us that we were 4 going to have to stop talking about this agreement about the 5 bulk of the proceeds. And -- and then -- 6 BY THE COURT: 7 Q And when did that occur? 8 A When he said that? 9 Q Yeah. 10 A In the fall. It started to be, you know, don't 11 talk about that, don't talk about that, in the -- in the 12 fall of 2000. 13 Q Okay. 14 A As I recall. Maybe late summer. Whenever the -- 15 you know, you'd be able to tell by the record of the case 16 because whenever that thing started happening where they 17 were accusing Minton of investing in the lawsuit, you know, 18 that whole thing. 19 I think it was late summer or fall of 2000. And 20 then it -- December, 2000 is when the secret agreement 21 became a real serious issue because that was when Mr. Minton 22 signed the false affidavit about it. And he felt extremely 23 uncomfortable about it because -- and I actually encouraged 24 him to feel extremely uncomfortable about it, because it 25 seemed to me that if he was putting in writing and swearing 0158------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 to the fact that there was no agreement, well, then -- then 2 there wasn't going to be any bulk of the proceeds going to 3 anything. And you know, he spoke to Mr. Dandar about this, 4 and Mr. Dandar said -- 5 MR. LIROT: Objection. We don't know if she 6 was anywhere near these conversations. 7 THE WITNESS: I was. I was there. 8 THE COURT: Overruled. 9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Whenever I talk about 10 one of these conversations, I mean 'cause I was 11 there. 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q Okay. 14 A You know -- and he talked to me about it quite a 15 bit, Mr. Minton did. Because I was saying, you know, "Don't 16 do this. It's not a good idea." 17 But he spoke to Mr. Dandar about it; Mr. Dandar 18 said, "Look, you know, the agreement still exists. It's 19 just that we can't talk about it and we can't -- you know, 20 it -- we've got to get away from this in the case because 21 they're really trying to use this as a way to, you know, 22 derail the case, so --" or whatever. 23 And so, you know, of course, that's what's going 24 to happen when the -- when the -- when we get a judgment. 25 But we have to say that it's not. 0159------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q If we just file a bunch of false affidavits, we 2 won't derail the case. 3 A Well, you see, your Honor, that's a good point you 4 bring up, because -- right. 5 Q I'm sorry. I just kind of interjected myself, and 6 I didn't need to do that. 7 A Well -- 8 Q I'm sorry. 9 A That's how I feel about it too. It's -- 10 subsequently, I lied about this in a deposition; Mr. Minton 11 lied about this in a deposition. 12 Q About this -- 13 A About the fact that -- 14 Q The bulk of the proceeds were going -- 15 A Right. 16 Q -- to be -- 17 A That was asked -- that was specifically asked, I 18 think it was by Mr. Moxon, I think. You know, I -- and 19 first he asked me about it and I tried to get around it by 20 distracting him in another direction, but you know, that 21 didn't work. And so then he asked me again, you know, "Is 22 there an agreement for the bulk of the proceeds?" And I 23 said, "No." Well, you know, I was lying. And Mr. Minton 24 started lying about it. And -- 25 Q Why, for heaven sakes? 0160------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Well -- 2 Q You had already said -- you said what's the big 3 deal? It's okay. 4 A I know, but Mr. Dandar felt very, very strongly 5 that it was important that we do this. And -- 6 Q Did he ever say why? Other than they were just 7 making a big deal about it and -- 8 A Because they -- because -- 9 Q It was derailing the case? 10 A Yeah. Because Scientology was using this 11 agreement to turn the case into a case about Mr. Minton and 12 not about Lisa McPherson. That was basically the -- the way 13 that he spoke about it. Scientology was turning it into a 14 case about Mr. Minton and not about Lisa McPherson. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And so the only way to get the attention off of 17 Mr. Minton was to say that there was no agreement. 18 Now, you can imagine this was a little difficult 19 to do after he'd gone on the radio and posted things on the 20 Internet saying that there was. And of course, Mr. Moxon 21 was bringing these things out at his deposition and saying, 22 "There's no agreement? Well, then why did you say there was 23 an agreement?" You know, it was -- it was -- it was just so 24 obvious. You know, it was just so obvious. 25 But -- 0161------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Well, you knew that -- you knew -- you've been in 2 this Church of Scientology. You knew they had fine lawyers. 3 A The best -- 4 Q And you knew that they absolutely would have known 5 what was out on the Internet said by Mr. Minton. 6 A In a heartbeat. 7 Q And surely, surely, you knew therefore there would 8 be a deposition where Mr. Minton would be asked about, 9 "Well, look here what you said." Did you talk to him about 10 this? 11 A Yes, I did. 12 Q Did you say, "We're crazy to do this"? 13 A Yes, your Honor, I certainly said that. 14 Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar, "I can't believe you're 15 asking us to do such a stupid thing"? 16 A Yes, I did. 17 Q And what did he say? What did -- 18 A Well -- 19 Q -- Mr. Dandar say? 20 A In fact -- in fact, I had, even before that 21 started, to say to Mr. Minton, "Stop funding this case, we 22 need to get away from it as far as we can." And to 23 Mr. Dandar, you know, "You cannot keep asking Mr. Minton -- 24 especially him -- to lie. You know, he's getting in worse 25 and worse and worse trouble. And you know, don't keep 0162------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 asking him for money because all it's doing is getting him 2 into more and more and more depositions where he's having to 3 lie more and more." 4 Q What did he say? 5 A "Stop asking him for money." 6 Q What did Mr. Dandar say? 7 A He went like this. 8 Q That same -- 9 A The same thing. 10 MR. FUGATE: The gesture, for the record? 11 THE WITNESS: It was a gesture. 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q But he didn't say anything? 14 A He said, "That's up to Bob." 15 You know, this whole thing came up that -- then it 16 came about that Mr. Dandar and his group of people were 17 feeling that I was manipulating Mr. Minton and that I was, 18 you know, having some sort of sinister influence over him, 19 for reasons which I -- have never really been clear to me. 20 But there was this whole thing and, you know, that I was 21 doing something really bad to be trying to get Mr. Minton to 22 stop his funding of the case and to stop this -- you know, I 23 don't think that other people were aware of the fact that 24 this perjury was going on, because I certainly wasn't saying 25 a word about it to anybody else except for Mr. Minton and 0163------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Dandar. And -- but there was a -- there was a 2 deposition on August 15th, 1999 -- no, I'm sorry -- 2000 -- 3 was it '99 or 2000? Just a minute. I'll tell you. 4 FROM THE GALLERY: 2001. 5 A August, 2001. Sorry. 6 THE COURT: Who -- who in the world is giving 7 her answers back there? Please. 8 A On August 15th, 2001. Okay. So that was after. 9 So I'm sorry. I was mixed up. 10 I'll go back to the December, 2000 time. 11 Mr. Dandar had -- 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q Okay. Let -- I've written down a wrong date here 14 now. 15 A Yeah. Forget the August 15th. I'll get to that 16 in a minute. 17 Q Okay. So what are we going back to? 18 A We're going back to December, 2000. 19 Q 12-2000. I got you. 20 A That was when Bob signed the affidavit that said 21 there was no agreement. I believe that was the same time as 22 Liebreich signed an affidavit that there was no agreement. 23 And I think it was shortly after that that Mr. Dandar filed 24 a motion attacking those two pleadings -- I mean, those two 25 affidavits, asserting that there was no agreement. 0164------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Well, you know, I was starting to feel like 2 Mr. Minton was getting set up to be royally shafted. 3 Q Good choice of words. I had another one. I was 4 waiting to see if you could find -- 5 A I was thinking of something else. 6 Q I'll bet you were. 7 A I began to feel that way very strongly. And you 8 know, Mr. Minton felt very strongly about this cause, 9 that -- about being against Scientology. He felt very, very 10 strongly about it. And he was providing funding -- 11 Q I'm sorry. I was coughing. He was what? 12 A He was providing funding to Mr. Dandar without 13 asking for any accounting of what was being done with the 14 money; despite the fact that he was being put into grave 15 legal danger by doing so. And I began to feel that he was 16 being sold down the river. And -- 17 Q This was -- are we back now to this 12-2000 thing? 18 A We're moving a little further from there. 19 Q After -- 20 A We're moving into the future -- 21 Q Okay. 22 A -- from December, 2000. 23 Q What was it that happened in December, 2000? What 24 was the point of that date? 25 A He signed that false affidavit. 0165------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Oh, okay. 2 A And then -- okay, this is into -- now we're -- now 3 we're moving into 2001. Now things are falling apart to 4 such a degree that it's a nightmare. Because now 5 Scientology has started to, you know, depose me and demand 6 documents out of the Lisa McPherson Trust because 7 Scientology has now made the connection between the Lisa 8 McPherson Trust, all the witnesses that are, you know, being 9 paid at the Lisa McPherson Trust, all the people that are on 10 the advisory border -- I mean, that's basically -- 11 Mr. Minton had gathered up all of his Scientology critics 12 that he was helping in one way or another in litigation 13 against Scientology or in whatever other capacity he was 14 funding them, and it was all under the umbrella of the Lisa 15 McPherson Trust. You know, the witnesses for the Lisa 16 McPherson case worked for the Lisa McPherson Trust. 17 And you know, the two things had just -- well, you 18 know, Judge Beach, one day in a deposition, I almost had a 19 heart attack, he -- you know, we're trying so hard to keep 20 these things apart -- and Judge Beach says, you know, 21 "There's no --" this is Mr. Minton's depo that I was in -- 22 he said, "There's no difference between Mr. Minton and the 23 LMT, the Lisa McPherson case -- it's all the same." 24 And so now they started to be able to -- they 25 started making document demands at the LMT and -- 0166------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q They being Scientology? 2 A Scientology. And I started evading discovery and 3 lying about our records, and -- 4 Q Why? 5 A -- and at that point -- 6 Q I mean, why? 7 A Why? 8 Q Why were you lying about your records? I mean, 9 was there anything -- 10 A Because I'll tell you why. 11 Q -- was there anything illegal about LMT? 12 A You know what? I wasn't sure if there was 13 anything in those records that could hurt the case or not. 14 And if there was any possibility that it would hurt the 15 case, we had to not give it to them. And so -- and you 16 know, Mr. Minton was doing everything possible to protect 17 the case; Mr. Dandar was doing everything possible to 18 protect the case; and -- and then I was doing everything 19 possible to protect the case; you know, not turning over, 20 you know -- you've seen all the stuff in the affidavit, you 21 know, the unedited videotape, the hard drives -- you know, I 22 had these hard drives -- well, Mr. Minton and I both -- got 23 these hard drives removed, you know, about a half an hour 24 before the judge ordered that these -- maybe it was you -- 25 Q I don't think it was because I don't remember 0167------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 doing that. 2 A Maybe it was Judge Quesada. But in any case, you 3 know, about half an hour before the judge ordered that 4 nothing could be taken out of the LMT, we're getting the 5 hard drives out of the computers and shipping them off. I 6 mean, you know -- 7 Q But why? I guess I just -- I'm just beside myself 8 trying to figure out why? Was there something illegal about 9 LMT? And I'm talking now about was it doing drugs, was it 10 doing some criminal activity, was there something wrong with 11 it? 12 A No, your Honor. 13 Q It was set up to -- to -- to be what? An 14 anti-Scientology organization? 15 A It was set up to expose the deceptive and abusive 16 processes of Scientology. 17 Q Okay. And then -- so there was nothing illegal 18 about that. 19 A No. 20 Q I mean, that's free speech. It was set up as a 21 for-profit organization, as I remember. If there was an 22 agreement, if there was an agreement that said that, golly, 23 if the aunts of Lisa McPherson got a bundle of money, 24 they'll contribute to this group so that they would have 25 some money, there isn't anything illegal about that, that 0168------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 you knew of? 2 A Right. 3 Q Well, then what in the -- what in the hell were 4 you hiding stuff for? 5 A Because Mr. Dandar was so adamant about not 6 letting Scientology delve into the connection between the 7 LMT and the case. He was so adamant about -- 8 Q Well, you're a smart woman. 9 A Yeah. Well -- 10 Q You sit here today, and I'm listening to you and 11 you're as bright as you can be. You're a smart, bright 12 woman. If he had said that to you, didn't you ever say, 13 "We're crazy and we're not going to lie and put ourselves in 14 jeopardy for your crazy thoughts? I'm not going to do it 15 and Bob's not going to do it." I mean, you know, it's hard 16 for me to envision, ma'am, why you'd lie, destroy things 17 about an entity that's legal. 18 And you must understand that this is 19 extraordinarily frustrating for a court. Why you'd lie 20 about an entity that's, as far as I know, legal, about money 21 that might be coming to it which is legal. I don't know any 22 reason in the world why a smart person like you -- and I 23 have to guess Mr. Minton's a smart man -- would lie, destroy 24 stuff, subject yourself to the -- to the wrath of the court, 25 for what? Mr. Dandar and his -- his supposition that this 0169------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 was going to hurt the case? 2 A Yes, your Honor. 3 Q You believed him? 4 A No. You see, you have to understand. It goes 5 back to the thing that I was telling you about before, which 6 is the state of mind of the fraternity of critics; that, you 7 know -- 8 Q Who -- who is in that fraternity? I mean, the 9 ones that I know of that are connected with this case. 10 Jesse Prince? 11 A Yeah. 12 Q You? 13 A Yeah. 14 Q Your ex-husband? 15 A Yeah. Lots of other people. The people -- the 16 people that are named in paragraph -- let me see. 17 Q Can you include Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and 18 Mr. Garko in that, Scientology critics? 19 A Mr. Minton. 20 Q The fraternity? 21 A Mr. Minton. 22 Q Okay. 23 A On paragraph 18. 24 Q Okay. 25 A There's a bunch of people named in there. There's 0170------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 some others that are in the courtroom right now. You know, 2 and these people could feel that right now what I'm doing 3 right now is so treasonous; you know, they are so mad at me 4 for getting up here and telling the truth about this stuff, 5 I can't even begin to tell you. 6 Q Who are they? 7 A Because I have sold out the Lisa McPherson case; I 8 have sold out Ken Dandar, who is the hero of the critic 9 community, because he's the attorney for the Lisa McPherson 10 case. And -- and that is the perspective that this group of 11 people has. We were part of this group of people. And the 12 idea that I would sit there in front of Kendrick Moxon, you 13 know, who is the enemy, and -- and give him our documents 14 out of the Lisa McPherson Trust or that -- you know, that we 15 would actually tell him the truth about what we were 16 doing -- it just wasn't an option. 17 I mean, it just -- it was -- you know, we were 18 part of a very, very, very tightknit group of people with a 19 very, very strong purpose: To destroy Scientology. And it 20 was -- it was a cause. It was a cause. And you know, 21 Mr. Dandar took advantage of that, I feel. And -- and put 22 Mr. -- Mr. Minton and me in a position where we were 23 basically being held hostage to this case. Because he knew 24 we had lied in deposition; he knew that these things had 25 happened. I was begging him to stop asking Mr. Minton for 0171------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 any more money. I was begging him to -- to let us go. He 2 wouldn't do it. Finally in -- finally in August, 2001 -- 3 Q Why didn't you go back to New Hampshire, wherever 4 Mr. Minton is, and say, "See ya, sayonara, bye." 5 A Why didn't he do that? 6 Q Yeah. Why didn't you both do that. 7 A Well, I -- okay. So now, starting August 15th, 8 2001 was when this nightmare started to get really bad for 9 me. Because there was a deposition -- 10 Q Now we're up to August, 2000 -- 11 A Now we're almost done. There was a deposition of 12 me, and it was in Tampa, and I think Mr. Moxon was the 13 attorney. He usually was. And Mr. Dandar and Mr. -- 14 Dr. Garko were also in this deposition. And Judge Beach was 15 in the deposition. And this was -- and I had been 16 ordered -- subpoenaed to bring all kind of records. And I 17 appeared in this and I walked into this deposition and I 18 didn't bring anything. I don't think I brought -- maybe I 19 brought some -- you know, something, but nothing substantive 20 at all. And -- 21 Judge Beach sat there in that deposition and told 22 me that if he ordered me to turn over documents and I didn't 23 do it, he was going to put me in jail. 24 Well, I went to the moon. I was so scared. 25 'Cause, you know, it really finally hit me, you know, what 0172------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 kind of -- what kind of situation that we were really 2 putting ourselves in. You know, we were about to go to jail 3 for this case. And -- and even if we did go to jail for the 4 case, it wasn't going to save the case, because it was 5 already so off the rails with all of this stuff that was 6 going on. 7 Q Did you ever, in your smartest -- I mean, as I 8 said, I look at you and I look at you as a -- as a bright 9 woman who is very articulate, who -- who I don't know what 10 your level of education, but you certainly sound like -- did 11 it ever occur to you that once you said -- took the tack 12 that you're taking now, which is boy, this is a bunch of 13 lies, that somebody like me might not be most upset? 14 A You know, your Honor -- 15 Q Or did you think that I'd say, "Well, finally 16 we're all getting to the truth of this" and I'd just be 17 happy as a clam? I mean, did you ever think -- 18 A I thought -- I'll tell you what I thought. I 19 thought that I was in a very, very untenable position. 20 Because now I was faced with a choice. Either I could start 21 telling the truth -- and in my mind, that was going to 22 derail the case. Mr. Dandar was telling Mr. Minton at every 23 opportunity that it would derail the case. Don't tell them 24 about those checks. Don't tell them about the secret 25 agreement. You know, so -- so either we could tell the 0173------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 truth and derail this thing, which was, you know, considered 2 by the critic community to be -- to be the symbol of, you 3 know, truth and justice for Lisa McPherson and against 4 Scientology. 5 And you know -- and you know, by now I was feeling 6 very differently about it. But Mr. Minton was still feeling 7 that way. 8 And -- and so either we could start telling the 9 truth and derail the case or we could go to jail. And from 10 August 15th forward, that's the way I started seeing it. 11 And so I went up to New Hampshire after that 12 deposition, and I asked Mr. Minton if I could please call 13 Dell Liebreich and tell her what was going on. 14 Q When was this, ma'am? 15 A This was later in August. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I think. 18 Q 2001? 19 A 2001. It was after that deposition, because I was 20 so freaked out. 21 And you know, I said, There is no way Dell 22 Liebreich knows that this is going on. If she knew this was 23 going on, she would never allow it to happen. She will drop 24 this case. Because you know, the only way we could get out 25 of it was for -- for the case to get dropped. Otherwise, 0174------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 you know, we were going to go to jail, or the case was going 2 to get derailed and be a mess, or -- you know, the only way 3 it could -- could end cleanly would be to drop it, you know. 4 And so Bob said, you know, "Shoot, they won't drop 5 it," you know, whatever. I said, you know, "You got to let 6 me try." 7 Well, you know, it -- Bob -- Mr. Minton's attitude 8 was, "She already knows everything that's going on and she's 9 not going to drop the case to save me or you." 10 Well, I called her and -- 11 And I had discussed this earlier with Jesse Prince 12 and Teresa Summers, who were -- was another woman who used 13 to work at the LMT. And I told her -- 14 Q "Discussed this." We're talking about -- 15 A The idea of calling Dell -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A -- and asking her to do this. 18 And -- but in any case, so I called her and -- and 19 I asked her if we could meet. I asked -- actually, I -- I 20 believe I asked her if I could fly to Texas to talk to her. 21 And she said, "Well, will Ken be there?" And I said, "Well, 22 I'd really prefer to talk to you alone." And she said, 23 "Well, okay. Come on then." Or something like that. 24 Q When was this call, do you remember? 25 A This was later in August of 2001. 0175------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q After -- sometime in August, but after your 2 deposition? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. 5 A And then she called me back. I mean, you know, I 6 was so nervous doing this. This was like -- this was so -- 7 I mean, for the critic community, for me to call Dell 8 Liebreich and ask her to drop the wrongful death case was 9 the most horrific thing I could possibly do. And so I was 10 very nervous about this. But I felt like we had to do it, 11 because I was -- you know, by this time I had had many, 12 many, many conversations with Mr. Dandar in which I had told 13 him that it was a terrible thing, what he was doing; that he 14 was continuing this thing at -- at the risk -- and putting 15 Mr. Minton at such a risk. 16 Q Did you ask him to call Ms. Liebreich and drop the 17 case? Did you ask him to drop the case? 18 A Yes. I had talked to him about it. And he 19 said -- you know, "This is -- this is a just and noble thing 20 that we're doing, and this has to continue forward. We have 21 to get justice for Lisa McPherson." And you know, all this 22 pious thing, that, by then, I didn't feel had anything 23 whatsoever to do with his motivation in this case. 24 So I called her and I asked her this. And you 25 know, this was a fairly major threshold that I'd crossed in 0176------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 this whole process. Because at that point, I became 2 deliberately and consciously against this lawsuit. And -- 3 and then she called back and said, "No, no, no. We can't do 4 it. I talked to Ken and, you know, he doesn't want me to 5 talk to you and I don't want to talk to you." And -- and, 6 you know, she was very distraught. 7 Q You didn't ask her to drop -- you had just asked 8 to meet with her alone -- 9 A Right. 10 Q -- and she said she could not do that. 11 A Right. 12 Q Okay. 13 A Right. 14 Q Did you tell her why you wanted to meet with her? 15 A No. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I didn't. But later I had a conversation with Ken 18 Dandar, which was that -- you know, "I knew you wanted to 19 talk to her about dropping the case, and I told her not to 20 talk to you about that." And, you know, let me tell you, 21 she knows everything that's going on in this case and -- 22 Q But you're past where we need to go. That's for 23 another time, for another question. 24 A Okay. Sorry. 25 Okay. So then when that happened, then I said, 0177------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 you know, these people -- I mean, Mr. Dandar and 2 Ms. Liebreich do not care what happens to Bob Minton or me. 3 And -- and -- and I said that to Bob Minton. And I said, 4 "You have got -- we have got to distance ourself from this 5 case in every possible way. I've got to tell Jesse to 6 withdraw as an expert witness; you have got to stop giving 7 him any more money. I'm withdrawing as a witness. We have 8 to -- we have to withdraw in every way we possibly can to -- 9 so that the court will stop letting Scientology depose us 10 and get discovery of us." 11 And so -- and so Mr. Minton and I called Jesse 12 Prince and told him that he had to withdraw as an expert 13 witness immediately. That day. And he did. 14 Q This was the same day as you made the phone call 15 to Ms. Liebreich? 16 A The next day. The next day, because I called her 17 at night. And then Mr. Minton and I talked about this into 18 the night, trying to figure out what to do. 19 And it -- you know, it still wasn't an option that 20 we were going to come in to court and start recanting. It 21 just wasn't. 22 It just wasn't. 23 We were going to try to distance ourselves from it 24 so that we could get protection so that it could move 25 forward without hurting us. 0178------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 And so then -- 2 THE COURT: Feel free to step into the 3 question, if you want, but it seems like she's 4 giving a narrative that goes to the issue, so -- 5 MR. FUGATE: Better than I asking questions, 6 your Honor. 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q Okay. 9 A So then Mr. Dandar decided to file a motion for 10 severe sanctions against Scientology for -- because his 11 expert witnesses had had to withdraw, because he was in such 12 fear of Scientology. 13 Well, so then he has Mr. Prince -- he -- he draws 14 up an affidavit from Mr. Prince which basically summarizes 15 his trial that he had just -- the criminal trial that 16 Mr. Prince had just gone through for drugs. And basically 17 Mr. Dandar did a motion that, you know, described that whole 18 thing and that Scientology was setting up as expert. And so 19 because of that Mr. Prince withdrew in fear of more 20 harassment, stuff like that. 21 Well, Mr. Prince withdrew because Mr. Minton and I 22 told him to. 23 MR. LIROT: Objection. This is all -- she's 24 not competent for anything why Mr. Prince withdrew. 25 THE COURT: Well, she's competent to say what 0179------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 she told Mr. Prince, and then we'll hear from 2 Mr. Prince, I guess. 3 BY THE COURT: 4 Q What did you tell Mr. Prince as far as -- 5 A I said, "Jesse, you've got to withdraw it, you've 6 got to resign from this case immediately. You know, you've 7 got to write a letter to Ken telling him that you're 8 withdrawing as an expert witness right away." Well, you 9 know -- okay -- 10 Q And then you said that this affidavit -- did you 11 see the affidavit -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- that Mr. Prince signed? 14 A After he signed it, he brought it in and showed it 15 to me and -- 16 Q When was that? And where? 17 A In my office in the LMT -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A You know, it must have been in September. Because 20 all of these things happened in pretty rapid succession by 21 now. 22 And -- I can't remember what else I was going to 23 say about that, but in any case -- 24 THE COURT: You can stop if you want and you 25 can go on to whatever question you want. 0180------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 The -- I don't want the record to suggest that 2 this witness knows what the motion for severe 3 sanctions is all about. Quite frankly, that's not 4 how I read the motion for severe sanctions. 5 It was because of what Mr. Dandar alleged was 6 wrongdoing on the part of the church as it pertained 7 to Mr. Prince. And my -- my order, which has yet to 8 be signed, that -- because we can't seem to agree on 9 the order because I was, quite frankly, trying to 10 make it fairly to keep the peace -- was because I 11 had found that the church had -- had acted 12 improperly in that criminal episode against 13 Mr. Prince. That's the order regarding severe 14 sanctions that I mean to sign when I can get around 15 it to. 16 That was what they said. As far as Mr. Prince 17 and his -- his reason for not being a witness, I 18 never bought it. Didn't buy it at that hearing, 19 don't buy it to this day. I think that if 20 Mr. Dandar wants to use Mr. Prince as a witness in 21 this case, he'll testify gladly. 22 I've said it before, I'll say it again: If 23 he -- if he can stand the baggage when this case 24 goes to trial -- by that I mean the lawyer -- 25 whoever the lawyer might be for the case, well, I 0181------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 believe, Mr. Prince will be here with bells on. 2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the significance of it is, 3 as far as I'm concerned, not direct -- 4 THE COURT: That's not important. It certainly 5 isn't important in front of this witness. You can 6 tell me at the close of the case. 7 I just didn't want the record to suggest that 8 whatever this witness thinks about anything is 9 necessarily what it was or what was presented to 10 this court. She wasn't here. She doesn't know. 11 She doesn't know what argument was made. She 12 certainly doesn't know about my order, which hasn't 13 been signed yet. So, you know. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q Well, what -- did you direct -- did you and 17 Mr. Minton direct Mr. Prince to no longer be an expert 18 witness for Mr. Dandar? 19 A Yes. We ordered him to resign immediately. 20 Q And was he still being paid by funds from either 21 Mr. Minton or LMT at this point in history? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And did he tell you that he had withdrawn as an 24 expert witness? 25 A Yes. 0182------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q And did you -- when I say you, LMT or Mr. Minton, 2 continue to pay him? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And did until when? 5 A Well, the last time he got paid was a check from 6 me on April 4th of this year. 7 Q And so he had showed -- all you're saying is he 8 showed you an affidavit saying he was withdrawing for a 9 different reason, and you didn't believe -- I take it you 10 didn't believe that reason to be true. 11 A No. That's not what happened. 12 Q Okay. What happened? 13 A He showed me an affidavit which detailed his 14 criminal trial. And the thing that was upsetting about the 15 affidavit was that all through his criminal trial he'd never 16 admitted to drug use, but now with Mr. Dandar having him 17 sign an affidavit in which he admits drug use -- you know, 18 and he didn't get found not guilty in that criminal trial; 19 he got null-prossed. 20 And so Mr. Minton and I had a fit that he'd signed 21 this thing. 22 THE COURT: What happened? Was that a hung 23 jury? 24 THE WITNESS: It was a hung jury. 25 MR. FUGATE: Hung jury. 0183------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: And they elected to drop it. 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It was a mistrial. 3 MR. FUGATE: That's what I understand. 4 THE COURT: I'd forgotten. 5 A So, you know, "Really, Jesse, are you nuts? 6 You've just totally exposed yourself to reprosecution on 7 this thing if somebody decides that's what they want to do." 8 And so Jesse had a fit and he's all, "Oh, my God. I didn't 9 realize that. That's terrible. We have to go talk to Denis 10 DeVlaming," you know, and this whole thing. 11 That's what the affidavit was about. It was 12 about, you know, this whole, you know, thing of his drugs. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q But it also said something about his withdrawing 15 because he was fearful of harassment and no longer wanted to 16 be an expert for Mr. Dandar. Did you know that to be the 17 case? 18 MR. LIROT: Leading question, Judge. 19 THE COURT: Sustained. 20 MR. FUGATE: Let's move on, Judge, so we can -- 21 THE COURT: Good. Thank you. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Ms. -- 24 THE COURT: The part of the affidavit that 25 Mr. Prince signed that dealt with what -- what 0184------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Prince alleged had happened to him in his 2 criminal trial as far as impropriety on the part of 3 the church, is that the part you're saying is false 4 or is what you're saying is false is that part where 5 he stated under oath why he wanted to withdraw as a 6 witness because he was afraid? 7 THE WITNESS: Right. That part. 8 THE COURT: That part? 9 THE WITNESS: That part. 10 THE COURT: The first part, you're not 11 suggesting was false. 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: No. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q At or about this same time frame that this 17 affidavit by Mr. Prince was signed, had Mr. Minton, to your 18 knowledge, communicated to Mr. Dandar that he wasn't going 19 to fund him anymore? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And did there come a time in that -- I think if 22 I'm correct, where I think we are is August, September of 23 2001 -- did there come a time after that where you know that 24 Mr. Minton gave additional funding to Mr. Dandar? 25 A Yes. 0185------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Can you tell us about that? 2 A Can -- I just want to mention one thing that 3 happened in October with Judge Baird that led up to this. 4 Q All right. 5 A The first time that Mr. Minton started to get that 6 his commitment to the case began to crack, I suppose would 7 be the way to put it, was in October of 2001 when Judge 8 Baird almost put him in jail. And he was evading discovery 9 and trying everything he could think of to keep from having 10 to answer these questions in deposition about these checks 11 and all this stuff. And you know, to the point where at one 12 point he refused to even go to Florida to testify in the 13 deposition. And I went into that hearing -- 14 THE COURT: I really don't think we have to go 15 here. No, you can't go there. You're going to 16 answer his question. Move to your question. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Well, was there a time -- and this will get to the 20 next question -- was there a time when Mr. Minton took the 21 Fifth Amendment or invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege in 22 some deposition or a deposition? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And was there ever a discussion about the 25 questions that he had invoked the Fifth Amendment on, with 0186------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Dandar, that you were present? 2 A Yes. With regard to the checks. 3 Q Can you tell us about that? When and where was 4 it? 5 A We were in New Hampshire. 6 Q And approximately when was it? 7 A As I recall. 8 Sometime in the fall of 2001. Perhaps September. 9 Early October. I don't remember when his deposition was 10 exactly. 11 Q And what was the discussion? 12 A Mr. Minton was saying -- 13 MR. LIROT: Who was the discussion with? 14 THE COURT: Mr. Minton -- 15 THE WITNESS: Mr. -- 16 THE COURT: And Mr. Dandar, I think she -- 17 I'm sorry. Maybe she didn't say. Who was the 18 discussion with? 19 MR. FUGATE: I thought she did, but -- 20 THE COURT: I thought she did. 21 MR. FUGATE: -- who was the discussion with? 22 THE WITNESS: It was with the three of us. I 23 was in the room with Mr. Minton. 24 EXAMINATION 25 0187------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY THE COURT: 2 Q And all you said was the Fifth Amendment regarding 3 the checks. I don't know what checks we're talking about? 4 What checks? 5 A There were two checks that Mr. Minton gave to 6 Mr. Dandar. 7 Q The $500,000 check and the 250 -- 8 A I'm sorry, there was one check at that time. 9 Q One check. Okay. 10 A It was the 500,000. 11 Q So I know what check you're talking about now. 12 A Yeah. 13 And you know, Mr. Dandar said, "Just concentrate 14 on the checks you wrote. Just concentrate on the checks you 15 wrote." 16 Well, I understood that to mean and Mr. Minton 17 understood that to mean that -- 18 Q Don't tell us what Mr. Minton understood it to 19 mean. You can tell us what you understood it to mean and 20 anything he may have said, but you can't get inside his 21 head. 22 A Okay. I understood it to mean that he was not to 23 talk about that $500,000 check. So Mr. Minton went into the 24 deposition and pled the Fifth Amendment on those questions 25 and a number of other questions. 0188------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Who told him to do that, if you know? If you 2 know. If you don't know, you don't know. 3 A Well, I believe it was a decision between 4 Mr. Dandar and Mr. Merritt, but I don't know for sure. 5 Q Okay. Well, you seem to be normally around 6 Mr. Minton. 7 A Right. 8 Q Did Mr. Minton get a phone call from someone or -- 9 or what? I mean -- 10 A Well -- 11 Q Were you party to that -- privy to this 12 conversation? 13 A He spoke on the phone with Mr. Dandar and 14 Mr. Merrett. 15 MR. FUGATE: He being Mr. Minton? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 About what by now was a pretty serious effort 18 to avoid answering these questions. 19 BY THE COURT: 20 Q Why -- okay. Tell me this: We just talked about 21 how foolish it was to -- I hope you realize now how foolish 22 it was -- 23 A Yes, your Honor, I do. 24 Q -- to try to hide this agreement and try to hide 25 whatever this -- if it was legitimate, if -- if LMT was 0189------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 legitimate -- I don't know if it was or not. You said it 2 was -- but if it was and if there was nothing wrong with the 3 agreement, how silly it was to tell a bunch of lies about 4 that. 5 What's the deal with the checks? What's -- why is 6 somebody going to take the Fifth Amendment over a check? 7 Why is somebody not going to talk about a check? What in 8 Mr. Minton's mind or your mind, when you and he talked, was 9 wrong with that? 10 A With the check? 11 Q Where you lie about it, take the Fifth Amendment. 12 Fifth Amendment says I'm going not going to incriminate 13 myself. What was the problem with him writing a check to 14 Mr. Dandar for $500,000? 15 A Well, in fact, there wasn't anything wrong with 16 it. But Mr. Dandar was trying to downplay -- this is my 17 understanding -- two things -- 18 Q Well, were you there when Mr. Dandar talked to 19 Mr. Minton about it? 20 A Yes. But not -- but this is my understanding -- 21 Q Okay. 22 A -- this isn't what he said. 23 Q Well, that may -- we better hear what he said. 24 A What he said was, "Just testify about the checks 25 you wrote." 0190------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Okay. Now, I guess what I'm asking you now, then, 2 is, why would anybody think there's something wrong with it? 3 Criminal. Criminal. Fifth Amendment, we think of as 4 somebody saying, "I don't want to incriminate myself." 5 A Well, I can tell you that Mr. Dandar told 6 Mr. Minton that he hadn't told the court about it and so 7 Mr. Minton shouldn't tell the court about it either. He had 8 also -- he also told Mr. Minton that he hadn't told his 9 trial team about this money and that he was telling his 10 trial team that he was using money out of his retirement 11 fund to fund the case and that he didn't want them to know 12 that he was getting this money from Mr. Minton. 13 Q So Mr. Minton was willing to lie to a court of law 14 to keep Mr. Dandar's employees from finding out about a 15 check? 16 A No. No. But -- 17 Q Does Mr. Minton care that little for the truth? 18 A No. No. But again, he was trying to protect 19 Mr. Dandar; he was trying to protect the case. It took 20 quite an enormous amount of pressure being put on him and me 21 for us to make the decision to break with the critic 22 community and come forward and tell the truth. It took an 23 enormous, enormous amount of pressure on us to -- to -- 24 Q Pressure brought on you by whom? 25 A By the courts, by -- by the courts. You know, 0191------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 this is why I was bringing up this thing about Judge Baird 2 in October. Because Mr. Minton was so distraught about the 3 possibility that Judge Baird was going to put him in jail 4 for contempt for all of his discovery abuse that he began to 5 crack about this whole situation. And so that by December, 6 when Mr. Dandar again approached him for more funding and -- 7 you know, really Mr. Minton and I, by that time, were 8 basically staying in his house in New Hampshire and never 9 going out. You know, we were so -- we were in such a state 10 of fear about this situation that we had now gotten 11 ourselves into. 12 And also all of the attacks that were happening 13 from the critics because of Mr. Minton no longer funding the 14 wrongful death case. 15 Q But he was funding the wrongful death case. 16 A No. He had said in -- he had informed Mr. Dandar 17 in August or September that he was no longer going to fund 18 the case. And Mr. Dandar -- 19 MR. FUGATE: Of 2001? 20 THE WITNESS: Of 2001. I'm sorry. 21 A And Mr. Dandar had these people on the Internet 22 that he was having post -- 23 MR. LIROT: Objection. Foundation. 24 A This is my -- this was his belief and my belief. 25 THE COURT: All right. Then I'll sustain. If 0192------------------------------------------------------------------ ||||| From: Anonymous User Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- testimony day one (afternoon) A Message-ID: <5b92a6ee5e426f6ad65c08fe9bf5759b@remailer.havenco.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 2203 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550820 comp.org.eff.talk:105644 misc.legal:433670 64 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 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 Robert S. Minton. 17 DATE: May 17, 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 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 65 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. KENDRICK MOXON 6 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 7 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 8 Organization. 9 MR. LEE FUGATE and 10 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 11 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 12 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 13 14 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 15 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 17 18 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor 19 New York, New York 10003 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 20 Organization. 21 22 23 24 25 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 66 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 MR. BRUCE HOWIE 3 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. 4 Attorney for Robert Minton. 5 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 Mr. Rick Spector 8 Ms. Sarah Heller Mr. Ben Shaw 9 Mr. Brian Asay Ms. Joyce Earl 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 67 1 THE COURT: We are ready to go now, I hope. 2 You may proceed. 3 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, your Honor. May it 4 please the Court. 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Mr. Minton, we've gone through generically the 8 funding that you can recall in terms of your 9 anti-Scientology litigation funding. And let me ask you 10 this question. Did there come a time when you wanted to 11 direct your attention to Florida. And, if there was, could 12 you tell us how that happened? 13 A I'm -- 14 Q I don't know if that makes sense. 15 A I'm not really understanding your question. I'm 16 sorry. 17 Q Well, did there come a time when you came to 18 Florida and became engaged in any litigation in Florida? 19 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying not to lead, Judge. 20 A Well, you know, I was already engaged in 21 litigation in Florida before I came here with respect to the 22 wrongful death case. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q Well, then let me ask you this. How did that 25 happen? How is it you were already engaged in litigation in Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 68 1 Florida? 2 A Well, back in October of 1997 -- well, you know, I 3 have to go back a little bit. You know, obviously sometime 4 in early 1997, I think it was February, this case was filed. 5 And in March, March 9 of 1997 -- 6 Q "This case" being the wrongful death case? 7 A The wrongful death case, yes. I met Mr. Dandar 8 for the first time at a meeting at the Holiday Inn in 9 Clearwater out on Route 19. He was having a meeting there 10 with Lawrence Wollersheim. And I was in Wollersheim's room 11 while this meeting took place. And I didn't participate in 12 this meeting other than sitting there listening. 13 You know, Wollersheim had some expertise in terms 14 of litigating against Scientology. I think now he's been 15 involved in it over 20 years. And Mr. Dandar was interested 16 in Wollersheim's slant on how he could, you know, deal with 17 this wrongful death case. 18 And so I just listened to this conversation. 19 Q How is it that you happened to be in Florida in a 20 Holiday Inn room with Larry Wollersheim? 21 A Well, this was a picket that was arranged in March 22 of '97 to -- 23 Q A picket of what? 24 A A picket of the Church of Scientology. You know, 25 critics from -- you know, not a lot of critics, but a few Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 69 1 people came to -- to Florida for this picket. And the 2 reason I remember the date of March 9 is this was the day 3 there was an article in the New York Times, a lengthy 4 article in the New York Times, about Scientology's tax 5 exemption. And so that is how I got here for this picket. 6 You know, I met Dandar. 7 I didn't have any further contact with Dandar 8 until about October of 1997 when, Mmm, you know, I contacted 9 him because I was aware that, you know, he was the attorney 10 on this case. I had been previously financing this 11 Wollersheim case, which was, you know, a really kind of slow 12 boat to nowhere, it seemed, at the time. 13 And, you know, in terms of the focal point of any 14 sort of anti-Scientology activities, you know, this case 15 seemed like, you know, the flag -- sort of the banner of the 16 whole anti-Scientology movement. And I offered to give 17 Dandar -- you know, to the estate, $100,000 in October 6, I 18 think it was, of 1997. 19 Q That would be the first check that we referenced a 20 few moments ago, which is the October 6, 1997 -- 21 A 93A, I think, right? 22 Q 93A? 23 A Yes. That is correct. 24 Q Now, had you -- and if you could date it, fine. 25 Did you -- when you say that this was sort of the banner Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 70 1 case as far as you were concerned, did it have any appeal to 2 you for that reason? Or if it did, could you explain? 3 A Well, yes, it did. I mean, it had appeal. The 4 appeal was that, you know, here was a chance to really nail 5 Scientology. And, you know, this is -- you know, it looked 6 like -- you know, the way it had been portrayed up to this 7 point, it looked like this was an open and shut case, you 8 know, it wasn't going to take forever to deal with it. And, 9 you know, the absolute maximum amount of negative publicity 10 that could possibly be had anywhere would be through this 11 case. 12 Q Negative publicity against -- 13 A Against Scientology. 14 Q And did you have any discussions with Mr. Dandar 15 about what sort of return you thought the case may generate 16 in terms of dollars? 17 A Not right at that point. Later in December of '97 18 I did. And, you know, he was talking in the neighborhood of 19 eighty to a hundred million. 20 Q This is what Mr. Dandar told you he was expecting 21 the case would bring? 22 A What he expected the case was worth. 23 Q And do you recall whether you made similar 24 comments about that to the press, or postings? 25 A I did. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 71 1 Q And I'm assuming at that point in history you 2 believed that was true? 3 A Mmm, yes. I did. 4 Q Now, when -- well, let's say did there come a time 5 when you entered into any sort of understanding or agreement 6 with anyone with regard to your funding the banner case, as 7 you called it? 8 A Well, you know, starting at the beginning, 9 October 6, 1997 when I sent this check off to Mr. Dandar, 10 you know, he -- he told me at the time, before I sent the 11 check, that he had discussed -- that he had checked with the 12 Florida Bar about this, that this was totally okay, you 13 know. 14 You know, I checked with my own attorney in Boston 15 before sending off this check. He said, "That's fine. 16 Mr. Dandar said you can't have any control over the 17 litigation, you know. You won't receive any confidential 18 information. Fine." 19 And he put that in a letter, you know, after he 20 had talked to the Florida Bar. 21 And the terms of that agreement were that these 22 would be loans to the estate of Lisa McPherson, and they 23 would be repaid only if the estate of Lisa McPherson 24 collected enough money in this case to cover their basic 25 costs and return to me the moneys that I advanced to cover Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 72 1 the costs in the case, exclusive of any interest. There 2 wasn't any interest element to it. 3 Q And that agreement, as you have just described it, 4 who was a party to that communication, as you just described 5 it to the Court? 6 A Just Mr. Dandar and myself, you know. But he said 7 that he had, you know, discussed this with his client, Dell 8 Liebreich, and that, you know, it was okay from her 9 standpoint. 10 I think he told me at the time that he needed to 11 get consent from his client, and he did, according to what 12 he told me. 13 Q And I'm jumping ahead, I know. But did there come 14 a time when you had any discussions with his client, that 15 is, the personal representative, Dell Liebreich? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And can you tell us about that -- I know I'm 18 jumping ahead -- but just for the purpose of where we're at 19 here? 20 A Mmm, well, there were a number of discussions 21 which were principally around the time that -- that the 22 family would come down here for the annual pickets against 23 Scientology, you know, on or about the anniversary date of 24 Lisa McPherson's death, which was December 5th. 25 And there were -- there were another couple of Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 73 1 times, I'm not sure what time of year they were, they were 2 fairly hot -- one of them was a fairly hot time of the year, 3 and they were staying in a hotel in Tampa over near 4 Mr. Dandar's office. 5 And I remember that was the first time that -- the 6 reason I remember that one is that was the first time Ann 7 Carlson or Lee Skelton had seen the autopsy photos, the 8 complete set of autopsy photos, which they asked me to show 9 them. 10 Q You had them? 11 A Yes. This was after they were released. This 12 wasn't prerelease dates. 13 Q And for the record, Ann Carlson and Lee Skelton 14 are who, to your knowledge? 15 A They are Dell Liebreich's sisters. And I think 16 they are -- the three of them and one other person, who I 17 don't think I have met, are the beneficiaries of the estate. 18 Q My question was, though, back to the question, was 19 did there come a time when you had an agreement with either 20 Dell Liebreich or other family members about -- 21 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Leading. 22 THE COURT: Go ahead. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q -- about your funding the litigation, and whether 25 or not there would be any return? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 74 1 MR. DANDAR: Same objection. 2 THE COURT: Overruled. You can say yes or no 3 to that. 4 A Yes. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Can you describe to the Court what that 7 understanding or agreement was? 8 A Well, are you just talking about the loans? 9 Q Let me just leave it with a yes. And I'll come 10 back to that. I want to move ahead. 11 A Okay. 12 THE COURT: Well, I would like to know the 13 answer to that. 14 MR. FUGATE: All right. 15 THE COURT: This agreement that you indicated 16 you had with Mr. Dandar about the money that you 17 gave and what would be returned to you over the 18 money that you gave to the estate -- 19 THE WITNESS: Yes? 20 THE COURT: -- did you have any agreement with 21 the -- Ms. Liebreich or anybody else about that? Or 22 was that just between you and Ken? 23 THE WITNESS: Well, that was just between me 24 and Mr. Dandar at that time, when we first entered 25 in it. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 75 1 But he said, you know, he had to get consent 2 from his client to -- to do this, to enter into 3 this, to accept any money from anybody who wasn't a 4 part of the family to finance this case. 5 THE COURT: And I think somewhere in the 6 materials, perhaps it's something that has been 7 filed in this case by the Church, there was a 8 letter -- wasn't there a letter that he sent to this 9 witness? 10 MR. FUGATE: There is -- there is a letter that 11 Mr. Dandar sent. And then there is a handwritten -- 12 THE COURT: There is a handwritten letter from 13 Mr. Minton to Mr. Dandar. I think they call it the 14 Kleenex box or something. 15 THE WITNESS: Right. 16 THE COURT: Then there is a letter from 17 Mr. Dandar to Mr. Minton. Do you know what I'm 18 talking about? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, your Honor. I do. 20 THE COURT: That letter -- I take it in that 21 letter he -- whatever it was he said in that letter, 22 when you got it, did that comport with the 23 understanding that you thought you and Mr. Dandar 24 had made? 25 THE WITNESS: I thought it was a little skimpy, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 76 1 but I was willing to live with it, yes, the way it 2 was. 3 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to come back and go 4 through those at a point, Judge, unless -- 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Did you -- did you consider -- how did you 8 consider your money that you were putting into the case from 9 your perspective, sir? 10 A Well, you know, I -- I looked at it as -- as a way 11 to further the entire anti-Scientology activities that I was 12 involved in. 13 Q And did you look at it as an opportunity to get a 14 return on your investment? 15 THE COURT: You really do have to be careful 16 about leading here. You asked him what he thought 17 of it and he told us. Your next question needs to 18 be, "Anything else?" Don't be suggesting things to 19 this witness. 20 MR. FUGATE: I apologize, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Not especially in the areas that 22 are at issue in this case, this hearing that I'm 23 having. 24 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, I actually have 25 got -- I'm going to come back to that point, and I Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 77 1 was just going to ask about -- 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q Really, what did you expect to get with regard to 4 your funding? 5 A Well, as I mentioned -- you know, there were 6 several things. But as I mentioned, you know, the first 7 thing is that this was the sort of flagship case to be used 8 to illustrate how terrible Scientology was. And certainly 9 anyone who was anywhere near this case or ever read about it 10 expected that this would be a huge black eye for 11 Scientology. 12 You know, I made a suggestion to Mr. Dandar 13 shortly after, you know, this October 6, 1997 check, and 14 I -- I think it was December 1 or thereabouts, at the Tampa 15 Club in Tampa when he took me to lunch one day when I came 16 down here for this annual picket, that -- well, because at 17 the time, Scientology was making a lot of statements that, 18 you know, that Ken Dandar was an ambulance-chasing attorney, 19 and Dell Liebreich was a money-grubbing old woman that had 20 no connections to Lisa McPherson, yet they were, you know, 21 trying for this -- you know, the big bucks in this case. 22 And I said, well, you know, it would make sense to 23 diffuse that type of rhetoric that was coming out of 24 Scientology for the estate to agree to give the bulk of the 25 money they get, or substantial part I think is what we Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 78 1 talked about at that time, a substantial part of that money 2 to an anti-cult group, especially one that was focused on 3 Scientology. 4 Q Did you have anything in mind at that time? 5 A I did. I mean, you know, FACTNet was an 6 organization which I was -- had already been elected to 7 their board of directors and went into effect from 8 December 15, 1997, but this was back on December 1, but I'd 9 been elected to it. 10 And, you know, clearly in my own mind, that was -- 11 that was the target of the estate's future largesse with 12 respect to the proceeds of this case. 13 Q And I interrupted you. You had discussions with 14 Mr. Dandar about that? 15 A Right. He said this was an idea he already had 16 and that, you know, he was going to discuss this with the 17 family and, you know, he said he would get back to me about 18 that. 19 Q Had you, by this point in time, discussed your 20 feelings about Scientology with Mr. Dandar? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And at this point in history, what were your 23 feelings about Scientology? 24 A Well, you know, I really didn't like Scientology. 25 Q Did you -- did you ask Mr. Dandar what his Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 79 1 feelings were? Or did he share those feelings, I guess? 2 A Mr. Dandar, as recently as March of this year -- 3 you know, I don't think there is anybody I know who hates 4 them more than he does. 5 Q Now, back in this point in time we've heard some 6 testimony -- when I say back at this point in time, I should 7 say, generically, I guess, there has been an exhibit that 8 was introduced through Ms. Brooks which was her posting, I 9 think it was described as a harassment time line -- 10 A Right. 11 Q -- that came into evidence. 12 13 MR. FUGATE: If I may approach the witness, 14 your Honor. 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q I'll ask you if you were, during this period of 18 time, making postings of your own? 19 A Yes, I was, pretty much throughout the -- you 20 know, the first postings I ever made were in October, I 21 believe, of 1995. And, you know, they continued to get 22 fairly more frequent up until 2001. 23 Q Well, I recognize that there probably are a lot of 24 Bob Minton postings about Scientology. I have pulled out 25 several and I have got them marked already as 94A through G. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 80 1 And I would like, if I could, to ask you to identify at 2 least those. I know there are others. 3 If you look at the first, 94A, do you recognize 4 that as a posting that you had placed on the Internet? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And are you saying there in July of 1999 that you 7 were recommending that, "Miscavige be hanged in effigy and 8 burned like a common criminal. Please come and bring your 9 flamethrowers." 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q See, right after that, the same date? 94B, is 12 that another posting of yours? 13 A It is. 14 Q And similar, except you are directing it to, "John 15 Travolta is a shill for Scientology"? 16 A Right. 17 Q And the same, 94C, is, "Hubbard will be hanged in 18 effigy --" and is that a posting that you made, sir? 19 A Yes, it is. 20 Q And it says, "Hubbard will be hanged in effigy and 21 burned like a common criminal," the same byline or inline, 22 "Come bring your flamethrowers." 23 What was the purpose of those sorts of postings, 24 in your opinion, sir? 25 A Mmm, stirring up the opposition to Scientology. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 81 1 Q And if you look at 94D, was that also a posting of 2 yours? 3 A Yes. It is. 4 Q And I think this one is dated November of 1999. 5 And in this one you are targeting Mr. Weinberg and 6 Mr. Hertzberg, two lawyers in the case. Is that correct? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q And it basically speaks for itself, I think. But 9 was that also a tactic that you engaged in, in this period 10 of time that we've been discussing? 11 A Yes, sir. And I would also -- just to tell you, 12 you know, that I have apologized to Mr. Weinberg and 13 Mr. Hertzberg about this post. 14 Q I understand. I'm asking you really, taking you 15 back in time, were these postings that you had posted? 16 A Yes. Yes. 17 Q And then here is one dated 26 July, 1998, 94E. Do 18 you recognize that, sir? 19 A Yes. I do. 20 Q Is that a posting that you posted? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And it says -- would you read the two lines out to 23 us? 24 A "On Sunday, Rinder calls and asks if Jesse Prince 25 is on my payroll. Jesse will be devastating for Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 82 1 Scientology. Get ready." 2 Q What was the purpose of that posting? 3 A You know, it was sort of a "get in Scientology's 4 face" type of posting. You know, this was shortly after I 5 had had some meetings with Mr. Rinder and his boss, 6 Mr. Rathbun, in, I think it was, June and July of 1998. And 7 those talks broke off rather unceremoniously, I guess you 8 would say. And, you know, this was soon -- this post was 9 done soon after Jesse Prince contacted Stacy Brooks and I. 10 Q And is this a point in time when you -- it asks if 11 he's on your payroll. Obviously at the time of this posting 12 he was on your payroll. Is that correct? 13 A Well, I think, you know, Mr. Rinder has had a lot 14 longer history with Jesse Prince than I had. And I think he 15 probably just assumed, because he was in contact with Stacy 16 Brooks and I, that we were paying him. 17 And, in fact, that was pretty close to being 18 accurate. I mean, it pretty much started right at this 19 time, sometime a little before this, that Jesse came up to 20 my house in New Hampshire. I believe he was there at the 21 time I posted this. And, you know, he was telling us all of 22 the things that were -- that he thought were going to 23 devastate Scientology, because of his previous senior 24 position back in 1992, I guess -- sorry, five years before 25 that. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 83 1 Q And did there come a time when you put Mr. Prince 2 in touch with Mr. Dandar? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you recall when that was in relation to this 5 posting? 6 A It was sometime shortly after this posting. 7 Sometime in 1998. 8 Q Now, if you would, turn to 94F. And I'm going to 9 ask you if you recognize that as a posting that you made? 10 THE COURT: These are already in evidence, I 11 take it? 12 MR. FUGATE: We'll move them in. 13 THE COURT: We probably ought to make sure we 14 move them in if we are going to keep referring to 15 them. Any objection? 16 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 17 THE COURT: They will be received. 18 MR. FUGATE: 94A through G then. I apologize, 19 Judge. I should have done it one at a time. 20 THE WITNESS: We are on F now? 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q We're on F. 23 A Yes. 24 Q That is a July of 1999 posting? 25 A That is a post I made. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 84 1 Q It says: "I called David Miscavige's mother today 2 in Clearwater," puts a phone number in, and also an address. 3 Was that, to your knowledge, an accurate phone number and 4 address for Mr. Miscavige's mother? 5 A I believed it was at the time. 6 Q What was the purpose of putting her telephone 7 number and her address and identifying her as 8 Mr. Miscavige's mother in your posting? 9 A Mmm, trying to piss off Scientology. 10 Q And when you see, down here at the bottom -- 11 THE COURT: Well, didn't you also hope, by 12 putting her phone number and address in there, a 13 bunch of people would pick up the phone and call and 14 harass her? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, that was part of that. 16 That wasn't -- 17 THE COURT: That is what normally somebody 18 would identify somebody's phone number for, I would 19 think. 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q The closing lines are: "David Miscavige and his 22 criminal minions need to be on the alert that nobody's 23 schill for his criminal cult is off limits from this point 24 forward, not his mother, his father, his wife, him, and 25 especially not the money lines of Scientology." Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 85 1 Did you write that, sir? 2 A I did. 3 Q What did you mean to cause with that posting? 4 A Well, you know, generally speaking, the money 5 line -- you know, this had a lot to do with this money lines 6 of Scientology, because within -- you know, within at least 7 my understanding of it was that the IAS, International 8 Association of Scientologists, was the principal group in 9 which funds were raised by the Church that were used to -- 10 to funnel -- not funnel, but to fund the litigation that the 11 Church of Scientology found itself involved in. 12 Q And the part that you say not his mother, his 13 father, his wife or him were safe, what did that mean? 14 A You know, that was inflammatory. I mean, it was 15 rhetoric, you know. To -- 16 Q 94G, if you would look at that. Apparently -- is 17 that your posting, I should ask you? 18 A Yes, it is. 19 Q Apparently, if I read it, you were asked by others 20 that were posting on the same site what was your message. 21 And is that what your message is that you left on her 22 answering machine? 23 A Yes. 24 Q "Loretta, my name is Bob Minton from New 25 Hampshire, telephone number (603)887-4145." Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 86 1 You have changed that by now, have you? 2 A No. 3 Q Oh, sorry. 4 A Still the same. 5 Q Strike that then. 6 "You may not immediately recognize my name, but if 7 you ever read the St. Pete Times, you might remember that I 8 am Scientology's 'Public Enemy Number 1.' I have some 9 messages for your son Davy which I would like to pass along 10 through you. Therefore, please give me a call. Thank you." 11 End of message to Loretta. 12 Did you write that? 13 A I did. 14 Q And did you consider yourself, at that time in 15 July of 1999, to be "Public Enemy Number 1" for Scientology? 16 A I did consider that. 17 THE COURT: You say you did? 18 THE WITNESS: I did, yes. And -- you know, I 19 didn't make this up on my own. I mean, I think NBC 20 Dateline used that line, the St. Petersburg Times 21 used that line, and a German television program used 22 it. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q Used the line you were "Public Enemy Number 1" for 25 Scientology? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 87 1 A Right. 2 Q And you were proud of that, were you not? 3 A At the time, I was. 4 Q And was it your purpose, in the postings and the 5 other postings which we're not going to go through, to be as 6 offensive as you possibly could? 7 A Generally speaking, yes. 8 Q And was that, sir, also, as you understood it, to 9 be the purpose and climate of what we've heard described as 10 the critic community? 11 A Yes. 12 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you call this, 13 this Bob@Minton.org, is that your -- 14 THE WITNESS: E-Mail. 15 THE COURT: -- your E-Mail address? There are 16 a lot of postings that have been provided to me 17 throughout the hearing, some by the Church, some 18 perhaps by Mr. Dandar, some in evidence. I take it, 19 when they say at the top "Bob@Minton.org," that 20 would be you? I mean, that is your -- 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. 22 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed? 23 THE COURT: Yes. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Now, I think you used the term you wanted to get Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 88 1 in Scientology's face. Did you employ or provide funds to 2 other people to do just that, beside yourself? 3 A Yes, I did. 4 Q Now, do you know -- or if you know, did 5 Mr. Dandar -- was he reading your postings, if you can tell 6 the Court? 7 A I would send him some of them myself. 8 I know that Dell Liebreich had told me that she 9 read absolutely everything that I wrote or anything that was 10 written about me. 11 Q That -- 12 A Excuse me? 13 Q I'm sorry, you said Dell Liebreich told you she 14 read your postings? 15 A Yes, that she religiously read everything that I 16 posted on ARS, or anything that was written about me there. 17 Q And for the benefit of the court, what is ARS? I 18 don't know if we got that. 19 A I'm sorry, that is -- we're into this acronyms. 20 But it is the short version of alt.religion.scientology, 21 that newsgroup. 22 Q And is that a site that is critical of 23 Scientology, to your observation? 24 A Yes. Absolutely. I mean, that is -- that is what 25 it is. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 89 1 Q Now, I would -- 2 THE COURT: Although that is the same site, I 3 believe early on in this, where we read some things 4 where it looked like there would be one posting that 5 was critical toward -- toward Scientology, and then 6 there appeared to be a posting that would look 7 like -- I'm not saying it came from the Church but 8 it certainly came from a pro-Scientology person 9 trying to frustrate or be critical of or whatever -- 10 in other words, it looked like these things can go 11 back and forth, that others -- anybody can get -- 12 THE WITNESS: It's open to anybody, your Honor. 13 It's -- it's principally, you know -- 14 THE COURT: The site is an anti-Scientology 15 site, but sometimes there are those who are not 16 opposed to Scientology who post there, as well? 17 THE WITNESS: Well, there are some, yes, that 18 do that to -- you know, there are a number of, you 19 know, current Scientologists who -- you know, if 20 they are not drowned out, you know, they try to go 21 on there and give their views. They are former 22 Church members who still believe in Scientology but 23 practice their Scientology outside of the official 24 organization, you know, who do the same thing. But, 25 you know, it's a pretty wild mob scene and it's hard Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 90 1 to -- you know, it's hard to get both sides of the 2 picture. 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q My question originally was did you have any 5 discussions with Mr. Dandar about your postings over this 6 period of time from '98, I guess, to 2000, 2001? 7 A Well, you know, he was aware of, you know, my 8 activities on the Internet. And -- 9 Q How do you know that, sir? 10 A Because he -- he told me he was. I mean, you 11 know, after we started talking with each other, you know, he 12 was well aware that I was pretty active on the Internet. 13 You know, and I would -- I would always make it a 14 point that if there was something that I thought was 15 important to say, that I thought he should look at, I would 16 always copy him on the message, you know. 17 I mean, he -- at times, he said, you know, "God, I 18 get so many messages from you. I don't know what to do with 19 them all." 20 Q Well, you were pretty prolific on the Internet, 21 were you not, sir? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Did you make postings from the LMT when it came 24 into existence? 25 A Yes, I did. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 91 1 Q From computers there? 2 A Yes. 3 Q So I would take it your postings ranged from 4 computers there -- do you have computers at your home in -- 5 A New Hampshire. 6 Q -- New Hampshire? 7 A Yes. I do. 8 Q Do you have a laptop? 9 A I do. 10 Q So your postings would come from either laptop, 11 home or LMT? 12 A Right. 13 Q Now, did you discuss, in your postings, the 14 wrongful death case? 15 A Pretty -- pretty often. 16 Q And did you discuss your funding of the wrongful 17 death case on the Internet? 18 A Yes. I did. 19 Q And did Mr. Dandar know that, to your 20 understanding? 21 A He -- he certainly did. And, in fact, encouraged 22 it, as far as the money was concerned, because he wanted to 23 make sure that Scientology knew he had money. 24 Q To engage in battle, I guess? 25 A Right. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 92 1 Q Now, did you have anything to do with Stacy Brooks 2 and Jesse Prince coming to Clearwater to work for 3 Mr. Dandar? 4 A Yes. I did. 5 Q Can you tell the Court what you had to do with the 6 two of them coming. I guess we'll start with Mr. Prince, 7 then go to Ms. Brooks. 8 A Well, I told them both they needed to go down 9 there and work with Ken Dandar. It was -- I mean, they were 10 getting moneys from me. And, you know, they would have gone 11 to Moscow, if required. 12 Q And at the time you told them to come here, as you 13 say, was that, to your knowledge, their sole source of 14 funding, your money? 15 A Mmm, yes. It was. 16 Q And, to your knowledge, did they come to 17 Clearwater and go to work for Mr. Dandar? 18 A Yes. They did. 19 Q And -- 20 THE COURT: What do you mean, go to work for 21 him? Are we talking here again about these 22 consultant -- 23 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to ask him that, Judge. 24 THE COURT: Well, I think going to work for 25 somebody, being a consultant for somebody, that is Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 93 1 quite different. 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q Let me ask you. What did you ask them to come to 4 Clearwater to do, as far as you were concerned? 5 A I mean, to do whatever Mr. Dandar wanted them to 6 do. You know, I didn't say go be a consultant. Or be an 7 expert witness. You know, "Whatever Dandar needed you to 8 do, you need to go down there with him and do it." 9 Q And did you communicate with Mr. Dandar about your 10 direction -- or whatever it is you -- 11 A He needed them. He made that clear. It was just 12 somebody needed to facilitate getting them here. 13 Q And was it your understanding that he was aware 14 they were being paid by you? 15 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Leading. 16 THE COURT: Sustained. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q At the time they came down, you indicated they 19 were -- both Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks were being paid by 20 you? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Did you ever communicate their financial status to 23 Mr. Dandar? 24 A Yes. I did. 25 Q And can you tell us when, where, if you recall? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 94 1 THE COURT: We're going to have to do something 2 here. This just -- I mean -- 3 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying to -- 4 THE COURT: I know, but being paid by him, I 5 don't get it. One of these people he was involved 6 with romantically, and one of these people was his 7 good friend. 8 Now, paid by, does this mean you were paying 9 them to do work? Or does this mean you were 10 giving -- apparently you must have, I assume, a lot 11 of money. 12 THE WITNESS: I used to. 13 THE COURT: You used to have a lot of money. 14 And were you sharing that with some person who was, 15 I take it, very important to you, Ms. Brooks? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE COURT: And Mr. Prince. Paying them. Are 18 you suggesting you were paying Ms. Brooks for being 19 your companion? 20 THE WITNESS: No. You know, I mean, as far as 21 Jesse Prince was concerned, I was completely 22 supporting him, you know. 23 THE COURT: Right, so you were paying him -- 24 you weren't paying him for his work for you; you 25 were paying him -- I take it at that time he was a Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 95 1 friend, you had money, he didn't. 2 THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't paying him because 3 he was a friend. I was paying him because of the 4 work he was doing. Jesse later became a friend. 5 THE COURT: What were you paying him for then, 6 before you sent him down here to Mr. Dandar? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, he came out and worked out 8 at FACTNet. He went out and worked with Dan 9 Leipold. You know, he came up to New Hampshire and, 10 you know, started preparing to, you know, tell 11 everybody all of the secrets that he learned in 12 Scientology, especially -- 13 THE COURT: So he was being paid then for his 14 anti-Scientology work? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Okay. That you were asking him to 17 do? 18 THE WITNESS: Right. I mean, you know, he 19 didn't volunteer to do this. This is something that 20 he got paid to do. 21 THE COURT: Okay. And the same with 22 Ms. Brooks? 23 THE WITNESS: Well, Ms. Brooks was very active 24 in my anti-Scientology work. With her, it was a 25 little different because of our personal Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 96 1 relationship. You know, I was just making sure she 2 was taken care of financially. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q Well, thanks to those questions, Ms. Brooks and 6 Mr. Prince were being paid to conduct anti-Scientology work, 7 I guess is the best way to describe that? 8 A Yes. That would be accurate. 9 Q Was that -- were those facts communicated to 10 Mr. Dandar? 11 A You know, I think Mr. Dandar knew -- by that time 12 knew everything about my personal relationships and my 13 working relationships with Jesse Prince and others. 14 Q Now, let me ask you this question. When 15 Mr. Prince came to Florida, what did you understand he was 16 doing in Florida? 17 A Working for Mr. Dandar on the wrongful death case. 18 Q And when Ms. Brooks came to Florida, what did you 19 understand Ms. Brooks was doing in Florida? 20 A Working with Mr. Dandar on the wrongful death 21 case. 22 MR. DANDAR: Could we have a date about what 23 we're talking about? 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Can you date that, sir? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 97 1 A Well, I think -- 2 Q Start with Mr. Prince. 3 A If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Prince came down here in 4 1998. He certainly was here for a substantial part of 1999, 5 working for Mr. Dandar. And in the year 2000 when -- by 6 this time, you know, the LMT is formed. And, you know, he's 7 working at the LMT, as well, but working for Mr. Dandar 8 principally, you know, for the first, you know, roughly six 9 months of the year 2000. 10 And then I'm not sure exactly why, but Jesse 11 Prince came back. Instead of working every day at 12 Mr. Dandar's office, he started at the LMT's office, and he 13 would go over to Dandar's office on sort of an as-needed 14 basis. 15 Q And how about Ms. Brooks, the same question? 16 A Well, she was down here sometime in 1998, more 17 frequently in 1999, working with Mr. Dandar. 18 And then, once she was at the LMT, you know, 19 beginning of 2000, she was -- for the first few months of 20 2000 she spent an awful lot of time out of the office 21 working with Mr. Dandar. Sort of the same thing Jesse 22 Prince was doing. 23 Q Were you -- were you communicating with Mr. Prince 24 about his work at -- with Mr. Dandar? 25 A Yes. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 98 1 Q And did you have an understanding whether or not 2 Mr. Dandar knew this was going on, this communication 3 between you and Mr. Prince? 4 A Yes. We had -- in fact, we had disputes about the 5 communication, as well. 6 Q And did you have communications with Ms. Brooks 7 about the work she was doing with Mr. Dandar? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And did you understand that Mr. Dandar knew those 10 communications were going on? 11 A Absolutely. 12 Q I think there was testimony that you I'm sure read 13 that Ms. Brooks said that Mr. Prince and she were your eyes 14 and ears in the office. Is that your understanding? 15 A That -- that was pretty accurate. 16 THE COURT: Did she say Mr. Prince was? Or did 17 she say she was? 18 MR. FUGATE: Well, I may have written it down 19 wrong, but -- 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Well, let me ask you, so there is no confusion -- 22 THE COURT: Well, he really ought to be able to 23 tell us who he thought were his eyes and ears were. 24 But I thought her testimony was she said she was. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor -- Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 99 1 MR. FUGATE: I was going to ask, your Honor -- 2 THE COURT: What? What her testimony was what 3 he read in the transcript? 4 MR. FUGATE: No. I was going to ask him his 5 understanding. 6 THE COURT: What he read in the transcript? 7 MR. FUGATE: No, what his understanding -- 8 well, let's move on, Judge. It would be easier. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Now, at the time in '98 and '99 when Mr. Prince 11 and Ms. Brooks were here in Florida, were they, to your 12 understanding, working on any affidavits? 13 A Well, I know Jesse Prince was at some stage, he 14 ended up -- I don't know whether he wrote more than one, but 15 he certainly wrote one. 16 Q And in your -- 17 A But he also was working -- I don't know whether it 18 was while he was down here, but I tend to think it was, that 19 he was working on affidavits for Leipold in California in 20 connection with the Wollersheim case, or FACTNet, or Lopez. 21 Q And was Ms. Brooks similarly engaged with 22 affidavits out there? 23 A I don't think she's written any affidavits in 24 recent years. But, I mean, she was, you know, active with 25 regards to the attorneys, Dan Leipold, Ford Greene, with Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 100 1 regard to those cases, yes. 2 Q And would this be the subject -- the affidavits 3 being written and used in litigation that you have 4 described, would that be the subject of postings -- Internet 5 postings by you and others in the critic community? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And were those the subject of any communications 8 with you and Mr. Dandar? 9 MR. DANDAR: Leading. 10 THE COURT: See, the problem is he can answer 11 that yes or no when you say "Isn't it true that," so 12 overruled. 13 A I'm sorry, would you ask the question again. 14 THE REPORTER: "Question: And were those the 15 subject of any communications with you and 16 Mr. Dandar?" 17 MR. DANDAR: Leading. 18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I missed the first 19 part of what you said. 20 THE REPORTER: "Question: And were those the 21 subject of any communications with you and 22 Mr. Dandar?" 23 THE WITNESS: Now I'm going to have to ask you 24 to read the one before that, too. 25 MR. FUGATE: I'll try to rephrase it. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 101 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q I had asked you were the affidavits that were 3 being written and utilized in the other cases that you 4 described, were those the subject of postings between you 5 and the critic community? 6 A Yes. I'm sorry. 7 Q Then my question was did you -- I don't even 8 remember, whatever the last question was was my question, if 9 you can remember that. 10 A I can't. 11 THE COURT: If nobody can remember it, it 12 probably wasn't very important. So why don't you 13 move to your next one. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q Were you in communication with Mr. Dandar about 16 how you wanted the wrongful death case litigated? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And how were you communicating your wishes to 19 Mr. Dandar? 20 A Mmm, verbally. 21 Q Can you describe how? 22 A Yes. You know, soon after the first check that I 23 sent to him back in October of 1997, you know, I posted a 24 message on the Internet a couple of days later and sent him 25 a copy of it, you know, saying that, you know, I wanted Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 ||||| From: Anonymous User Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- testimony day one (afternoon) B Message-ID: <3ad0e1cac049bbb56d9e8e0b38fda9eb@remailer.havenco.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 2145 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550821 comp.org.eff.talk:105645 misc.legal:433671 102 1 David Miscavige charged with murder. 2 You know, Mr. Dandar -- I either heard or read him 3 testify in this case, or maybe it was in Judge Baird's case, 4 that he was kind of leery of me at the beginning, but when 5 he first -- when he first got this check. But, you know, by 6 the time the check cleared, I can tell you that this guy was 7 no longer leery. 8 You know, I received from Mr. Dandar, within a 9 month of that first check, a draft of the first amended 10 complaint in this case, or what was to be the first amended 11 complaint. 12 And, you know, he was already, even in 1997, 13 trying to add additional parties to the case, you know. And 14 those parties -- I'm not sure whether David Miscavige was 15 named, or whether it was just RTC, but I remember that there 16 was, you know, a draft that was talking about adding 17 additional parties. 18 And, you know, I asked Mr. Dandar, you know, after 19 I'd sent him a copy of this posting on the Internet, as to, 20 you know, why there wasn't any more inflammatory language in 21 the draft. 22 Q Did you get a response? 23 A Well, this thing evolved over -- to use 24 Mr. Dandar's term, this thing evolved over a period of a few 25 weeks. And he eventually put some pretty highly Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 103 1 inflammatory language in what ultimately ended up being the 2 first amended complaint, including the word "murder." 3 Q What sort of inflammatory things did you want him 4 to include in the complaint, from your perspective? 5 A Well, anything that was, you know, going to give 6 Scientology the worst possible light, not just in the case, 7 but just period. 8 Q And were you discussing your wishes with 9 Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince? 10 A Well, not at that moment. Not at that moment. 11 Because I think I'd only met Stacy Brooks -- well, I met her 12 after that, I believe. But later I did, yeah. 13 Q And as the process evolved that you have been 14 describing as far as communicating what you wished done, is 15 that -- did there come a time in that process when 16 Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince were here in Florida? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And would you communicate, through them, your 19 wishes? 20 A Well, yes, I did. And principally what those 21 wishes were is more emphasis on the Scientology -- what I 22 referred to as the Scientology aspects of the case. And -- 23 Q Did you -- did you understand, as this 24 relationship developed, that there was a trial team? 25 A Yes. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 104 1 Q And who did you understand, from your perspective, 2 was on the trial team? 3 A Well, Dr. Garko. I don't believe he was on it 4 right at the beginning when they first started coming down 5 here. I don't remember the dates that he sort of got 6 involved in this. But ultimately it was Dr. Garko, 7 Mr. Dandar, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince. And, you know, that 8 was sort of the nucleus of it. And there were others that 9 were sort of on the edges of it, including me. 10 Q Did you understand Mr. Dandar to consider you part 11 of the trial team, from your perspective? 12 A Well, you know, based on his sharing of 13 information, you know, I figured that -- I mean, I think 14 anything he shared with them he shared with me. 15 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, Judge? 16 THE COURT: You may. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Did that understanding continue up into 2002, sir? 19 A Yes, it did. 20 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your 21 Honor? 22 THE COURT: You may. 23 MR. FUGATE: I need to approach the clerk, 24 first. This will be Defendant's Exhibit Number 95. 25 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 105 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q May I ask you to take a look at a copy of a 3 document I placed before you and ask you if you can identify 4 that document. 5 A Yes. This is a letter from -- 6 Q Well, can you identify the document? 7 A Yes. I can. 8 Q Is this a document you received? 9 A Yes. It's a copy of it. That is correct. 10 Q A copy of it. And it's two pages. Did you get 11 both pages at the same time? 12 A I did. 13 MR. FUGATE: I would move 95 into evidence. 14 THE COURT: Any objection? 15 MR. DANDAR: It is marked confidential. I am 16 surprised at counsel using a confidential document. 17 THE COURT: Well, it is marked confidential to 18 this man. I don't know why that is. But, I mean, 19 is he part of your trial team? If so I'll sustain 20 the objection. But, if not, which I think is your 21 position, I'll have to overrule it. 22 MR. DANDAR: Well, you are right, Judge, he's 23 not. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 106 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Did you provide this document to us, sir? 3 A I did. 4 Q And did you receive it on or about March of 2002? 5 A Yes, I did. I think it came by courier. So it 6 probably arrived the day after this. 7 Q Did something come with it? 8 A Yes. A telephone encryption device. 9 Q Had you requested a telephone encryption device? 10 A No. 11 Q Could you read the letter, please. 12 A "Dear Mr. Minton --" well, it starts out -- 13 THE COURT: Why do we need this read? Since 14 it's an exhibit, why do we need the whole letter 15 read? 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q Does the "Re:" line indicate it was in the 18 McPherson versus Scientology case? 19 A Yes. That is correct. 20 Q And does it indicate that it's to -- the purpose 21 of the device is for your use -- 22 THE COURT: If we'll have a bunch of questions 23 about it, go ahead and have him read it. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Would you just read it. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 107 1 A "Dear Mr. Minton: Allow me to reintroduce myself. 2 We met a few years ago, prior to the deposition of Karsten 3 Lorenzen." K-A-R-S-T-E-N, last name Lorenzen, 4 L-O-R-E-N-Z-E-N, pronounced Lorenzen. 5 "I am Mr. Dandar's video production specialist. 6 Ken has asked me to forward the enclosed telephone 7 encryption device to your attention and request that it be 8 used for future conversations between you and other members 9 of the trial team. 10 "While I cannot guarantee this to be a hundred 11 percent solution, I do expect it to go a long way toward 12 keeping 'their' noses out of our business. 13 "Ken has also asked me to find out from you how 14 many other individuals on your end will be needing these 15 devices and to facilitate their distribution. 16 "The invoice enclosed is for our cost and for the 17 cost of shipping. 18 "Please feel free to contact me if you have any 19 questions. 20 "Very truly yours, Rick Spector." 21 Q And on the second page, sir, there is a note. Can 22 you read the note? 23 A The handwritten note on the invoice? 24 Q Yes. 25 THE COURT: Well, he needs to identify that. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 108 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Well, yes, can you identify that was the note on 3 the invoice when you got it? 4 A Yes. This was the invoice that came with that 5 letter. And this was the handwritten note that was on it. 6 And I believe it was in blue ink. 7 Q Can you read what it says? 8 A "You may wish to use money order to preclude 9 trace." Underlined. Then Rick Spector's initials. 10 THE COURT: Why? Did you use this thing? I'm 11 not sure what it is, but I guess it is a phone that 12 scrambles things that maybe folks on a wire tap 13 couldn't hear? 14 THE WITNESS: That is right. 15 THE COURT: So did you believe the Church of 16 Scientology had placed an illegal wire on your phone 17 or Mr. Dandar's phone? 18 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I didn't think so. 19 But Mr. Dandar felt so. 20 THE COURT: Why did you use it then? 21 THE WITNESS: Well, I never used it, number 22 one. But just let me explain. 23 Back in February when Mr. Dandar came up to New 24 Hampshire for this weekend meeting, you know, just a 25 week or two before this letter, I mean, even coming Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 109 1 from the airport, when I picked Mr. Dandar up, he 2 starts telling me about how, you know, the dome 3 light in my car could be used for a bugging device 4 because it would provide constant power. And, you 5 know, he was totally of the belief that he was being 6 bugged by Scientology, and that if he was being 7 bugged, for sure I was being bugged. 8 So this -- this encryption device was -- it was 9 really for a specific purpose, you know. Dandar 10 wanted to talk about the money that was going to 11 come, and he wanted this thing so that nobody knew 12 about it. 13 And, you know, I didn't ask for this phone 14 encryption device. When it came, it didn't work. 15 It had been taken out of the original box, it had 16 been put in by the factory and changed into some 17 other box. Perhaps Mr. Spector mixed it up or 18 dropped it on the floor. And I had to send it back 19 to the factory to get it to work. 20 Mr. Dandar bought a similar device for his 21 phone at the same time. His didn't work, either, 22 because of the PBX system he had in his office. And 23 his secretary sent it back to the factory, as well; 24 but she didn't send it by overnight mail, she sent 25 it regular mail. And so when I got mine back from Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 110 1 the factory, mine was working, but he -- it took him 2 a while before he got his back. And, you know, by 3 then, we had already dealt with the issue of the 4 money and it was pretty late. And I have never used 5 it since. 6 THE COURT: But I assume even if you want it 7 for a very specific purpose, that is, talking about 8 the money, the only reason why you and I want to 9 have a phone conversation about money, and 10 presumably nobody has illegally put the bug on our 11 phone, when I talk on the phone, it would be 12 perfectly fine, nobody would know about it but you 13 and me. 14 THE WITNESS: I assume so. 15 THE COURT: So I presume there must have been 16 some thought there was an illegal wire tapping going 17 on here. And I certainly get that same information 18 from the -- from reading Ms. Brooks' posting about 19 the harassment, that there -- 20 THE WITNESS: Right. 21 THE COURT: -- appeared to be people knowing 22 your every move, the insinuation being someone was 23 listening to your phone calls. 24 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, what we 25 discovered, there are a lot easier ways to do that, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 111 1 you know, to find out, you know, how people move 2 around, you know, where they're going. I mean, it 3 has been our experience that this is not so 4 difficult to find out. And -- and especially when 5 you have somebody close to you who is providing 6 information that would enable people to monitor your 7 movements more closely. And that is a much more 8 common thing than this phone tap thing which 9 Mr. Dandar was concerned about. And I genuinely -- 10 THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Minton. You, too, 11 were concerned that your phones were being bugged, 12 weren't you? 13 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 14 THE COURT: You never were? 15 THE WITNESS: I thought about it at times. 16 But -- 17 THE COURT: And Ms. Brooks wasn't, either? 18 THE WITNESS: She was not concerned about it. 19 THE COURT: Okay. So neither you nor 20 Ms. Brooks ever believed your phone was being 21 illegally tapped by the Church of Scientology? Is 22 that what you're telling me here today? 23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I didn't say there was never 24 a time we didn't believe it. But, your Honor, we 25 purchased a very expensive piece of equipment that Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 112 1 would help us to determine if there were bugs down 2 here in this office in Florida. We hired outside 3 people to come in and check. And I say "we," it 4 wasn't me doing this. This was a concern of 5 everybody who was around here. 6 THE COURT: So you weren't concerned, but yet 7 you hired people to come in and sweep your place? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, let me tell you, 9 Mr. Dandar's private eye, Mr. Dandar's private eye, 10 Ray Emmons, swore up and down Ken Dandar's office 11 was bugged, our office was bugged. We got people to 12 come in and check it out. There was never any bugs 13 found, when everybody was sure there were bugs. We 14 even bought an expensive piece of equipment that 15 could detect these types of things. 16 When the LMT closed down, that equipment was 17 sent up to my house in New Hampshire. I have never 18 used it. 19 You know, there is nothing I have ever said on 20 the telephone about the Church of Scientology that I 21 wouldn't expect to end up in the New York Times. 22 You know, I have got nothing to hide from them. 23 THE COURT: Okay. I just wondered why we were 24 sending out the encryption devices. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, as I said, your Honor, I Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 113 1 didn't request this encryption device. Mr. Dandar 2 told me he was going to get these, on the telephone, 3 the day before they were sent. I said fine. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q What did you understand the notation "You may wish 7 to use a money order to avoid a trace" mean? 8 A To preclude trace. Well, you know, I just thought 9 that was a pretty strange statement at the time for 10 Mr. Spector to have written. I mean, it was obviously -- 11 you don't want Scientology to find out you are paying for 12 this or that we're buying these things, so maybe you want to 13 use some sort of untraceable money to do it, or untraceable 14 document -- you know, instrument. 15 Q Do you know Rick Spector? 16 A I -- as the letter said, I have met him a few 17 years before. He wasn't somebody that I was familiar with, 18 other than his name. 19 But he was -- you know, in addition to being a 20 videographer, as he says here, he's also Mr. Dandar's 21 security consultant and private investigator, in addition to 22 Mr. Emmons. 23 Q Do you see him present in the court today? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Where is he? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 114 1 A He's to the right of Mr. Dandar, as I'm sitting. 2 THE COURT: I take it we can assume that he is, 3 indeed, part of Mr. Dandar's trial team. 4 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Spector? 5 THE COURT: Right. 6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Although he's an independent 7 contractor. 8 THE COURT: Pardon me? 9 MR. DANDAR: He's an independent contractor. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Now, on the subject of phones, when the LMT was 12 formed, were there phones utilized to communicate among the 13 LMT folks? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And what sort of phones were they? 16 A They were Nextel phones, you know, the little flip 17 kinds. 18 MR. FUGATE: While we're looking for that, 19 Judge. 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Did you, in your relationship with Mr. Dandar, 22 assist him in his website preparation or anything to do with 23 his website? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And what did you do? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 115 1 A Well, I just -- you know, I didn't do much. He -- 2 MR. FUGATE: May I approach? 3 THE COURT: You may. 4 THE WITNESS: Can I continue? 5 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to give you an exhibit 6 to take a look at. You can go ahead. 7 A Well, he wanted a domain in his own name. And so 8 I registered Dandarlaw.com, I believe, and Dandar.com. Yes, 9 I see Dandar.law. 10 MR. DANDAR: Relevance. 11 THE COURT: Are you addressing me, Counselor? 12 MR. DANDAR: Relevance, Judge. Sorry. 13 THE COURT: All right. Relevance? 14 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I think it shows an 15 association between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar. And 16 it shows, as the contact -- administrative contact 17 for Dandarlaw.com. 18 THE COURT: I don't know what this is. Do 19 lawyers have their own websites these days? 20 MR. FUGATE: What it is, it's attached, the 21 website that lists the law firm and talks about the 22 lawyers. It -- 23 THE COURT: Is this something lawyers -- 24 lawyers have? 25 MR. FUGATE: It's something that lawyers have, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 116 1 as I understand it, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. FUGATE: I never had one. 4 THE COURT: Nothing here regarding Lisa 5 McPherson? 6 MR. FUGATE: No, except that it's registered by 7 Mr. Minton. The contact point is Bob@Minton.org 8 which you made reference to before. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Let me ask you, Mr. Minton, was there a purpose in 11 trying to get a website started for Mr. Dandar? 12 A Well, Mr. Dandar wanted a domain. 13 THE COURT: I don't see -- I'm not very smart 14 about this stuff. What is a domain? 15 THE WITNESS: You know, when you 16 have www.lisatrust.net, the domain is the Lisatrust 17 part. Dandarlaw is the domain. So it would 18 be www.dandarlaw.com. So he can have his E-mail at 19 Dandarlaw.com or whatever he wanted. 20 But he didn't know how to go about registering 21 a domain. So I registered it for him. Also as I 22 said, another one, Dandar.com. 23 THE COURT: I kind of tend to agree. I think 24 it is kind of obvious Mr. Dandar and this man were 25 friends. He needed help doing some of this, this Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 117 1 man had some expertise, and he did it for him. 2 I'm going to let it in. But the truth of the 3 matter is I'm not sure what the relevance is. So 4 I'll let it in. 5 MR. FUGATE: I just offered it for the -- for 6 the association and the contact, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Am I right about this, at this 8 point in time when you were doing this, you-all 9 established some sort of friendship? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was just purely a favor 11 to him. 12 THE COURT: Right. This was not -- this was 13 not the Lisa McPherson case or anything like this; 14 this was a friend that wanted a website or domain? 15 THE WITNESS: He wanted a domain. And I just 16 did it for him. 17 THE COURT: So -- 18 THE WITNESS: I mean, I paid for it, you know. 19 It wasn't a big deal, whether he reimbursed me or 20 not. But -- 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q How much does something like that cost? 23 A Mmm, I think it's like $40 or $50 a year. I don't 24 know, he had it maybe three years. After our last 25 deposition, I transferred the administrative contact to Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 118 1 Mr. Dandar -- technical contact. I'm sorry. 2 Q I presume the bill, as well? 3 A No, I didn't, actually. But Mr. Rosen or 4 Mr. Moxon was making a big deal out of this so I transferred 5 the technical contact to Mr. Dandar. 6 Q Now, I had asked you about the Nextel phones you 7 used. And -- 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, these are the Nextel bills. 9 And I think maybe what I'll do is wait until the 10 break, give them to the clerk, I'll give a copy to 11 Mr. Dandar, and come back and ask questions about 12 that. 13 THE COURT: What are they? 14 MR. FUGATE: These are the Nextel cell phone 15 bills. And they're going to be a little bit 16 involved in going through. 17 THE COURT: So, in other words, there are going 18 to be dates and phone calls we're going to have to 19 refer to these? Is that the purpose? 20 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 MR. FUGATE: But I'll come back to them. 23 THE COURT: Well, do you want to do it now if 24 we're to that, and go ahead and get them all in 25 and -- Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 119 1 MR. FUGATE: It probably would be a good 2 time -- 3 THE COURT: A good time to take a break? 4 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 5 THE COURT: Well, it has been an hour and 6 fifteen minutes. I guess nobody seems to mind when 7 we take a break, so we'll be in recess fifteen 8 minutes. 9 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.) 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 MR. FUGATE: Judge, you actually have in front 12 of you the original -- or the file copy of the 13 records. And as I suspected when I looked back 14 there, I'm a copy short. So I'm going to ask a 15 couple questions and move to another area. And then 16 over the break I'll -- 17 THE COURT: These are the clerk's copies? The 18 originals? 19 MR. FUGATE: Yes, I'll get additional copies 20 made because -- 21 THE COURT: I'd just as soon, unless I really 22 need those, not have that stack. 23 MR. FUGATE: Well, I don't have one either. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. FUGATE: So I'm going to move through this, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 120 1 then move on to another area. And I have given 2 Mr. Dandar a copy. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. FUGATE: And it's marked as Defendant's 5 Exhibit 97, I believe. 6 THE COURT: Right. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Mr. Minton, did you receive a subpoena for your 9 Nextel phone records? I'm going to ask you to look at the 10 first paper that is pulled up there. Actually, pull 11 everything that is sticking up. That is what I'm going to 12 ask you about. Nextel, for your records, I should say. I'm 13 sorry. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Does this subpoena appear to be for your Nextel 16 phone records, if you look at the yellow part back there? I 17 think it is on the second or third page. 18 A Yes. 19 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness? 20 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 21 A I see it, yes. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Okay. Would you look at the face pages and see if 24 you can identify the Nextel bill as it starts out? Do you 25 see that? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 121 1 A Yes. I see it. 2 Q And can you identify that as copies of the Nextel 3 phone records that were subpoenaed by the subpoena -- or 4 copy of the subpoena that is there? 5 A Yes. It appears to me to be that. Yes. 6 MR. FUGATE: Unless there is an objection, I 7 would move the composite exhibit in, and I'll just 8 ask a couple questions and move on, and then come 9 back to it if I need to, Judge, when I have more 10 copies of the individual -- 11 THE COURT: Any objection? 12 MR. DANDAR: I object to relevance. I need to 13 have -- to make sure that this witness -- if these 14 phone records are in his name or somebody else's 15 name. 16 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to ask to look at 17 the first four months and see who the phone was 18 registered to. And then if you look past that, 19 you'll see it is -- 20 MR. DANDAR: If it is registered as I see it on 21 the first page, of Dandar & Dandar, PA, privileged 22 phone records. We did not approve of this at all. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, then I'll come back 25 to them, because they're the Nextel records of LMT Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 122 1 and Mr. Minton. But they were registered there for 2 four months and then were changed. But I'll come 3 back to it. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 MR. FUGATE: Can I retrieve it? 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 THE COURT: Well, let me see the subpoena. 8 MR. FUGATE: Sure. 9 THE COURT: What does the subpoena say? Does 10 it refer to a phone number? Or does it refer to -- 11 THE WITNESS: I believe it was my phone 12 records, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Okay, the subpoena, that does 14 appear to be directed to the custodian of the 15 records at Nextel Communications. The list of 16 documents to be produced appears to be any and all 17 documents concerning telephone and billing records 18 for Robert S. Minton from November of '99 to 19 December of 2001. 20 MR. FUGATE: Listed to those Nextel phones. 21 THE COURT: I don't see any phones, listed to 22 any Nextel phones. 23 MR. FUGATE: Well, that is what is in the pages 24 that are after that. It identifies the number of 25 phones. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 123 1 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't give that to 2 your Honor. Here is the rest of it. I'm sorry. 3 THE COURT: Well, who is this? Whose is this? 4 It says Dandar & Dandar, PA. 5 MR. FUGATE: Let me ask, if I can. 6 THE COURT: No, I want to know whether this, 7 the subpoena here, is for records, and I can see 8 that -- maybe I should look -- 9 MR. FUGATE: Judge, what happened, the subpoena 10 is directed to all phone records. And the phone 11 that -- or the phones, plural, that these go to 12 started out listed to Dandar & Dandar, although they 13 were utilized by LMT, then ultimately switched to 14 Mr. Minton's -- 15 THE COURT: I need to ask a question. When a 16 subpoena duces tecum is issued in a case and there 17 is opposing counsel, do you not send them notice? 18 MR. MOXON: Let me explain. This was my 19 subpoena. 20 We said we were trying to subpoena the LMT 21 records. And they had a regular phone and a Nextel 22 phone. All of the LMT people all have their little 23 Nextel phones. 24 Nextel said, "Well, we actually don't have any 25 records for LMT," and they told us that their phones Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 124 1 were listed under Mr. Minton's name. 2 So we sent them a new subpoena under 3 Mr. Minton's name. And you may recall when the 4 records came in, the records -- it was set for a 5 deposition, but the records were sent to me before 6 the deposition occurred. 7 At that point we entered into a stipulation of 8 Mr. Howie and Mr. McGowan and I that these records 9 would all go over to the -- to the discovery master. 10 They all went over to the discovery master and they 11 were looked at and realized these are all of the LMT 12 records. 13 THE COURT: Who is the discovery master? 14 MR. MOXON: That was Mr. Keane. Pursuant to 15 the stipulation, the agreement of the other side, 16 Mr. McGowan representing LMT, said these are all LMT 17 records. 18 THE COURT: Mr. McGowan represented LMT? 19 MR. MOXON: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Well -- 21 MR. MOXON: These are all LMT phone records 22 under Mr. Minton's name. Mr. Dandar registered the 23 LMT phone, but these are all LMT phone records. 24 THE COURT: Okay. I guess it doesn't answer my 25 question. My question is, is when you have a Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 125 1 subpoena duces tecum that goes out in a case, do you 2 not give notice to the other side -- 3 MR. MOXON: Of course. 4 THE COURT: -- so they can object? 5 MR. MOXON: Of course. 6 THE COURT: Where is the notice that is given 7 to Mr. Dandar on that? 8 MR. MOXON: He got notice. Everyone got notice 9 of it. You may not have the notice with that 10 subpoena that is in your hand, but I can certainly 11 provide it to you. Of course everyone got notice. 12 That is why a motion for protective order was filed 13 after the motion went out. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I anticipated the questions 16 you were asking. I was going to go back and get the 17 documentation for you and go through it again. 18 THE COURT: Well, when somebody doesn't have an 19 objection, because something appears to be 20 requesting records of somebody, and the next thing 21 you know, law firm records are being produced, and 22 the other side, if they don't know that, there has 23 to be some problem with that. 24 So, Mr. Dandar, was he aware that Nextel was 25 getting ready to dole out his PA, Dandar & Dandar, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 126 1 PA, phone records to the Church of Scientology? 2 MR. MOXON: They are not his phone records. 3 They are LMT phone records. 4 THE COURT: Well, if it says "Dandar & Dandar, 5 PA." Did anybody ever advise him, for example, of 6 that? 7 MR. MOXON: Well, I actually don't know because 8 we didn't see the phone records until Mr. McGowan 9 authorized them, after reviewing them, to be 10 released to us as LMT's records. So it was only 11 after LMT's counsel conceded these are LMT's 12 records -- 13 THE COURT: Well, is this after the LMT and the 14 Church of Scientology were in friendly negotiations 15 where they were trying to cooperate with the Church 16 to bring about a global settlement? 17 THE WITNESS: We were not cooperating at that 18 time, your Honor. 19 MR. MOXON: The motion was filed long ago. 20 MR. FUGATE: I don't have the subpoena to look 21 at the date, Judge. That might help. But -- 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. FUGATE: If it even -- 24 THE COURT: Dated February 11 of 2002. 25 MR. MOXON: Yes. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 127 1 THE COURT: Wasn't there some negotiations 2 going on then? 3 MR. MOXON: No. 4 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 5 MR. FUGATE: No. 6 THE COURT: No? Well, I'm not letting you have 7 any records of Dandar & Dandar, PA unless you can 8 show me somehow or another that Mr. Dandar agreed 9 with that. You can't get into a law firm's records. 10 I don't care what anybody says. 11 MR. MOXON: Again, your Honor, these are not 12 Dandar & Dandar, PA phone records. They are LMT 13 phone records. 14 MR. FUGATE: Judge -- 15 THE COURT: He objected. I sustained the 16 objection. It is just that simple. Move on. 17 MR. FUGATE: Fine, Judge. That is what we 18 suggest. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q Mr. Minton, if I could direct your attention to 21 August of 1999, did you have any meetings with Mr. Dandar in 22 August of 1999? 23 A Yes. I did. 24 Q And can you tell us, to the best of your 25 recollection, where and when? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 128 1 A I believe it was in Philadelphia on May 26, maybe 2 the night of the 25th and 26th. 3 Q May, or August, sir? 4 A Mmm, I -- I can tell by the date of the check, if 5 I can just get my little thing out, again. 6 Q I had left the exhibits up there, exhibit checks, 7 unless we knocked them off. 8 A Oh, yes, that is the way. Yes. Sorry. 9 Q Except now I have forgotten the number. I think 10 it is 93E. 11 A Oh, yeah. It is on the top. Yes, I'm sorry. 12 That was August. 13 Q And obviously you were referencing the check. 14 Which check are we looking at there, for the record? 15 A It is check 93E, payable to Dandar & Dandar, for 16 $250,000. 17 Q What is the date it was issued? 18 A August 27th. That is the date -- you know, the 19 date that was written on the check. 20 Q Was that the date that you gave it to Mr. Dandar? 21 A I -- I believe I gave it to him on the 26th at 22 night. 23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the year, 24 8/27 -- 25 A '99. I didn't have money in my checking account. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 129 1 And I told him I was going to transfer money in that 2 checking account, so I was going to postdate it by a day. 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q And can you tell us about the meeting that you 5 had -- 6 THE COURT: Would you-all give me just a 7 second. I want to listen carefully, yet I'm trying 8 to deal with something as acting chief, and I'm not 9 having good success in keeping my head in two 10 places. 11 MR. FUGATE: Well, join with me -- 12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, this has come up and I 13 really need to take care of it. And as I said, I am 14 acting chief. And I really need to deal with it. 15 And I thought I could maybe listen and deal with it, 16 but I can't because I find myself looking here and 17 I'm not hearing that. And so sometimes I can do two 18 things at one time but -- 19 MR. FUGATE: Tell me what you want me to do. 20 THE COURT: I want you to stop and let me take 21 enough time to deal with it. I'm sorry, I hate to 22 give you all another break, but I just need to tend 23 to this. We'll be in recess until -- well, until 24 I'm done. 25 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.) Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 130 1 THE COURT: You may be seated. I think I have 2 my mind all in one place. 3 (A discussion was held off the record.) 4 MR. WEINBERG: Going back to the phone records 5 for a second? 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. WEINBERG: We'll cover it in more detail on 8 Tuesday. I just wanted to explain one thing that is 9 confusing when you look at it. 10 We -- we requested the production from Nextel 11 of the records of LMT, first. And Nextel said they 12 didn't have records of LMT, they had records of 13 Robert Minton. So we requested the production, we 14 subpoenaed Nextel for the records of Robert Minton. 15 And what came back was what is in those folders 16 there. 17 And as a result of that, there were these -- 18 there were these motions that were filed both by 19 Stacy Brooks and by Mr. Minton to try to prevent it. 20 There were hearings. Mr. Dandar was part of that 21 process. 22 The records themselves, if you go through them 23 you will see that these are -- even though the first 24 three months of whatever it is, a year and a half or 25 two-year period, the first few bills went to Dandar Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 131 1 & Dandar, the records are not Ken Dandar and Dandar 2 & Dandar records. They are phone records of the 3 people at LMT, including Mr. Minton, Mr. Prince, 4 Ms. Brooks. 5 They had a series -- they had a network of -- 6 of Nextel phones. This is this network. That -- 7 they are not Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Dandar didn't have 8 one of those as part of these records, or his law 9 firm. 10 After the first three months, the bills in 11 there are then directed to Mr. Minton in care of the 12 LMT, if I'm correct. 13 And the point was, A, there are many important 14 calls in there from people at the LMT, including 15 Mr. Minton, to Mr. Dandar and others. 16 And, secondly, the fact that -- in other words, 17 indicating -- indicating contact, a lot of contact, 18 which obviously is an issue as to what participation 19 or -- or control or involvement Mr. Minton had with 20 regard to Mr. Dandar in the prosecution of the 21 wrongful death case. Oh, five hundred calls, you 22 are going to see. 23 And, secondly, the fact that the first few 24 months were sent to Dandar & Dandar is further 25 indication, I believe, that there was -- that there Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 132 1 was a real -- you know, a relationship between the 2 LMT and the people at the LMT and, you know, 3 Mr. Dandar, which is part of what this hearing is 4 about. That is what it is. 5 We can sort that through on Tuesday, which is 6 fine. But when one looks at these records, these 7 are not Ken Dandar phone records, these are not 8 Dandar & Dandar phone records; these are phone 9 records of Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, Jesse Prince and 10 other people at the -- at LMT. That is what they 11 are. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 Mr. Dandar? 14 MR. DANDAR: Judge, when you make up a notice 15 of deposition to Mr. Moxon for records and you put 16 on Robert Minton's name, then you cancel the 17 deposition and take the records because they were -- 18 the phone company sent them to you ahead of time so 19 they don't have to come to the deposition, that 20 violates the rule. 21 I go by the rules. And my name is on the first 22 three months of those depositions, I was never 23 noticed for that. It is improper. It is the first 24 time I saw it, by the way. 25 But what Mr. Minton will explain to you, and I Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 133 1 would assume accurately, LMT did not have credit. 2 So I did them a favor, I added them onto my account, 3 and then I separated that account. 4 But this whole procedure of how they went about 5 obtaining those records without notice to me was 6 improper. And that is why I objected to it. 7 Now, maybe just a technical violation of the 8 rules, which it is a violation of the rules, but I 9 objected to it because they weren't following the 10 rules then, and now they're trying to make it an 11 exhibit. And I just brought it to your attention, 12 but it's probably a whole bunch of argument about 13 nothing. I brought it to your attention because it 14 is a technical and it's a real -- 15 THE COURT: Well, one of the things that 16 concerns me, and one thing I'm obviously trying to 17 protect here, as I would any lawyer, is anybody else 18 getting a hold of a lawyer's phone records that 19 would reveal, presumably, all manner of calls to 20 clients and what have you that they had no business, 21 anybody, knowing who they are or anything of the 22 sort. 23 Do you agree that these records, if you'll take 24 the time between now and Tuesday to go through them, 25 whatever these are that have your name on them, that Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 134 1 they're not records of you calling your clients or 2 your clients calling you, that gives me some, Mmm -- 3 you know, I'll deal with the technical inadequacy or 4 not differently. But I will not deal with 5 privileged phone records being used in this hearing 6 or any other hearing. 7 And I will ask that they be returned, if, in 8 fact, the Church of Scientology has phone records of 9 your law office between you and your clients. 10 MR. DANDAR: I would have to look at the 11 records. 12 THE COURT: So I think I really can't resolve 13 this until he has a chance to look at these records 14 and tells me. That makes a difference to me. 15 MR. MOXON: Could I add a couple things for the 16 record, your Honor? 17 Firstly, there was a certificate of service to 18 Mr. Dandar where he was noticed for the deposition 19 on the phone records. I found a copy of it now. 20 Then, after the records came in, I let everyone 21 know that the records had been sent to me prior to 22 the deposition and I didn't open them, I didn't open 23 a single one. And I informed Mr. McGowan and 24 Mr. Howie and Mr. Dandar about this. And we 25 stipulated to an order that -- that the Court signed Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 135 1 appointing a special master to handle these 2 telephone records. 3 Here is a copy of the order that your Honor 4 signed. 5 And -- I'm sorry, here is a copy of the cover 6 letter indicating, also, service to Mr. Dandar, 7 Mr. Howie, Mr. McGowan and I. 8 So this is how it was handled. Mr. Dandar's 9 assertion he didn't have notice of this or that 10 there is anything improper about the procedure is 11 just not very accurate. 12 THE COURT: Well, you know, naturally you-all 13 don't agree on much and you never have and you 14 probably never will. 15 I'm looking at -- if I were a lawyer, whether I 16 was noticed or whether I wasn't, and a deposition 17 went out that said you are to produce to me -- 18 MR. FUGATE: I took that back and put it in the 19 packet, Judge, if that is what you are looking for. 20 THE COURT: Well, I think it is here. 21 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 22 THE COURT: The custodians of records to bring 23 documents concerning telephone and billing records 24 for Robert S .Minton from November of '99 to 25 December 2001, you know, I would assume they would Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 136 1 be bringing records with Mr. Minton's name on them 2 or -- 3 MR. MOXON: Sure. 4 THE COURT: -- or if I had known before it was 5 LMT, and now they were sending Robert Minton, they 6 would have "Robert Minton" on them. I don't know I 7 would care. 8 I would care if it -- including if they are 9 Dandar & Dandar, PA records, I would have said, 10 "Whoa, just a minute." 11 MR. MOXON: Sure. Absolutely. 12 THE COURT: So I'm not sure either of you are 13 saying anything really different. But it does 14 appear you got notice of all this. 15 MR. DANDAR: Oh, I got notice for a deposition. 16 This was not the 10-day rule procedure where you can 17 mail in the records and there is no deposition. 18 This is a deposition which is on our calendar, we 19 are ready to come to it, "Oh, we canceled it because 20 we got the records." 21 That is not the way it is done. And my name 22 doesn't appear on the subpoena, so I could care less 23 about the records until I see them for the first 24 time in court today that has "Dandar & Dandar" on 25 the first three months. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 137 1 THE COURT: Okay. Now I think I understand. 2 Normally, these things do go out, as I recall, some 3 sort of notice. If I don't receive an objection 4 within ten days, then this thing goes out. This 5 looks like what you are saying, this is a notice of 6 taking deposition. 7 MR. DANDAR: Normal deposition. 8 THE COURT: But you would have assumed, if they 9 got the records, that they may not have -- 10 especially if they got this many records -- they 11 weren't going to sit down and go through with some 12 custodian much about this bulk of records. The 13 custodian really couldn't tell them anything. And 14 that is who it is to. 15 So it is pretty clear, I assume, what they were 16 trying to get were these records. 17 MR. DANDAR: But the reason you do it this way, 18 that they set it up, you want someone with a court 19 reporter saying here they are, marked as Exhibit A, 20 these are the official records of Nextel, Robert 21 Minton. You have a record now. 22 Now when they get something like this, no one 23 can authenticate how they got those records because 24 there is no court reporter. 25 So there are two different procedures. They Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 138 1 followed the one for a real deposition, custodian, 2 and then they canceled it and just took the records, 3 apparently. 4 And that is why I'm objecting to the way this 5 was handled. 6 THE COURT: This said: "Dear Judge Schaeffer," 7 this accounts for -- from McGowan & Suarez, this is 8 really from Tom McGowan, with a copy showing going 9 to you, stating I am pleased, which you should be 10 since it was an agreed-upon order, which are few and 11 far between in this case. "I present your Honor 12 with an agreed order dealing with the manner in 13 which discovery of the telephone records is to be 14 handled. All counsel are in concurrence with it." 15 Then it has got your name. And this order is, 16 in essence, to give it to the special master. 17 Let me see what this says. Michael Keane was 18 appointed special master. And this order that you 19 approved said -- you need to read these orders -- 20 represented the telephone records provided to him by 21 Verizon and Nextel, "which records were to have been 22 opened at deposition noticed for March 1, 2001 but 23 canceled by agreement of the parties," which would 24 be you -- "are in his possession and remain under 25 the seal they were when they were sent to him by Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 ||||| Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:18:58 -0500 From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Testimon C Message-ID: <971aefb361be47bde79816b9a17f88c1@remailer.xganon.com> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 1300 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!66.150.105.36.MISMATCH!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!grr!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550819 comp.org.eff.talk:105643 misc.legal:433669 0094------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Sustained. 2 MR. LIROT: Just her knowledge of it. 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q Are you aware of any factual information, in all 5 your involvement in the case, that, "Lisa McPherson was held 6 against her will in isolation, and when she did not respond 7 to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from 8 David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and 9 watched her die after she no longer had the strength to 10 fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was 11 the chosen option to minimize a public relations flap"? 12 MR. LIROT: Objection. 13 THE COURT: Where are you reading? 14 MR. FUGATE: I'm reading from 44, your Honor, 15 of Mr. -- 16 THE COURT: 44? 17 MR. FUGATE: 44 of Mr. Prince's affidavit. 18 THE COURT: Oh, okay. I was reading -- 19 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry. 20 THE COURT: -- the complaint. 21 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to go back to 22 that. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 Asked and answered, was that your objection? 25 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge. 0095------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Sustained. 2 MR. FUGATE: The -- I'm reading now from 3 paragraph 34, Judge, of the complaint as it exists. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q "The decision made by Scientology through the Sea 6 Org by David Miscavige and carried out by Karduzinski, 7 Johnson and Houghton, was only due to their desire to 8 protect Scientology from bad public relations." 9 Were there any facts known to you to support that 10 allegation? 11 A No. 12 Q And when it says that, "The defendants, in total 13 conscious disregard for the rights of Lisa McPherson, 14 willfully, intentionally, wantonly --" 15 THE COURT: Asked and answered, Counsel. You 16 already went through that. She said there were no 17 facts to support that. 18 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 19 THE COURT: If that's what your question was. 20 MR. FUGATE: That's what my question -- 21 THE COURT: That's what I thought. 22 MR. LIROT: Thanks, Judge. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q And from your conversations with Mr. Dandar, did 25 you understand that he understood there were no facts to 0096------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 support that? 2 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation. 3 THE COURT: Sustained. And -- 4 Well, I mean, she's already told us that he 5 didn't know the -- they didn't tell him the 6 affidavit was false, so how in the world could he 7 know that the complaint was false? 8 MR. FUGATE: Well, let me ask that. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Did you tell him that the end cycle comments in 11 there were false? 12 A Yes. Jesse and -- I did object to using that term 13 because it wasn't something that was going to be -- 14 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge, unresponsive. 15 THE COURT: Overruled. 16 A It wasn't something that was going to be credible. 17 I mean, it was something that was going to be easy for 18 Scientology to -- to discredit. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q And did he put it in anyway? 21 A Well -- 22 Q He being Mr. Dandar? 23 THE COURT: I mean, if you know. I don't know 24 if you were there -- 25 THE WITNESS: I don't -- 0097------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: -- discussed it between -- 2 THE WITNESS: I wasn't there for him to write 3 this, but -- 4 THE COURT: Well, then she can't testify about 5 that. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q You were there for the drafting of -- and input 8 into the Jesse Prince affidavit, is that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And you -- did you say you assisted in the 11 drafting of the fifth amended complaint that we were just 12 reading from? 13 MR. LIROT: Asked and answered. 14 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to overrule it 15 because I think maybe she did say that she was. I 16 don't really understand it, if she wasn't there, 17 the -- 18 A I didn't understand -- I didn't get your question. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q I don't want to confuse you either. 21 I had asked you, did you take part in the drafting 22 of the fifth amended complaint? 23 A No. And with regard to the drafting of 24 Mr. Prince's affidavit -- 25 Q Mm-hmm. 0098------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A -- I wasn't -- I don't believe that I was at the 2 office for its drafting. I may be wrong about that. But -- 3 MR. FUGATE: Excuse me, your Honor, I can't 4 hear from conversation that counsel -- 5 THE COURT: I'm sorry. All right, folks, same 6 thing back there. I mean, both sides have got to be 7 quiet so that she can hear, Mr. Fugate can hear and 8 so that I can hear. 9 A I don't recall whether or not I was actually there 10 for the drafting of the affidavit. I believe I was, but I 11 don't recall. What I do know, I was -- what I do know, my 12 involvement was in the drafting of his affidavit was many 13 conversations, as I said, in which I coached him on the 14 correct state of mind. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q To be able to put in what's in this affidavit as 17 the end cycle and the orders and the stuff that we just went 18 through and read. 19 A Well, to be able to basically create the scenario 20 in which the Scientology leadership would have directly 21 ordered her death. 22 With regard to -- that's why I'm saying, with 23 regard to end cycle, I would not have suggested that that be 24 used because I didn't think it was credible and I suggested 25 it not be used. But it's very inflammatory, as you -- as is 0099------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 the language in this whole paragraph. It's a fairly severe 2 assault on Scientology. 3 Q But the fact of the matter is it was used. 4 A Right. 5 Q And is the fact of the matter, would you say, that 6 was the intent of Mr. Minton in funding the litigation? 7 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q As far as you know? 10 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation. 11 THE COURT: If she knows. 12 If you know that. 13 A I do know, and yes, it was. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q All right. And were you present at any meetings 16 between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton where including this 17 language specifically charging intentional death on orders 18 of ecclesiastical leaders of the church was discussed and 19 agreed to? 20 A In phone calls. 21 Q Can you tell us about those? 22 A Well, I was present at Mr. Minton's end of the 23 phone call. 24 Q Okay. 25 A So I don't know what Mr. Dandar said on his end of 0100------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 the phone call. 2 But I was present for at least one discussion in 3 which Mr. Minton was very pleased with the language that was 4 used and very pleased to see that Mr. Dandar was accusing 5 the leadership of murder. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q If I understood you correctly, ma'am -- and I've 9 really got to get this -- is you use words -- I mean, 10 there's words that always get used in the case. When you 11 said you got into the state of mind, I think what you're 12 saying is you got Jesse Prince stirred enough where he was 13 able to in his mind conjure up that's true. Is that what 14 you're telling us? 15 A I would say that's a pretty good way to put it. 16 But Jesse was already pretty stirred up. 17 Q But you were able to -- in other words, that's why 18 you told us that when Jesse came in -- Mr. Prince came in to 19 testify, that he would tell us it was true, because you -- 20 and I remember what you just said. You got him to talk 21 about this could have happened and that could have happened 22 and -- 23 A That's right. 24 Q -- you were helping him get to this state of mind 25 where he could write that, believing it. 0101------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Yes, your Honor. 2 Q And -- 3 A And -- 4 Q -- he passed that information on to Mr. Dandar. 5 A Yes. And I think that Jesse will testify that he 6 believes it to this day. 7 MR. LIROT: Object -- objection. 8 THE COURT: Overruled. 9 A And I think that it's incorrect to say that 10 Mr. Dandar believed this. 11 BY THE COURT: 12 Q Okay. 13 A Because Mr. Dandar's behavior wasn't such that I 14 thought he believed it. 15 Q Okay. And this is back at the time that it was 16 drafted. In other words, back in and around -- let's say -- 17 A '99. 18 Q -- December of '99? 19 A Yes, your Honor. 20 Q Okay. Did he say anything specific? Did you and 21 he have any conversation where that was said, or anything 22 like that was said? 23 A Where anything like, where he would -- 24 Q Where Mr. Dandar -- 25 A -- he -- 0102------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q -- yeah -- where Mr. Dandar said, "I know this is 2 not true but I'm going to say it anyway 'cause it's going to 3 really get them," something like that. 4 A Well, you know, Mr. Dandar wouldn't say something 5 like that because he's very careful not to say things like 6 that. But he has certain gestures and ways in which he 7 shrugs and goes like that, that let you know that we're kind 8 of in cahoots. 9 Q What -- 10 A That's -- 11 Q What specifically about this, the fifth complaint, 12 if you recall, that -- 13 I don't know Mr. Dandar well enough -- 14 A His mannerisms, yeah. 15 Q What did he do that caused you to think that he 16 was filing a complaint that he knew was false? 17 A Well, when I read Jesse's affidavit, I thought it 18 was a little over the top, to say the least. In that I 19 thought the language was so dramatic that it wasn't very 20 credible. And I told Mr. Dandar that. And he said, "Well, 21 I'm using it. And it says what I need to have -- you know, 22 whatever -- says what I needed to say." 23 Q Okay. 24 A And then he did this sort of thing that he does. 25 I can't -- I can't repeat it, but it's just -- 0103------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q I'm sorry. I don't know what it is either. He 2 has a gesture -- 3 A He has a gesture where he kind of goes like that. 4 (indicating). 5 I don't know how to tell you to write that. 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Well, the date of the Jesse Prince affidavit, by 9 the way -- again, if you would look at it -- it's August of 10 1999 -- 11 A August. 12 Q -- correct? 13 A 20th, yeah. 14 Q And the complaint that we've been discussing was 15 date stamped in, I think, January of 2000, and it was dated 16 the 21st of December, 1999, correct? The one you have there 17 in front of you? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And prior to this, were there several other 20 complaints that were similar to this in language only they 21 said they identified Mr. Miscavige as the chairman of the 22 board of the Religious Technology Center? 23 A Yes. 24 THE COURT: Do we have to ask this witness 25 things that are part of the record? 0104------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry? 2 THE COURT: I mean, do we have to ask this 3 witness things that are part of the record? You can 4 bring this out in closing argument. We need to make 5 her a fact witness and what she can do to assist us 6 in resolving this. 7 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to get -- let 8 me -- 9 THE COURT: We'll get to that. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Was there a discussion about how to get around an 12 order of Judge Moody relating to how to put Mr. Miscavige 13 back into the complaint, this fifth amended complaint that 14 you've just identified? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And what was that discussion? 17 THE COURT: And I guess we better know between 18 whom, and who was there. 19 A Okay. Mr. Minton and myself, Dr. Garko, 20 Mr. Prince and Mr. Dandar, Ken Dandar, were there. Judge 21 Moody had ruled that it would breach the contract -- it 22 would be a breach of contract for -- for Mr. Miscavige to be 23 named as the chairman of the board of RTC, but he had -- and 24 I was at that hearing. So -- 25 0105------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q I was going to ask you that. Were you at that 3 hearing? 4 A I was at that hearing, and I remember him saying, 5 "But if you want to try to figure out another way to put him 6 in there that's not corporate," or something like that, you 7 know, "I'll -- I'll look at your new motion," or something. 8 So Judge Moody had left the door open for 9 Mr. Miscavige to be named as a defendant in some other 10 capacity if Mr. Dandar could figure out a way to do it. 11 Q Some other capacity other than as chairman of the 12 board of the Religious Technology Center. 13 A Right, some other way that wouldn't be a breach of 14 that contract. 15 Q And while we're talking about that, did you know 16 if at that point in time -- and I'm saying August of 1999 or 17 thereabouts -- that Mr. Dandar or Ms. Liebreich had entered 18 into a contract not to add RTC or CSI or Mr. Miscavige or 19 any of the ecclesiastical leaders? 20 A After the hearing before Judge Moody I knew it. 21 Q Didn't know it be before -- 22 A But -- 23 Q -- that? 24 A I don't recall, but I certainly knew it then. 25 Q And so was there then, is it fair to say, a 0106------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 problem that had to be solved as far as getting around Judge 2 Moody's order? 3 MR. LIROT: Objection. 4 THE COURT: I don't get it. Like problem what? 5 A legal problem? I mean, this is what lawyers do. 6 MR. FUGATE: Pleading problem. 7 THE COURT: Well, isn't that what lawyers do? 8 If they weren't able to do something one way and 9 they want to try to do it, they try to figure out a 10 way? 11 MR. FUGATE: Well, let me ask -- 12 THE COURT: Well, I don't know. She's not a 13 lawyer. 14 A But that is what happened. 15 THE COURT: Maybe you are. Are you a lawyer? 16 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q What happened? 20 A Well, right away I said, "Name him as a defendant 21 as the head of the Sea Org." 22 THE COURT: As head of what? 23 THE WITNESS: The Sea -- the Sea Organization. 24 Like S-E-A, Sea Organization. 25 0107------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q And was there a -- in your mind, was that a 3 legitimate way to put him in the lawsuit? Was that true? 4 A Well, I thought it would probably work. But there 5 isn't really a thing called the head of the Sea Org. 6 Q Okay. 7 A But I thought it might work. 8 Q And did it work? 9 MR. LIROT: Objection. I guess that remains to 10 be seen. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Well, let me ask it another way. If you go 13 back -- 14 Do you still have the -- do you still have the 15 complaint there? 16 A Yes. 17 THE COURT: I'm not going to ask her to tell us 18 whether his name is in the caption of the complaint. 19 I need you to move on. I mean, it is. 20 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry. I didn't understand. 21 THE COURT: Well, I don't want her to have to 22 sit here and answer, while we sit, and have her 23 explain to us what's in a pleading that we can read 24 ourselves. 25 0108------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Well, the allegation that I had referred you to -- 3 and I'll just go directly to it to save time -- is in 4 paragraph 34, the statutory wrongful death claim. It 5 indicates that, "A decision was made by Scientology through 6 the Sea Org by David Miscavige and carried out by," blah, 7 blah, blah, those -- the defendants. Did you see -- did you 8 see that? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And was that language language that was 11 fabricated, as you said, to -- 12 MR. LIROT: Objection. Mischaracterizes the 13 evidence. 14 THE COURT: Sustained. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q How did that allegation, to your knowledge, find 17 its way into the fifth amended complaint? 18 A By my suggestion. 19 Q And was that suggestion made to Mr. Dandar? 20 A Yes, it was. 21 MR. LIROT: Objection on competency. 22 THE COURT: Overruled. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q And was that objection agreed to by everyone in 25 the trial team? 0109------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Everyone except Dr. Garko. Who -- 2 Q He objected? 3 A Strenuously. 4 Q And did you explain to Mr. Dandar that that was 5 not an accurate allegation; that there wasn't a, quote, head 6 of the Sea Org, as you've just indicated? 7 A Did I explain it to him? I don't think I 8 explained it to him. But you know, I told him that I 9 thought he could create a credible argument, because you 10 know, based on the role the Sea Org plays in Scientology 11 and -- you know, we didn't really discuss it in terms of 12 whether it was true or not; we discussed it in terms of -- 13 THE COURT: Whether it was -- 14 A As a strategy. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q As a strategy, did you say? 17 A As a strategy. 18 Q And was -- was that also part of conversations 19 with Mr. Minton to engender or to gain more funding in the 20 lawsuit -- 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And did you ever have discussions with Mr. Dandar 25 at any time about ways to increase damages or to increase 0110------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Scientology's desire to settle the case for large numbers, 2 in your judgment? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What were those? 5 A Well, from the beginning -- 6 Q When and where, if you can tell us. 7 A Well, I think the first time was in the first 8 phone call that we had in the spring of 1997. I mean, it 9 came -- and then he came out and visited us. 10 I mean, basically this was why Mr. Dandar 11 contacted us, because of this previous strategy that I had 12 developed about -- 13 THE COURT: Counselor, is there something 14 nefarious about trying to get good damages when you 15 file a lawsuit? 16 MR. FUGATE: I think that's -- 17 THE COURT: If not, let's move on to something 18 else. I mean, that's usually what plaintiffs do 19 when they file a lawsuit, is try to figure out how 20 to build damages. Unless -- and I would like to 21 know this -- unless there was some discussion that, 22 "What can we do that's fraudulent, false and what 23 you have to build damages." I mean, were those 24 discussions had? Or was the idea, "How can we build 25 damages and get the church to settle for a high 0111------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 sum." 2 THE WITNESS: The -- the discussion was how to 3 put pressure on the leadership of Scientology to 4 force them to settle. 5 THE COURT: I mean, you required -- you -- as 6 you indicated to us earlier, you remembered about -- 7 I think it was you that testified -- 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: -- what you had heard before about 10 bringing L. Ron Hubbard in and -- 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: And that brought about a quick 13 dropping of the suit so you thought this might help 14 to settle the suit. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q We're talking about two things, and so we don't 19 get too confused in the record here, let me just go back and 20 finish the meeting that we were talking about between 21 yourself, Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Garko and Mr. Prince 22 about the -- how to get around the Moody order. 23 Can you tell us what else was said there in that 24 meeting, to the best of your recollection today? 25 A Basically Mr. Dandar said, "Listen, I want to get 0112------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 some feedback from you guys about whether or not I ought to 2 add -- whether or not I -- try again to add Miscavige." And 3 you know, this was my pet strategy so I was really pushing 4 it and -- 5 Q And what was -- 6 A And I said, "Yes." 7 Q What was Mr. Minton's position on that? 8 A Mr. Minton didn't say much until the end of the 9 meeting. 10 Q What did he say at the end of the meeting? 11 A At the end of the meeting he said -- he said, 12 "Actually, I'm afraid that this is going to add an enormous 13 amount of cost to the case. So to that degree, I don't 14 think it's a good idea." 15 Q And what did Mr. Dandar say? 16 A Mr. Dandar said, "Hmm, well, I'll think it all 17 over. Thanks for your input." 18 Q And then what happened, to your knowledge? 19 THE COURT: What do you mean what happened? 20 Did they go home or what? 21 MR. FUGATE: You're right, Judge. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q The amended complaint was filed and were there 24 more funds after that complaint was filed in -- 25 THE COURT: Well, Counselor, you're not going 0113------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 anywhere here. The man that you're talking about 2 said don't do something, he did, so you can't very 3 well turn around and say he followed Mr. Minton's 4 wishes and got more money. It's too late for that. 5 She just testified differently. So you move on to 6 something else. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Let's go back then -- did you receive a letter 9 from Mr. Dandar? I think you say in paragraph 7 of your 10 affidavit that you got a letter, you and Mr. -- your 11 then-husband Vaughn Young, got a letter from Mr. Dandar in 12 May of 1997? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And you have quotations in it that I'm enclosing a 15 copy of the -- 16 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence rule. 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I was making a note 18 here or something and I didn't even hear what was 19 happening. 20 MR. FUGATE: I'll go back, Judge. 21 THE COURT: I think he was laying a predicate. 22 MR. FUGATE: I had switched, as you said -- 23 THE COURT: Thank you. 24 MR. FUGATE: -- to a different topic, and that 25 was, would you go look at your paragraph 7 in your 0114------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 second affidavit -- 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. FUGATE: And she -- I was asking her about 4 language that is quoted there that says, "He sent a 5 letter in May, 1997 in which he stated --" and 6 there's a portion in quotations -- 7 THE COURT: Okay. And you said best evidence? 8 MR. LIROT: Best evidence rule. I'd like to 9 see the whole letter, Judge. 10 THE COURT: Well, let me look at it just a 11 minute. 12 MR. LIROT: Very good. 13 THE COURT: Do you have this letter? 14 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. LIROT: Judge, I want to register an 17 objection here. I'd like to see the letter, but 18 we're stomping all over Mr. Dandar's work product in 19 a lot of this. And I think -- I'm as curious as you 20 are about the facts of what's been alleged, but I 21 have deep concerns about -- 22 THE COURT: Well, I do too. You know what, 23 Counselor, the problem is, is that letter is in the 24 hands of the opponent. And they're saying that your 25 client ought to be thrown off this case. So if they 0115------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 didn't have it, then I would say that's something to 2 be concerned about it. But they're the opposition 3 and they've got it. So don't you think we're past 4 that? I mean, we're past it. 5 MR. LIROT: We don't have -- 6 THE COURT: The reason for a work product 7 privilege is so the opposition doesn't get to know 8 your work product. The opposition in this case is 9 the defendant who is -- however it is that they're 10 named -- they've got the letter. 11 MR. LIROT: I -- 12 THE COURT: So I don't know, do you want to 13 keep me from seeing it or this witness? 14 MR. LIROT: No, Judge, I don't mind you seeing 15 it. I'm just curious how they got it. 16 THE COURT: I agree with you, but I mean, how 17 can we protect a product privilege when the 18 opponent's got the work product. 19 MR. LIROT: You make a good point, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Well, I thought I might. 21 MR. LIROT: Judge, if we could just have a 22 second? 23 THE COURT: You could. 24 You all can always tell when it gets a little 25 later in the day, can't you? I go from being just 0116------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 so nice in the morning. I can tell, myself. 2 See, what's happening is exactly what I said. 3 These two lawyers appear -- by that I better 4 specify -- Mr. Fugate and Mr. Lirot appeared at my 5 door at noon, and everybody said, "Oh, this is going 6 to move along." I said, "Wrong. We'll never finish 7 with her this afternoon." And guess what, we're 8 not. 9 MR. FUGATE: Right as usual. 10 THE COURT: Why is it that -- I know you guys. 11 And that's exactly what I said, didn't I? I know 12 you guys. It isn't going to happen. And you're not 13 going to finish on Monday and Tuesday. It's going 14 to go on and on and on. 15 MR. LIROT: Here you go, sir. 16 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your 17 Honor? 18 THE COURT: You may. 19 MR. FUGATE: At the moment I have one, and I'll 20 give it to her and I'll ask her to hand it up to 21 you -- 22 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. FUGATE: -- to identify. 24 Here. 25 THE COURT: Did we give the clerk, by the way, 0117------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 the thing from this morning? Did you get that, 2 Madam Clerk? 3 THE CLERK: Yes. 4 THE COURT: So this will be the next -- we're 5 going to introduce this? 6 MR. FUGATE: Yes, we can. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q I'm looking over the rail, there. 10 Are you looking at three pages or two pages? 11 'Cause I've got -- okay. Good. 'Cause I have a two-page 12 letter. 13 Do you recognize the May 2nd, 1997 letter to you? 14 A Yes. Do you want me to give it to the judge? 15 Q Well, I guess I can give the judge my copy. 16 MR. FUGATE: And we'll then ask that this be 17 made our next exhibit number, which is 74 or -5? 18 THE CLERK: -4. 19 THE COURT: Now, this is the other side's 20 exhibits, and they're way up there. Did you say -4? 21 I know that's wrong. 22 THE CLERK: You're right. That's the 23 plaintiff's. 24 THE COURT: See, she's using the other side's. 25 So you got to get this right. 0118------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the reason I said 74 or 75 2 is 'cause what we thought we'd do, for the sake of 3 not erring like we have before, is we'll just 4 continue our exhibits that are in your binder, which 5 I think went to -- 6 MR. WEINBERG: It was 72 -- 7 MR. FUGATE: 72. 8 MR. WEINBERG: 73. 9 MR. FUGATE: Well, wrong as usual. 10 73. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. LIROT: What are the transcripts? 13 MR. WEINBERG: Those are court exhibits. 14 THE COURT: That was a court exhibit. 15 MR. LIROT: Very good. 16 THE COURT: Number 1. 17 MR. FUGATE: I'll hand a copy up for you to 18 look at, and then one of these, we'll make -- 19 THE COURT: All right. So this, Madam Clerk, 20 will become -- well, we're going to have to continue 21 with the same -- this will become the church's 22 Exhibit Number 73. 23 (Defendant's Exhibit Number 73 marked for identification.) 24 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Fugate. 25 0119------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Did you have a chance to read the letter? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And the portion that you quoted there, which is, 5 "I'm enclosing a copy of the proposed amended complaint. I 6 intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent. Would 7 Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation 8 and their condition, et cetera --" was that how you first 9 became involved with Mr. Dandar and what he was first 10 looking for in his engagement of you and your husband? 11 A Yes. 12 MR. LIROT: Objection -- 13 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 14 MR. LIROT: Withdrawn. 15 A Yes. He had -- it was my understanding that he 16 had seen some of my earlier declarations, and he had seen -- 17 he had become familiar with the strategy that I outlined in 18 those declarations with regard to Miscavige. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q And would that be through -- are we aware that 21 Mr. Dandar had met Mr. Wollersheim and counsel for 22 Mr. Wollersheim at that time? 23 A I believe he mentioned that in the phone 24 conversation. I became aware of it soon after, if not then. 25 Q And are you aware that Mr. Minton had met 0120------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Wollersheim and that was part of his funding 2 anti-Scientology -- 3 THE COURT: Why do we care about that? Is 4 there a reason for that? 5 MR. FUGATE: Well, it ties up with what she 6 said earlier. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 A I'm aware of it now. I wasn't aware of it then. 9 I didn't know Mr. -- 10 THE COURT: She wasn't aware of it. 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q How did you answer Mr. Dandar, would Mr. Miscavige 14 have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their 15 condition? 16 A I said he could have. 17 Q Yeah. So you told him the answer to that is -- is 18 yes or could have or something like that? 19 A I said -- I said, "Again, if you want to put 20 pressure on Scientology, you should go after Miscavige." 21 See, your Honor, the thing I don't remember is, 22 it's my -- it's my recollection that the reason he said 23 this, "I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent," 24 was because of the phone call that we had. But he may have 25 already had that intention prior to the phone call. But 0121------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 that was my thing, you know, that's what I -- that's what I 2 said. So we had already discussed it over the phone. 3 Q But he's asking you. You and your husband at that 4 time are -- I don't know what you were. You were either 5 experts or -- or consultants or something. And I guess he 6 says, "I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent," 7 and then this is a question to you, Stacy and Vaughn, "Would 8 Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation 9 and their condition?" And your response to him was -- 10 A "He could have." 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Okay. Now if you look at page 7 -- 15 THE WITNESS: You know, for your purposes, he 16 could have. 17 EXAMINATION 18 BY THE COURT: 19 Q Well, I mean, I've read something -- and I've 20 read, as I said, an awful lot about the church's procedures, 21 but I've read something somewhere, and good Lord knows where 22 it could be, that said somebody that is in PTS-III 23 condition -- 24 A Mm-hmm. 25 Q -- would be reported clear to the top. The top is 0122------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 David Miscavige. So if that's true, then he would know. If 2 that's not true, then he wouldn't know. 3 A Well, actually I said that. 4 Q Oh, well, then that's where I read it. Was that 5 true? 6 A I don't believe so. 7 Q Oh, well, then I read it -- because I think when I 8 read something -- I guess one just shouldn't assume that 9 anymore. But I think when I read something, especially an 10 affidavit or something from a witness, I can believe it and 11 I can put it in my bank of memory and know that it's 12 accurate. So -- 13 A I can understand why you would expect that. 14 Q Okay. 15 A But in this circumstance -- 16 Q Well, how high up does it go? Who does -- does it 17 just go up to Mr. Karduzinski, for example? I mean, we know 18 that. 19 A Well -- 20 Q Does he report to somebody about these PTS-IIIs? 21 Which we know Lisa McPherson was. I mean, that's the 22 church's position, that she was in an introspection rundown, 23 which is why none of that gets to be looked at by a jury. 24 A Right. Right. 25 Q And I'm protecting that. So I mean, I'm 0123------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 protecting a religious practice of the church. 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. At their request. 4 A Mm-hmm. 5 Q How high up does it go? What's going on with one 6 of these PTS-IIIs. 7 A Well, first of all, I've got to tell you that, you 8 know, this happens in Scientology -- I mean, I suppose it 9 happens anywhere in life, but it happens in Scientology that 10 a person, you know, freaks out and has to be under watch for 11 a while to make sure that they're okay. On a routine basis 12 with one of these things, it -- and I mean, I'm telling you 13 totally my speculation here -- based on my experience as 14 well, but my experience is from the '80s. 15 But I do not think that on a routine basis 16 everybody who freaks out is reported to Miscavige. 17 Q But we're talking about someone here who was in 18 this state for 17 days. 19 A Right. 20 Q And I presume that's a fairly long time. 21 A I -- I would say so. 22 It was based on the fact that she was in that 23 state for a long time, you know, that we speculated that he 24 might have been told about it. And you know, it's not the 25 kind of thing that you can say, yes, he would have been told 0124------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 about it or, no, he wouldn't have been told about that. 2 It's -- it's impossible to know. 3 Q But he might have been, which is the reason why 4 you might add somebody, take a deposition and see. Was that 5 discussed? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. 8 A No. 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Did you understand this to be -- did you 12 understand from Mr. Dandar that this was to be a legal 13 maneuver, the adding of Mr. Miscavige -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q -- in an individual capacity to get around Judge 16 Moody's order? 17 A Oh, well, that wasn't regarding this letter. 18 Q No, I'm talking -- I'm sorry -- I skipped back to 19 the August and November/October -- 20 A Okay. 21 Q -- '99 period. 22 MR. LIROT: Objection to characterization. I 23 don't know what a legal maneuver is, Judge. 24 THE COURT: Well, if she was told that it was a 25 legal maneuver, then I'm going to let her answer. 0125------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 If she wasn't, we're going to have to -- 2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I just changed time zones 3 here, so let me get back so we're clear. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q I was actually going to direct you back to your 6 affidavit -- 7 A Okay. 8 MR. FUGATE: Page 7 and 8, Counsel. 9 THE COURT: Are we done with the letter now? 10 Can I give it to the clerk? 11 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Madam Clerk. 13 Well, let me see that. Let me just read it. 14 Go ahead. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q Did you get a chance to read back to 15 and 16? 17 A Are we going to paragraphs? 18 Q Yeah. Paragraph 15 and 16, on page 7 and 8 -- 19 A Of whose affidavit? 20 Q Of your -- 21 A Oh. 22 Q Of your second affidavit that was filed. 23 A Okay. Paragraphs 15 and 16? 24 Q Mm-hmm. 25 A Okay. 0126------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q You indicate there, "I knew there really was no 2 such thing as head of the Sea Org, but Dandar thought it 3 would work as a legal maneuver." What did you mean by that? 4 A Well, the Sea Org is a -- is not a hierarchal 5 thing. The Sea Org is -- the Sea Org is something that 6 people join in Scientology when they want to dedicate their 7 whole life to Scientology. And they sign a million-year 8 contract, and it's a very strong commitment. 9 THE COURT: It's a nonpublic member. 10 A It's for sure a nonpublic member. It's the 11 most -- it's the people in Scientology who are the most 12 dedicated to furthering the aims of Scientology, basically. 13 And it's a bit amorphous, really. In other words, it 14 doesn't really have a shape; it doesn't really have an 15 organization in and of itself. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q And it's not a corporate entity. 18 A And it's not a corporate entity. But it is a 19 thing. I mean, there is such a thing as the Sea Org. 20 And -- and if you couldn't -- you know, this contract that 21 Mr. Dandar had signed was pretty binding. So you kind of 22 had to slither around it a little bit because they cover all 23 of -- all of the corporate bases. I mean, RTC, CSI, the 24 people that were named in that agreement, that kind of 25 covered the top of Scientology. 0127------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. LIROT: I'd object to that as to 2 competency. I don't know that she has -- 3 THE COURT: Well, that's overruled. I think 4 she's quite competent to testify about this. And, 5 quite frankly, I understand it. I understand 6 exactly what she's saying. 7 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think you misunderstood my 8 objection. She's speaking as to the effectiveness 9 of this agreement, stating that it covered the top 10 of Scientology. I think that's a legal conclusion. 11 What she knows is fine, but what the impact of this 12 settlement agreement is, is something I don't think 13 she's competent to testify to. 14 THE COURT: Okay. I think she knew that they 15 were going to have some trouble based on the -- 16 based on the fact that there's a summary judgment, 17 for heaven's sake, which means there's no fact at 18 issue. I would say was a pretty tight contract. 19 And you all talked about that. 20 THE WITNESS: It was a pretty tight contract. 21 THE COURT: It was a pretty tight contract. 22 And she knew, and Mr. Dandar knew. But was 23 anybody trying to do anything illegal here? Was 24 this kind of a manipulation to see if there was 25 another way to add David Miscavige, who might have 0128------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 known what happened to Lisa McPherson -- 2 Isn't that what was going on? 3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, what was going on 4 was trying to figure out a way to add Miscavige that 5 wouldn't violate that contract. 6 THE COURT: Right. And you indicated, and you 7 certainly had told Mr. Dandar, based on your 8 experience, that -- that in response to his request, 9 that Mr. -- 10 THE WITNESS: Mr. Miscavige. 11 THE COURT: -- might have known, might have had 12 a report about what was happening in Lisa 13 McPherson's case. And Dandar thought that if he 14 could get Miscavige in there, as everybody told him, 15 he might get a quick settlement, better settlement, 16 the whole thing. I mean, I really understand this. 17 I understand -- good judges, I guess, just 18 understand both sides of a case pretty well. 19 MR. FUGATE: Well -- 20 THE COURT: You guys, as I said, kind of look 21 in a tunnel vision. You only understand your own 22 side. 23 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm reading an affidavit 24 that I'm -- 25 THE COURT: I know. 0129------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: -- going to ask her about, because 2 it certainly is set out different there. 3 THE COURT: All right Yes. Yes. I'm sure it 4 is. 5 Who did this affidavit? 6 THE WITNESS: Which? 7 THE COURT: This one. 8 THE WITNESS: Mine? 9 THE COURT: Yeah. 10 THE WITNESS: I did. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q It says, "Mr. Dandar and I had discussed it," 14 meaning, I guess, the strategy -- "and had already 15 suggested -- I had already suggested a scenario how this 16 could be done by falsely claiming that Mr. Miscavige had a 17 different role as head of the Sea Organization apart from 18 his --" 19 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object. I would prefer 20 questions -- 21 THE COURT: Absolutely. This affidavit is in 22 evidence, and you don't get to go back and ask her 23 now what she's saying is contrary to that. That's 24 kind of like the craziness that went on up there 25 about reading from somebody else's deposition. It's 0130------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 in evidence, it stands for what it stands for and it 2 says what it says. 3 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge. 4 Now let me go to paragraph 16, because that's 5 my question. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Would you read paragraph 16, which followed on the 8 heels of 15? 9 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think we just talked about 10 this. 11 MR. FUGATE: No, we haven't talked about what's 12 in paragraph 16. 13 THE WITNESS: You want me to read -- 14 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may object, this is 15 leading, it's creating testimony. I'd like 16 questions asked, and if her memory's not good enough 17 to answer the question, she can refresh her memory 18 with the affidavit. This is entirely improper. 19 THE COURT: Yeah. I kind of think so too. I 20 mean, we've got an affidavit and you're going down 21 on somebody's affidavit that's sworn to under oath 22 and now asking her in court, read it and tell me if 23 it's true. 24 MR. FUGATE: No, I'm not asking her -- 25 THE COURT: The deal is, I think what you need 0131------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 to do is say, "At the end of the meeting, what 2 happened," and if she says something different from 3 this, pick it up and question her with it. 4 Otherwise, we're really wasting a lot of time. 5 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, you asked a couple of 6 questions there. We -- and I know you can do that, 7 and you did. We went far afield of where I was 8 headed. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q And I want to go back -- 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q -- and ask you, you indicate that the meeting 14 ended, everybody went down in an elevator and there was a 15 comment made by Mr. Dandar. What was the comment and how 16 did you take that? 17 A He said, "By the way, this meeting never 18 happened." 19 Q What did you understand that to mean in reference 20 to the meeting that you had just discussed up here in 21 paragraph 15? 22 MR. LIROT: Objection. 23 THE COURT: Sustained. 24 MR. LIROT: This is a compound question, Judge. 25 THE COURT: Well, not only that, but, "By the 0132------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 way, this meeting never happened" is pretty clear. 2 And she can't tell us what was in Mr. Dandar's mind. 3 He'll have to be asked. 4 You can ask what it meant to her. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q What did it mean to you? 7 A It meant to me that Mr. Minton wasn't supposed to 8 be in on strategy meetings and we weren't to discuss that he 9 had been and that -- that it never happened. 10 Q And were there strategy meetings after that that 11 you and Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar were involved in, in 12 regards to this litigation? 13 THE COURT: That won't do, Counselor. If there 14 was a strategy meeting, we're going to have to get 15 specific here. You're trying to remove a lawyer. I 16 need to know time, date, place, who was there, when 17 it was and what was said. 18 MR. FUGATE: Well, I just went through the 19 affidavit as to that meeting, Judge, and -- 20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, was there any more? 21 MR. FUGATE: That's what I was asking, I 22 thought. 23 THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Were there any more strategy meetings between you, 0133------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar to discuss the trial strategy or 2 pleading strategy in this frame of reference? 3 A There was the meeting that I have already talked 4 about in Philadelphia. 5 Q Mm-hmm. 6 A There were some phone calls when Mr. Minton was up 7 in New Hampshire where Mr. Dandar would update him on what 8 was happening. 9 THE COURT: Were you listening in on them? 10 THE WITNESS: Usually, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 A There was -- 13 THE COURT: Then you better go into them. You 14 better go into them one at a time, what they were, 15 what was said. 16 THE WITNESS: Well -- 17 THE COURT: If they were strategy session where 18 Mr. Minton was telling Mr. Dandar how to run this 19 lawsuit, we better hear about it. If it was 20 Mr. Dandar telling Mr. Minton what was going on in 21 the case, I don't care to hear about it. 22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, that's what was 23 happening. 24 THE COURT: All right. Then we don't need to 25 hear about it. 0134------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: I'm not sure I understand. 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q What was happening? 4 A When Mr. Dandar was telling Mr. Minton what was 5 happening. And -- 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q I think what he's asking, frankly, what's 9 important in this particular piece of this puzzle, is 10 whether -- there's been an allegation Mr. Minton, because he 11 paid money, was somehow or other directing the litigation. 12 So when he's saying strategy session, is what he's 13 talking about, was there any more strategy sessions where 14 Mr. Minton was there making suggestions and telling 15 Mr. Dandar how to run the lawsuit? 16 A Your Honor, I think I've pretty much covered 17 that -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A -- earlier in the sense of talking about how 20 Mr. Minton was very adamant about making sure that the focus 21 stayed on Scientology. 22 There were phone calls in which he reiterated 23 that. I can't tell you more specific than that. I just -- 24 you know, over a period of time there were a number of phone 25 calls in which that same desire on the part of Mr. Minton 0135------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 was reiterated. 2 Q Keep the emphasis on Scientology, not the workers. 3 A Right. 4 Q Did he ever say -- well, I guess what's really 5 important, did he say, "Use these false things that I've 6 told you about"? 7 A No. 8 Q Or was it just where the emphasis was to be? 9 A The emphasis. 10 Q Keep the emphasis on the church, less on the 11 workers. I mean, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, 12 but I'm -- 13 He wanted this to make the church hurt. 14 A He wanted -- 15 Q Mr. Minton did. 16 A Yes. Yes. 17 Q And he wanted, if there was going to be publicity, 18 for it to be against the church -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- not against some Janis Johnson that anybody in 21 the world would know about and nobody in the world would 22 write about and nobody would care about. They might write 23 about the Church of Scientology. 24 A Yes. 25 THE COURT: Sorry. 0136------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: That's okay. 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q You just touched on publicity. Can you tell us, 5 was there, in your understanding, a purpose in the formation 6 of the Lisa McPherson Trust that dealt with creating 7 publicity about anti-Scientology activity and the case -- 8 this case in particular? 9 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence. The 10 mission statement for the Lisa McPherson Trust 11 speaks for itself. 12 THE COURT: Sustained. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q How was the Lisa McPherson Trust started, if you 15 can tell us? If you know. 16 A As I said earlier, and I'll pick it up where I 17 left off before, there was an agreement between the estate 18 and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton that the bulk of the proceeds 19 of the lawsuit were going to go to an anti-Scientology 20 organization that Mr. Minton was involved with as a way of 21 repaying him for his help on the case. And -- and as a way 22 of allowing Mr. Minton to further his aims, which were to 23 attack Scientology. 24 And so when he and I left the board of directors 25 of that early organization, FACTNet, we began making plans 0137------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 to create a new organization. And you know, we talked to 2 Mr. Dandar about it, we talked to the family, Dell Liebreich 3 about it. They were very happy. Mr. Dandar was very 4 excited about it. He filed the incorporation papers for us 5 in the fall of '99. 6 And you know, Mr. Minton -- I didn't -- I thought 7 it would be better for this organization to be in 8 Washington, D.C. Mr. Minton wanted it right in 9 Scientology's face, right in downtown Clearwater. Because 10 he wanted to be very confrontational. He wanted to create 11 as much media as possible. He wanted to really broadcast as 12 much as possible the abuse of Scientology. 13 Q Did he, Mr. Minton, discuss that plan with 14 Mr. Dandar, to your knowledge? 15 THE COURT: What plan? 16 MR. FUGATE: The plan -- 17 THE COURT: Where to put LMT? 18 MR. FUGATE: Where to put LMT, the purpose -- 19 THE COURT: What do you care and what's the 20 relevance of that to this hearing? 21 MR. FUGATE: Well, I think it's set out on our 22 papers, but -- 23 THE COURT: Well, tell me real quickly, if you 24 can, what it is. We're here to discuss three 25 things. We finished one, the next thing is the 0138------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 agreement, whether there was a agreement, and 2 finally we're going to get to fraudulent and false 3 statements. We've done 1 and 3. What is this 4 about? 5 MR. FUGATE: This goes to the agreement. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. FUGATE: And as you said, the odd fact that 8 things reversed out, whatever it was you said 9 yesterday. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Was -- was there a discussion between 12 Mr. Dandar -- were there discussions between Mr. Dandar and 13 Mr. Minton about the formation and the -- that you've just 14 described, and putting it -- putting the LMT in Clearwater, 15 putting Lisa McPherson's name on it, et cetera? 16 A Yes. 17 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge. Whether there 18 were discussions between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar, 19 I want to know what she knows, not just some general 20 question. I prefer her knowledge. 21 THE COURT: I -- I agree with that. I mean, 22 you're going to have to ask her whether she was a 23 party to these, at the very least. I assume we're 24 going to hear from Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton about 25 these, so if she didn't hear them, then it doesn't 0139------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 matter. 2 MR. FUGATE: I think I said of her knowledge, 3 but if I didn't -- 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Did I say of your knowledge? 7 A I don't know, but I was responding to the ones 8 that were in my presence. 9 Q Okay. Would you tell us about the ones that were 10 in your presence, that -- 11 A Well, at that time we were -- we didn't have any 12 other office space so we were working out of Mr. Dandar's 13 office, out of his conference room. 14 Q Who is we? 15 A Mr. Minton and I, to get this organization set up 16 and to find office space and, you know, working on getting 17 it established. And so we spent quite a bit of time over at 18 Mr. Dandar's office, you know, upon several occasions. We 19 were over there discussing the plans for the organization. 20 Q And who was discussing the plans for the 21 organization in the meetings that you've just described? 22 A The three of us, Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and 23 myself. I don't recall who else was there, if anyone. 24 Q Was there a decision to have the personal 25 representative, Dell Liebreich, become part of the Lisa 0140------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 McPherson Trust? 2 A Mr. Dandar wanted her on the board actually as a 3 way to publicly demonstrate the connection between the Lisa 4 McPherson Trust and the case. 5 Q And was there a decision -- 6 A And sort of her stamp of approval on the 7 organization. 8 Q And that was a discussion that you witnessed 9 between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And was there a decision about using Lisa 12 McPherson's name? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And what was your understanding of the purpose for 15 that? 16 A Because Mr. Minton wanted -- you know, she had 17 become a symbol of -- the wrongful death case had become a 18 symbol for the critic community all over the world, the 19 Scientology critic community all over the world, for the 20 abuse of Scientology. And he wanted that symbol to be the 21 name of the organization. 22 Q Were there discussions then in these preliminary 23 meetings about generating -- just a yes or no -- generating 24 publicity or public sentiment against Scientology as one of 25 the purposes? 0141------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. LIROT: Leading question, Judge. 2 THE COURT: Beyond that, what difference does 3 it make? I mean, I can assume that the LMT -- I can 4 assume that the idea of the LMT was to put Lisa 5 McPherson, the dead person that they said 6 Scientology caused, right there in the forefront. I 7 mean, this is obvious, what it was all about. This 8 is what Mr. Minton wanted it to be all about. Maybe 9 this is what Mr. Dandar wanted it to be all about. 10 And I mean, what -- so what. What we need to 11 know is whether there was an agreement to pay the 12 money from the lawsuit into there and what in the 13 world, if anything, she knew about it. That's 14 really all that I care about for this very small 15 hearing that now is quarter after 4 on your direct 16 that was going to be done today. She was going to 17 be off the stand. 18 Go on ahead. 19 MR. FUGATE: I'm going. 20 THE COURT: And we're going to take a break at 21 4:30, and we're going to go till we finish this 22 witness. Because we're not going to have her 23 brought back after a weekend. We're going to finish 24 her and she's never coming back in this courtroom, 25 in this hearing. So however long that takes, let's 0142------------------------------------------------------------------ ||||| From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- Summarised B Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:27:05 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 46 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550823 comp.org.eff.talk:105646 misc.legal:433672 At(P177) why in Clearwater? To be "in their face" at Their headquarters location, with more opportunities for interaction. For "in their face" interaction? Yes, and would generate lots of publicity. It was clearly set up to help people who had problems with Scientology [Mr Fugate hastily blocks any talk of this]. Was there any discussion of causing media attention? The Court: it is only relevant where he discussed it with Dandar. Well, Mr Minton, this idea of being in Scientology's face by locating here was yours, wasn't it? It was discussed with Mr Dandar too. [unresponsive, not a denial of the point put]. At(P178) It was my idea to set up the group, but going back to--- I think the judge wants this confined to discussions with Mr Dandar...? I was doing that; even back in 1998 the idea of such an organisation was an idea put forward by the dead girl's three relatives (Dell Liebrich, Ann Carlson, and Lee Skelton). So, back in 1999, Mr Dandar and I discussed forming such a group. Ms Brooks wanted the group located in Washington, but Mr Dandar and I wanted it in Clearwater. At(P179) so you and Dandar discussed locating it here? Yes. Why here? This was where the action was and the case was, when the organisation was to use the dead girl's name. Lisa MacPherson? Yes, Lisa MacPherson. Whose idea was it to use her name? Mr Dandar's. Did you need, or seek, authorisation to use Lisa's name? Yes, Dell agreed to it. Was this you speaking directly to Dell? No, via Dandar. Did she acknowledge to you that she had authorised it? At(P180) no, I don't think so. How did Dell come to be on the board of directors? Mr Dandar thought it would be a good idea to have her. Possibly also someone from a later generation of the family who would continue their presence when the three elderly sisters finally passed on. Who was that? Kim Krenek. Is she listed on the exhibit? Yes. Now, did you and Mr Dandar discuss picketing? Yes. What was said? At(P181) since we are entering a new topic, I think it Is about time to recess for the afternoon and resume - I am elsewhere on Monday - on Tuesday morning. THE COURT WENT INTO RECESS. At(P182) reporter's declaration. End of volume two in the testimony of Bob Minton. ||||| From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- testimony day one (morning) B Message-ID: <27c6be10b05ca9c796854d3337a0f77c@remailer.privacy.at> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:31:06 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1578 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550825 comp.org.eff.talk:105647 misc.legal:433673 Volume 1, Page 39 1 lawsuit versus some personal matter or -- I don't know 2 what they would gain from it. But the deal is they're 3 not supposed to know that, according to the Second 4 District, so I'm not going to allow inquiry there - - 5 to say nothing of the fact that I don't think it 6 matters. That's a Bar matter. That's not a matter 7 for me, so it doesn't matter anyway. 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, if you'll bear with me a 9 moment, I just -- 10 THE COURT: I'm sure to the Bar it becomes a 11 relevant matter, but it isn't necessarily a relevant 12 matter here. 13 MR. FUGATE: What I've done, Judge, I 14 marked -- I'll give you a courtesy copy of the checks 15 I'm going to introduce through Mr. Minton. And I've 16 marked in the corner what I believe is the accurate 17 number from the clerk, and they're sequential by date. 18 And I'll hand a copy, if I may, up to Mr. Minton. 19 MR. DANDAR: Do you have numbers on them? 20 (Mr. Fugate and Mr. Dandar spoke off the 21 record.) 22 THE COURT: Did you give a copy to counsel? 23 MR. FUGATE: Yes, I have. I was just going 24 to explain the numbers to him, because he didn't have 25 the numbers.--------------------------------------- -------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 40 1 (Mr. Fugate and Mr. Dandar spoke off 2 record.) 3 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q Now, I have handed to you, Mr. Minton, a group 6 of -- copies of checks, and I'd ask you to look through 7 these exhibits that are marked 93A through 93I and ask if 8 you can identify these copies of the checks. 9 A Yes. These are all checks that I've given to 10 Mr. Dandar. 11 Q There are one -- 93A, 93B, 93C -- 12 THE COURT: Counsel, they're A through I. 13 MR. FUGATE: No, I was going to ask him on 14 personal accounts. I just lost my place here. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q -- 93D, 93E, and F are on your own bank account. 17 Is that correct? Personal accounts, I mean. 18 A Yes, they are. 19 Q And I think it is 93G and I, if I have the right 20 letters there, which appears to be UBS bank drafts or bank 21 checks? 22 A Checks. 23 Q Checks, okay. I'm going to ask you to explain 24 that because I need to know. 25 A Okay.----------------------------------------- ------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 41 1 Q Are those exhibits the checks that you provided 2 to and gave to Mr. Dandar? The UBS checks. 3 A Yes. 4 Q One in the amount of $500,000, which is G, and 5 one in the amount of 250,000? 6 A That's right. 7 MR. FUGATE: I would move all of these 8 checks into evidence, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Subject to the sort of 10 objection, whatever it is, I'm going to allow it. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Now -- 13 THE COURT: In other words, he's not 14 waiving -- 15 MR. FUGATE: I understand. 16 THE COURT: -- his -- the benefit that he's 17 obtained under the Second DCA orders in this case. 18 Rulings, sorry. Not orders; rulings. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q Mr. Minton -- 21 THE WITNESS: Can I just ask your Honor's 22 permission for something? I have a little -- if you 23 don't mind if I bring it up, I keep it in my 24 calculator, and it's a list of these checks and the 25 dates.--------------------------------------------- -------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 42 1 THE COURT: That's fine. How do you keep 2 checks in a calculator? 3 THE WITNESS: No, in the calculator case. 4 THE COURT: Oh. 5 THE WITNESS: It just slides in there, 6 that's all. 7 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Well, I think that where we are in the 10 progression here is with regard to the UBS -- copy of the 11 UBS check which is Exhibit 93G and a copy of the UBS check 12 which is 93I, could you tell the Court what these two 13 copies represent? In other words, what is a bank check so 14 that we know what we're talking about here? 15 A Well, just to clarify, you used the term "draft." 16 Q I know nothing about -- 17 A Okay. But these are not drafts. 18 Q Okay. 19 A In Europe they might refer to them as drafts. 20 But, your Honor, you can see, just like, you know, your 21 checks, along the bottom there is what's called MICR 22 encoding, which has your account number, the check number, 23 and the ABA number of the bank on which the check is 24 payable. And in this case, the -- up in about right here 25 on the middle part, you see 1 dash 2 ------------------- ------------------------------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 43 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 A -- over 210. That's sort of the ABA code for 3 Chase Manhattan Bank. And that number is an MICR encoding 4 down here, 02100021. 5 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, would you repeat 6 that number? 7 MR. FUGATE: Go ahead. Repeat the number. 8 THE REPORTER: Would you repeat the number. 9 THE WITNESS: 021000021 [sic]. 10 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 11 A That -- this means that this check is, you know, 12 just like any other check in the United States, that it's 13 payable at some U.S. bank, like, you know, Fleet or 14 Fidelity, in my case, or SunTrust or whoever here. So it's 15 a U.S. bank check, even though it's issued by Union Bank of 16 Switzerland. 17 You know, so you deposit this -- a draft you 18 would normally actually go to your bank and send it for 19 collection. This -- this check can be deposited into your 20 account just like any other check. 21 MR. FUGATE: Judge -- 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY THE COURT: 24 Q Well, I don't know -- I guess I'm just still, as 25 I said, not being an international financier -- how does----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 44 1 one pick up the bank -- I mean, can I just -- in other 2 words, this -- I have to have this account right here in 3 this country. 4 A Well -- 5 Q That's my -- that would be my U.S. account 6 number. 7 A No. That's what's called the ABA number, the 8 American Bankers Association number. It's a designation 9 within the Federal Reserve system in the United States. 10 Each bank has a separate ID -- 11 Q Right. 12 A -- and that's their ABA number. 13 Q So this is your bank in New York? 14 A No. That's the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. 15 Q Okay. That's right here -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q -- "bank paid to," the Chase Manhattan Bank? 18 A No, it's payable at Chase Manhattan Bank. 19 Q Payable at. 20 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have -- 21 THE COURT: Wait. I'm not done. 22 MR. FUGATE: Well, I have a blowup that may 23 be easier to read. I don't know if -- 24 THE COURT: That isn't going to help me a 25 bit.----------------------------------------------- ------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 45 1 BY THE COURT: 2 Q This number right here that I've got my thumb on 3 right here, is that the Chase Manhattan Bank number? 4 A That's their designated -- designated ID number 5 in the Federal Reserve system. 6 Q Right. Just like on my checking account, that 7 number down there -- I bank at Mercantile Bank. That's -- 8 on my checks, that's the Mercantile Bank? 9 A Yes. They would have their ABA number on that 10 check also. 11 Q Right. Out here to the right is my account 12 number. 13 A That's right. 14 Q At the Mercantile Bank. 15 A Correct. 16 Q Is that the same here? In other words, that's 17 the account number at the Chase Manhattan Bank? 18 A No. Well, that would be the one to the right of 19 the ABA number -- 20 Q Right. 21 A -- would be the account number of Union Bank of 22 Switzerland, Zurich, at Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. 23 Q That is the bank of Switzerland's account 24 number -- 25 A Account number.------------------------------- ---------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 46 1 Q -- at the Chase Manhattan Bank? 2 A Correct. 3 Q Okay. So the bank in Switzerland in essence 4 sends this to the -- payable to the bank in Chase 5 Manhattan, and then somebody goes in and picks up the 6 funds? 7 A No -- 8 Q How do you -- I just don't get it. 9 A No, okay. I'll explain it. You know, it's just 10 like you write a check -- 11 Q I'm going to pick up a telephone and call 12 Switzerland and tell them -- I've got to have an account 13 somewhere. 14 A Let's just establish one thing. Let's say that 15 you call up your bank -- 16 Q Okay. 17 A -- and you want them to issue you a check to Ken 18 Dandar. 19 Q Okay. 20 A And, you know, they'll debit your account and 21 make a check just like this. You know, of course it won't 22 say UBS; it'll be Mercantile Bank. 23 Q Right. 24 A And, you know, they'll either mail it to Ken 25 Dandar or they'll give it to you so you can give it to Ken----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 47 1 Dandar. And then he just deposits -- deposits it into his 2 account, you know, collects it like a normal check. 3 Now, if you're asking in this instance, you know, 4 how does the -- you know, so UBS in the case I just showed 5 you is just like you are. They're the ones who own the 6 account. It's their account at Chase Manhattan Bank. They 7 have their money in it, and so they can write a check on 8 that account, just like you can write your check on 9 Mercantile Bank. 10 So -- but I think what you're -- 11 Q How do I know this money is from you? Just 12 because you tell me? Or is there something here that tells 13 me that? 14 A Well, there's nothing on there that tells you 15 that. 16 Q Okay. 17 A And I'm -- we'll no doubt get to that at another 18 point. But -- 19 Q Okay. But if I look at this, I don't know -- I 20 have no way of knowing by looking at this bank check, the 21 UBS checks, that those checks are from you. 22 A Right. You know, other than the circumstantial 23 evidence of me producing these checks and saying, you 24 know -- 25 Q I understand that. And there's a difference of----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 48 1 opinion between the two of you all, and I'll resolve that. 2 But I'm just trying to say from my standpoint, if I were to 3 get this check, know nothing about it, I would not be able 4 to look and tell who this came from. 5 A Right. That's true. 6 Q If I knew, I knew. But if I don't know, I can't 7 look on here and -- 8 A That's correct. 9 THE COURT: Okay. That helps me. Thanks. 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Now, if you look through those checks -- I heard 13 you say you have it calculated. Did you total the total 14 amount that those checks represent? 15 A No, I didn't. But I'll do it. 16 Well, 1.1 million, exclusive of the UBS checks, 17 and then add another 750,000 to that -- if my addition was 18 correct in my head. 19 Q So that comes to a total of 1.850 -- or, 20 1,850,000? I can't even deal in numbers. 21 A Yes, I think that's what it -- unless I -- let me 22 just quickly . . . 23 Yes, that's 1.1 plus 750. 24 Q And did you provide any other money to the Lisa 25 McPherson -- well, to Mr. Dandar or the Lisa McPherson case----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 49 1 by check that are not included in the checks that you have 2 before you there? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And can you tell the Court how much that was? 5 A What did we say this came to, 1.1? 6 Q I think -- well, the -- 7 THE COURT: 1.850. 8 A Oh, yes, 1.850. Another 200,000 on top of that. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q And can you tell us whether that was in the form 11 of one check or more checks? 12 A I'd have to compare these to my own list, if you 13 want me to do that. 14 Q Well, I think my question is going to be, Are 15 there checks that we don't have copies of here before us 16 today in court that you have access to or have checked for, 17 looked for? 18 A I'm sure there must be -- 19 Q All right. 20 A -- because there's another $200,000 worth of 21 checks. 22 Q All right. Well, let's explain then how you come 23 to that conclusion so the Court can understand what we're 24 talking about. 25 A Well, there's no dispute that these are the two----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 50 1 Swiss checks, and those amounts are included in my total of 2 $2,050,000. The first check is October 6th, '97; the 3 second check is February 5th, '98; the third check -- and, 4 I'm sorry, I should be referring to the exhibit numbers -- 5 93C is 100,000. We're missing a check here in October 1998 6 for 100,000, and we're missing a check here December -- 7 dated December 1st, '98, for 100,000. 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you tell me 9 again? Two checks and both in the amount of 100,000? 10 THE WITNESS: One 10/17 -- although I can't 11 read the date very clearly here -- 10/17/98, and the 12 other is December 1st, '98. 13 THE COURT: You say they're missing, which 14 means you don't have them. Is that right? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, they're not in these two 16 piles that were given to me. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: All the others are, you know, 19 accurate according to my own records. 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q What does the total amount come to then that you 22 have provided to Mr. Dandar or the Lisa McPherson case? 23 A Well, the total that I have provided is 24 $2,050,000, and it has all been provided to the Estate of 25 Lisa McPherson. And I believe Mr. Dandar's own filings in----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 51 1 this court will support that. 2 THE COURT: The truth of the matter is you 3 just need to answer the questions. They'll have 4 plenty of opportunity to ask you things that obviously 5 you want to say. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 THE COURT: So you just answer the question. 8 A So all the money has been loaned to the Estate of 9 Lisa McPherson through its attorney, Ken Dandar. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q And we'll come back around to documents at a 12 later point here. But let me ask you, with regard now to 13 the Lisa McPherson Trust -- leave aside the Estate and go 14 to the Trust -- can you tell us if you've been able to 15 calculate how much money you have spent in setting up and 16 running the Lisa McPherson Trust? Again, ballpark, if you 17 can estimate. 18 A Two, two and a half million. 19 Q Now, there's been -- well, did you fund a movie, 20 an anti-Scientology movie, called The Profit? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q And can you tell us what amount you -- "you," 23 Mr. Minton -- funded for that movie. 24 A Close to $2 1/2 million, 2.47 or something. 25 Q And did you pay money directly to the employees--------------------------------------------------------------- -- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 52 1 on a monthly basis of the LMT? And do you have an estimate 2 of what that was? Two questions, I know. 3 A I don't have an estimate of what that was, but 4 that would be included in that overall figure of the Lisa 5 McPherson Trust. 6 Q And we've heard testimony from Ms. Brooks. Can 7 you tell us, if you know, kind of a ball park figure of 8 what you believe you've provided to her, Stacy Brooks. 9 A It's a little bit hard to calculate, but, you 10 know, at least 350,000, I'd think. 11 Q And do you know a Jesse Prince? 12 A Yes. 13 Q How much money did you provide to Mr. Prince 14 either as an employee of LMT or as an employee of 15 Mr. Dandar? 16 A At least 300,000. 17 Q Was there some sort of, to your understanding, a 18 monthly amount that went to Mr. Prince, either from you or 19 through Mr. Dandar? 20 A Yes. $5,000 a month basically is what -- you 21 know, is what Jesse said he required. That was sort of the 22 case before he started working for Mr. Dandar, that was 23 what both Jesse Prince and myself told Mr. Dandar when he 24 started working with Mr. Dandar, and that's the case up 25 until the beginning of last month.---------------------- ------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 53 1 Q Do you know what month -- we're in May. Would 2 that be through April of 2002? 3 A Yes. Jesse would have been paid at the beginning 4 of April -- and he was -- to cover the month of April. 5 Q Did you provide any other monies to -- other than 6 the $5,000 a month that we've talked about -- when did that 7 start, so we can keep track of that, to the best of your 8 recollection, the $5,000 a month for Mr. Jesse Prince? 9 A Well, sometime in -- you know, maybe at the 10 beginning it wasn't exactly 5,000 a month. I think Jesse 11 referred to this in a deposition as sort of walking- around 12 money. But, you know, so he might get 15,000, you know, 13 one month and then two months later get another 5 and then 14 10 or something of that nature. 15 So, you know, it's been ongoing since Jesse 16 contacted me and Stacy Brooks back in 1998, in July, about. 17 Q Did you have anything to do with Mr. Prince 18 moving to the Tampa Bay area to participate in the Lisa 19 McPherson litigation? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And can you tell the Court what that was. 22 A Well, I -- you know, I'll call it a loan, but the 23 chances of my ever getting repaid are pretty slim, money 24 for his down payment on his house -- 25 Q For ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 54 1 A $50,000. 2 Q -- for him to purchase a house in Pinellas 3 county? 4 A Yes. I mean, you know, Jesse was somebody that 5 was sort of particularly under Stacy Brooks' wing. You 6 know, he was somebody who needed somebody to take care of 7 him, and Stacy highly encouraged me to do that and make 8 sure that others did that. 9 Q I'm not any good at math, but I'm going to ask 10 you, approximately how much of the monies that you've 11 discussed do you believe in your mind were directed 12 particularly to the litigation of this wrongful death case 13 in Florida, out of the total amount? I think you said 14 about 10 million that you provided in funding for 15 anti-Scientology funding. 16 A Well, I would be hard pressed, but, you know, to 17 some extent, you know, Jesse's remuneration for at least 18 '99 and most of 2000 could be construed as being part of 19 that. You know, The Profit, the movie, certainly an 20 element of that could be considered influential relative to 21 the wrongful death case. 22 You know, a good part of the money that went into 23 the LMT, at least for the first year, clearly was an 24 element to this wrongful death case. Moneys that have gone 25 to Ms. Brooks over the last few years have been relevant to----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 55 1 the wrongful death case. 2 Q And then the monies that you've provided 3 directly -- 4 A Directly to the Estate, you know, obviously. So, 5 you know, it's -- it would be hard for me to give you a 6 ballpark figure. I'm not a -- an accountant, cost 7 accountant, to figure this out. But, you know, it's very 8 substantial. 9 Q Excuse me. As we move along, I'll try and do 10 this calculation here. But let me ask you this then. 11 THE COURT: You all ought to bring this here 12 movie in, because I just don't get it, how this movie 13 relates to the Lisa McPherson case at all. 14 MR. FUGATE: Can I ask him to -- 15 THE COURT: You can. But, I mean, frankly, 16 maybe you ought to produce it so I can take a good 17 look at it see and if I see anything about the Lisa 18 McPherson case in it. 19 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'll ask him. 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Mr. Minton, the Court has asked about -- 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY THE COURT: 24 Q Has it ever been released to anybody? 25 A Yes, it has been released, your Honor. Just to----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 56 1 give you a little bit of background on it, you know, there 2 is nothing in the movie that is about the Lisa McPherson 3 case. What the movie is about is basically an 4 anti-Scientology movie. And the only place that it's ever 5 been released is here in Clearwater, Florida -- or, in 6 Clearwater, Florida. And I think it's also been shown in 7 Tampa. 8 Q Where did it play, I guess would be important. I 9 mean, I don't know, when you say "play," does it play at a 10 movie house -- 11 A Yes. 12 Q -- some legitimate theater? 13 A Yes, it was a movie theater. I don't remember 14 the name of it. It was some sort of movie house in 15 Clearwater. It was also shown in a movie theater here in 16 Tampa, but I think that was for -- primarily for press to 17 review it. And it has been reviewed, for example, in the 18 St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. And it's 19 also -- it's also been shown in France at the Cannes Film 20 Festival in May 200 -- March or May of 2000. 21 THE COURT: I'm going to assume that 22 whatever happened in France is not related to the Lisa 23 McPherson case. 24 THE WITNESS: Right. But -- 25 THE COURT: I don't think anybody in------------------ ----------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 57 1 Tampa -- unless somebody from this area went over to 2 Tampa to see this film, would have any bearing on it. 3 THE WITNESS: Right. 4 THE COURT: It may have some bearing on some 5 person who may have seen this movie in Clearwater if 6 they knew that this was an anti-Scientology case and 7 they came in -- film, I'm sorry, and they came in to 8 be on the jury pool in the Lisa McPherson case. But 9 other than that scenario, how is this related to the 10 Lisa McPherson case? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, it's exactly right in 12 the way you talked about it in terms of its ability -- 13 no guarantee that it would do it, but its ability to 14 affect the pool of potential jurors in this area. 15 THE COURT: Well, then I presume -- that's 16 why I say I need to see it. I need to see if it says 17 something like, "This is a movie about Scientology and 18 how they killed Lisa McPherson," or whether it was a 19 fictional movie or whatever it was, to see what 20 bearing, if any, it could possibly have. 21 I mean, I know what you all say, but, I 22 mean, I can't -- I can't assume that, you know -- I 23 could just be a regular old citizen going into the 24 theater to see it, and I could tell you whether it had 25 a thing to do with the Lisa McPherson case or whether----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 58 1 a juror on the street would know that it did. I mean, 2 I don't know what this thing is about, but I heard 3 something about Mr. Dandar playing the part of an FBI 4 man or something. 5 THE WITNESS: Right. 6 THE COURT: And I'm thinking, What in the 7 world is this movie about? 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I assure the Court I'll 9 get back to that -- 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. FUGATE: -- and I will ask questions 12 directed to that. But for the sake of where we were, 13 I think you can answer -- unless you have any other 14 questions on it at this point. 15 THE COURT: No, I do not, just that I do not 16 want you to assume that testimony that this has 17 anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case has in any 18 way been shown to me. 19 MR. FUGATE: I don't assume that, Judge. 20 THE COURT: I'm telling you that. Even 21 despite what he says, until I can see the movie or -- 22 you know, he says it doesn't have anything to do with 23 the Lisa McPherson case, but it's anti-Scientology. 24 So, I mean, I've got -- what is that? I mean, I don't 25 know. Does it say this is anti-Scientology, or is- ---------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 59 1 this just inferred? 2 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, maybe I can help. 3 We had some hearings about this in front of Judge 4 Beach because there was some discovery that was 5 attempted to be taken of Ms. Greenway and 6 Mr. Alexander, who were the creators of the movie. 7 And Judge Beach did actually see the movie. He wanted 8 to see it as part of this discovery. 9 And he made a finding that this movie 10 definitely did concern Scientology. It was a movie 11 that was pretty derogatory of Scientology. And the 12 issue that we've been arguing, of course, for some 13 time is not that the movie concerns the, quote, Lisa 14 McPherson story, of course, but that it's intended to 15 infect the jury pool and make the jury pool or 16 potential jurors feel that Scientology is bad or 17 fraudulent or evil. 18 And it's a pretty horrible movie. We don't 19 have a copy of it, but I'm sure you can get it from 20 Mr. Dandar or Mr. Dandar's assistant, who is, you 21 know -- 22 THE COURT: Does anybody know how many 23 people in Clearwater ever saw it? 24 MR. MOXON: Yes. 25 THE COURT: I mean, was this at an AMC---------------- ------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 60 1 Theater that has folks that go in all the time? Or 2 was it at one of these coffeehouses that nobody goes? 3 MR. MOXON: It was represented by -- it was 4 represented by Mr. Lirot, actually, who was in his 5 discovery representing Mr. Alexander and Ms. Greenway, 6 that it was shown to over 2,000 people at a theater in 7 Clearwater. They made some contract with a theater in 8 Clearwater, some kind of a dinner theater or dinner 9 club theater. And they showed it to 2,000 people in 10 Clearwater, not far from the Fort Harrison, actually. 11 THE COURT: Well, one would think that a 12 movie that I'm -- that I would go to see would be a 13 movie that would be shown to a -- 14 What? 15 (A note was handed to the Court.) 16 THE COURT: -- would be -- in the middle of 17 my hearing -- would be seen by more than 2,000 people. 18 I mean, to me, some movie that's seen by 2,000 people 19 is not a movie at all. It's some sort of a homemade 20 something or other that goes to some sort of road 21 theater that -- I mean, I don't know, that to me isn't 22 much of a movie. I mean, if I go see a movie, it's 23 something the world has seen. You know, I don't know. 24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, let me give you the 25 coming attractions here. I'm going to get back to it,----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 61 1 and I'm going to hopefully, through some questions, 2 establish at least how I perceive the relevance. But 3 I just wanted to identify the funding so we have it 4 broken down, and you can decide whether or not you 5 believe it in some way is involved in the case or not. 6 But I was just trying to break down the funding, if I 7 could. 8 THE COURT: I understand. But you had just 9 asked him a question about how much of this 10 $10 million has to do with the Lisa McPherson case, 11 and simply to let you know that I do not buy this just 12 yet. I thought I would let you know -- 13 MR. FUGATE: I heard it. 14 THE COURT: -- that I will not buy that that 15 movie has a thing to do with the Lisa McPherson case. 16 Now, maybe it does. Maybe you can establish it. To 17 date, I ain't buying it. 18 MR. FUGATE: I heard you, your Honor. 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Two names were mentioned there with regard to the 22 movie, and we might as well get those while we're there: 23 Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway. Is that correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And on the Exhibit 81, under the board of----- ------------------------------------------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 62 1 directors of the Lisa McPherson Trust, I see Peter 2 Alexander and Patricia Greenway. Were they put on the 3 board by you? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q And are those the same two individuals that were 6 involved in the production of the movie, The Profit? 7 A Yes. Alexander is the other 50 percent owner of 8 Courage Productions. I'm the 50 percent owner, and Courage 9 Productions is the one who produced the movie. And 10 Greenway works for Courage Productions. 11 THE COURT: Okay. I have a call from a 12 judge who has an apparent emergency, and I guess I'm 13 the acting chief, to say nothing as the person who can 14 help him with this. So I'm going to have to break. 15 Now, it doesn't make much sense that we come 16 back -- it's 20 minutes to 12:00. This will probably 17 take me 20 minutes, so let's go ahead and break for 18 lunch. How about 1 o'clock? 19 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 20 THE COURT: We'll be in recess. 21 (The luncheon recess was taken at 22 11:43 a.m.) 23 ____________________________________ 24 25----------------------------------------------------------- ------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 63 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF PINELLAS 3 I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate 4 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 5 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that 6 the transcript is a true record. 7 WITNESS MY HAND this 18th day of May, 2002, at 8 St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. 9 10 _________________________________ Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR 11 Court Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||||| Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:36:43 -0500 From: xganon Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- testimony day one (morning) A Message-ID: <6e8988e5e20b3c26cf980802fa8061a2@xganon.com> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 2290 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.newzpig.com!news-hub.siol.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550826 comp.org.eff.talk:105648 misc.legal:433674 KANABAY COURT REPORTERS TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL (813) 224-9500 ST. PETERSBURG - CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, Plaintiff, vs. VOLUME 1 TESTIMONY OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG ROBERT S. MINTON SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. _______________________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief DATE: May 17, 2002. Morning Session PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building St. Petersburg, Florida BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer Circuit Judge REPORTED BY: Debra S. Turner Deputy Official Court Reporter Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida _________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 1, Page 2 APPEARANCES: MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorney for Plaintiff MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQUIRE 740 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10003 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization-------------------------------------------- --------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 3 APPEARANCES: (Continued) MR. BRUCE HOWIE 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. Attorney for Robert Minton MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 Attorney for Stacy Brooks ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Donna West Mr. Rick Spector Ms. Sarah Heller Mr. Ben Shaw Mr. Brian Asay Ms. Joyce Earl------------------------------------------------------- ---------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 4 1 THE COURT: You may call your next witness. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Fugate slipped out for a 3 second. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 (Mr. Fugate entered the courtroom.) 6 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge. 7 THE COURT: It's all right. 8 MR. FUGATE: I just was looking for my coat, 9 and it was on the back of the chair. 10 We call Mr. Minton at this time. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor -- thank you. 13 THE BAILIFF: Stand here, sir. Face the 14 clerk, raise your right hand. 15 THE COURT: Face me. I'm swearing in these 16 witnesses. 17 (The witness was sworn.) 18 THE WITNESS: I do. 19 THE COURT: You may lower your hand. 20 THE BAILIFF: Have a seat. Watch your step. 21 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed? 22 THE COURT: You may. 23 Now, have we dealt with the notice to 24 produce? 25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, we have.----------------- ------------------------------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 5 1 THE COURT: Have we fully covered that? 2 Mr. Dandar, are you satisfied that's been covered? 3 MR. DANDAR: Well, it's been covered -- 4 there's a -- there's still a question about this RICO 5 suit, the RICO draft of the suit that hasn't been 6 produced by anybody and has been talked about but not 7 produced. 8 THE COURT: Well, if there is -- if there is 9 such a suit, I presume it will be produced. 10 MR. DANDAR: All right. 11 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, in our 12 response to request for production of documents which 13 has been filed and a copy -- 14 THE COURT: Excuse me just a sec. 15 Okay. 16 MR. HOWIE: A courtesy copy of that has been 17 provided to the Court, along with all of the 18 attachments. Those are all the documents that we have 19 to produce. We have specifically responded to that 20 request and stated that we have no such document. 21 THE COURT: Okay. I did get a response to a 22 request to produce. 23 MR. HOWIE: I believe it was provided to the 24 Court on Tuesday, the -- 25 THE COURT: I can't remember. What did I do---------- ------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 6 1 about the personal income tax of Ms. Brooks? Did I 2 suggest that the 19 -- the 2000 return should be 3 produced? 4 MR. McGOWAN: You directed that the LMT be 5 produced as far as her return. You denied it -- the 6 production without prejudice, and if they could show 7 some sort of thread -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. McGOWAN: -- we would revisit the issue. 10 THE COURT: All right. Did I make the same 11 ruling on Mr. Minton? Or was that one of the ones 12 that the Fifth Amendment was going to be claimed on? 13 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, the Fifth Amendment 14 will be raised as is to any tax returns personal to 15 Mr. Minton. The Court previously ruled some time ago 16 in making its ruling on the deposition questions that 17 Mr. Minton was required to answer because he did not 18 waive privilege that he had maintained privilege as to 19 income and reporting on tax returns. 20 THE COURT: Well, I guess I should state, is 21 there anything that was required to be produced that 22 has not been produced because of a Fifth Amendment 23 privilege? At this time? 24 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, specifically 25 the tax returns.----------------------------------- ------------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 7 1 THE COURT: The tax returns. 2 MR. HOWIE: In our response, we have 3 specifically stated that on the grounds of privilege 4 we are not submitting those. 5 THE COURT: Okay. So then if there is a 6 RICO suit that has been shown or anything like it 7 and -- yes, you're right, there has been some 8 discussion about it. So if anybody has it, it needs 9 to be produced. 10 That includes, Mr. Fugate, if any 11 representative of the Church has it, Mr. Minton has 12 it, if Mr. Howie has it. 13 MR. FUGATE: There is not one, but I'll 14 clear it up with Mr. Minton, hopefully. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, on one other point, 17 on paragraph 6 -- 18 THE COURT: I can't seem to find that. It 19 shouldn't surprise anybody, with all the things I have 20 up here, that I just can't put my hands on stuff 21 readily. So if you're going to tell me about 22 paragraph 6, you might have to show it to me. 23 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'll provide you 24 with a copy of the request for production of 25 documents. That's not our response; that's the---- ------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 8 1 request itself. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. HOWIE: But the -- paragraph 6 requests 4 a copy of any and all bank statements from all banking 5 institutions utilized by Robert Minton for the period 6 of two years prior to the filing of this notice. Our 7 response -- our written response to that was that it 8 was unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to 9 discovery of admissible evidence. 10 In addition to that, we are raising Fifth 11 Amendment privilege. 12 THE COURT: Isn't there an order already 13 requiring the production of that? Or not? 14 MR. HOWIE: There was an order concerning 15 production of bank records as to certain accounts in 16 Boston, specifically Fleet and Fidelity, and those 17 were produced after a long harangue in Boston. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. HOWIE: However, this is an extremely 20 broad item, which requests all institutions and all 21 accounts, which conceivably would include accounts in 22 several other states or countries. And we are raising 23 Fifth Amendment privilege as to production of those 24 documents, beyond those documents previously 25 discovered in this case.--------------------------- -------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 9 1 THE COURT: All right. So there's a Fifth 2 Amendment privilege being raised as to tax returns and 3 as to bank statements as it is expressed in here -- 4 MR. HOWIE: Yes. 5 THE COURT: -- beyond those which have 6 already been produced. 7 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, apart from any 8 other objections. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Now -- so that, other 10 than those two, are there any other Fifth Amendment 11 privileges being asserted as to the request for 12 production? 13 MR. HOWIE: I'm not aware of any further at 14 this time. 15 THE COURT: And so, other than those, it is 16 your belief that your response to request to produce 17 has been complied with. 18 MR. HOWIE: That's correct, your Honor, yes. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. HOWIE: All documents available to us as 21 requested have been provided. 22 THE COURT: All right. Now, one last thing 23 that I need to ask -- and I need to ask this, if 24 anybody knows the answer to it, because I don't. 25 In -- I have done very little federal work, so I don't----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 10 1 know. Is there some prohibition of transferring money 2 from out of the country into this country and over a 3 certain amount without doing something? 4 MR. HOWIE: It's my understanding that there 5 is a requirement that any -- no, I'm thinking of a 6 different provision, concerning the deposit of more 7 than $10,000 in cash and the reporting requirement. 8 Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm ignorant. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else know, any of 10 you who worked in the U.S. attorney's office? 11 MR. DANDAR: My non-expert statement is that 12 over $10,000 coming in or going out has to be 13 reported. Any money that is earned overseas needs to 14 be reported and taxes paid on it if it exceeds 15 $80,000. 16 MR. FUGATE: Per annum. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. DANDAR: But that's a non-expert 19 opinion. 20 THE COURT: That's good enough. Okay. 21 MR. WEINBERG: It's more complicated than 22 that. 23 THE COURT: And I don't doubt it. 24 MR. DANDAR: Sandy Weinberg should know the 25 answer to that question.--------------------------- -------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 11 1 THE COURT: Yes. Do you know? I mean -- 2 MR. WEINBERG: You know, off the top of my 3 head, I can't tell you the amounts. There are 4 limitations as to, you know, actually physically 5 bringing money into the country. There are a series 6 of new statutes that are in place because of 7 September 11th, which I'm not familiar with, which 8 have -- which have made reporting obligations even 9 more severe than they were before. 10 THE COURT: Well, I know that there are, at 11 least in this case, there are two $500,000 checks that 12 I am aware of that came from -- I guess at least began 13 in or a transfer from a Swiss bank. I don't know 14 enough -- not being a worldwide financier, I don't 15 know how that works. I don't know whether somebody 16 has to have money in that bank to begin that process 17 or whether the bank that begins the process is the 18 bank in this country. 19 I mean, I just don't do that myself 20 personally, and I've not been involved in those kinds 21 of cases as either a lawyer or a judge. 22 MR. WEINBERG: It's really -- without -- it 23 is way more complicated. It has to do with what one's 24 intent is and a lot of other things as to what one can 25 do vis-a-vis the laws of the United States about--- -------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 12 1 bringing money in or taking money out. And, I mean, 2 there's nothing in and of itself wrong -- 3 THE COURT: Right. 4 MR. WEINBERG: -- bringing money -- 5 THE COURT: Reporting requirements and this 6 type of thing. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Right, right. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, it is not my job to 9 know that. I just -- in the event that the Fifth 10 Amendment issues came up, I was just going to try to 11 see if I could gain some knowledge. 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, there is one other 13 point that I need to raise. As to Request 4 and 5, 14 requesting copies of all checks written by Stacy 15 Brooks to Mr. Minton or Mr. Minton to Stacy Brooks, we 16 have reason to believe that those checks were 17 previously disclosed or discovered. We have not 18 included them with this response, apart from that 19 belief. But we also raise objections that such a 20 request is unduly burdensome and is not likely to lead 21 to discovery of admissible evidence. 22 So to amend my response to the Court, we've 23 also raised objections as to paragraphs -- 24 THE COURT: Well, I don't think a two-year 25 request for checks between Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 13 1 is unduly burdensome, nor do I think that it's 2 oppressive or any of those other things you just 3 mentioned. 4 However, if they've already been produced, I 5 don't think you need to produce them again. 6 MR. HOWIE: I have seen such checks attached 7 to pleadings in this case, and I have reason to 8 believe that they have been produced. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. HOWIE: Whether that's a complete 11 production -- 12 THE COURT: Do you have those checks? 13 MR. DANDAR: To my best memory, I do not 14 have those checks. That's why I asked for them to be 15 produced. 16 THE COURT: He said he doesn't have them. 17 MR. HOWIE: All right. Well, I will 18 instruct my client accordingly based on the Court's 19 ruling. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MR. HOWIE: We would physically not be able 22 to produce them today. 23 THE COURT: Right. I would think, rather 24 than saying for a period of two years prior to the 25 filing of this notice, that that's kind of odd. It's----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 14 1 like a two-year period that begins and ends in the 2 middle of a year. I don't know about everybody else, 3 but I used to keep my bank statements year to year. 4 Wouldn't 2000 and 2001 accomplish your purpose? 5 MR. DANDAR: That would be fine. 6 THE COURT: So if that's of any help, 2000, 7 2001, if your client keeps his records in that 8 fashion. 9 MR. HOWIE: With the permission of the 10 Court, I will discuss this with my client during our 11 first opportunity. 12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 13 Mr. Fugate. 14 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed, your Honor? 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 MR. FUGATE: First thing I'm going to do, 17 though, before I -- 18 THE COURT: Oh, I have to ask one thing. I 19 asked this of Ms. Brooks. Mr. Howie has already 20 placed on the record that in the event the Court 21 should decide, in light of your admission to perjury, 22 to file its own order to show cause based on that, he 23 has indicated he would accept service. 24 THE WITNESS: That's fine with me. 25 THE COURT: Is that fine with you?-------------------- --------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 15 1 THE WITNESS: It is. 2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 3 Proceed. Look at that, glasses. 4 MR. FUGATE: But I actually looked at this 5 exhibit, and I couldn't read it with my glasses. 6 THE COURT: Even with your glasses. 7 MR. FUGATE: So I'm over the hill. 8 Good morning, your Honor. 9 ROBERT S. MINTON 10 being first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and 11 testified as follows: 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Good morning, Mr. Minton. Would you state your 15 name for the record if you haven't done so already. 16 A Robert, middle initial S., like Sam, Minton, 17 M-i-n-t-o-n. 18 Q And, Mr. Minton, I have placed before you or I 19 did place up there to save a little time three affi- -- 20 copies, actually, of three affidavits -- 21 THE COURT: Excuse me. 22 Mr. Howie, do you need this back? 23 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, unless the 24 Court needs it. 25 THE COURT: No. I've got it here somewhere.---------- ------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 16 1 I'm sorry, proceed. 2 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, your Honor. May I 3 proceed? 4 THE COURT: Yes. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q I placed on the witness stand three affidavits or 7 copies of three affidavits. I believe the first is dated 8 April 18th, and the other two are dated April 24th. And 9 the first one has no number in the caption, and the second 10 and third are captioned "second" and "third." Do you have 11 those in front of you? 12 A I do. 13 Q And are those, sir, the three -- copies of the 14 three affidavits that you have executed through your 15 counsel and filed in the record in this proceeding? 16 A Yes, they appear to be. 17 Q And would you check and make sure that the 18 signature pages are your signature on each of the three? 19 A That is my signature on each of those. 20 Q And for the record for this proceeding, you've 21 had an opportunity to review those three before today. And 22 are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge as 23 you sit here today? 24 A There's an inaccuracy in the second affidavit, 25 but it's -- it's referred to in the recantation affidavit,-------------------------------------------------------------- --- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 17 1 the first one, which doesn't have a number. I think I 2 mention in here that there is a $100,000 check that hasn't 3 been produced by the bank in discovery, and so some of the 4 figures in the second affidavit are off by 100,000. I've 5 since discovered the date of the missing $100,000 check. 6 And there are a few items that are off by $100,000 in that 7 affidavit. 8 Q And I suspect that you're going to be on the 9 witness stand for a day or two, so if -- once we get to 10 that, we'll -- if you'll note it somewhere so we can 11 correct it for the record and for the Court, I would 12 appreciate that. 13 A Yes, okay. 14 THE COURT: Can you all give me just a 15 minute to go through this and get these three 16 affidavits? Are you going to get to those affidavits 17 right fast? 18 MR. FUGATE: No, Judge, I'm not. Actually, 19 I just wanted to identify them for the record and have 20 him indicate that he has executed each of the three. 21 THE COURT: Then I'll look for them -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, we have a copy of 23 them if you want them. 24 THE COURT: I think I have them here. Let 25 me kind of root through here and see if I can find- ---------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 18 1 them. If I can't -- I have the big one, the second. 2 And I know I have the other two; it's just a matter of 3 finding them. 4 Continue. 5 MR. DANDAR: Do you have those exhibit 6 numbers? 7 MR. FUGATE: Well, they're filed in the 8 record. I thought we would cut down on some paper, 9 amazingly. 10 And, Judge, rather than trying to do this in 11 a narrative fashion, learning from the first episode, 12 I think I'm going to try to go and ask questions to 13 speed this along -- 14 THE COURT: That's fine. 15 MR. FUGATE: -- and try to break it down 16 into some areas, hopefully, that will get us through 17 the issues and make some sense. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Mr. Minton, you've been sitting through -- I 20 should ask you this to preface these questions, I guess. 21 You were added as a party to the counterclaim. Is that 22 correct? 23 A That is -- 24 Q In this matter. 25 A -- correct, yes.------------------------------ ----------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 19 1 Q And after you were added as a party, I believe 2 there was a request that you be provided with transcripts 3 of the proceedings that had been going forward in this 4 hearing. Is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And you've had an opportunity, I take it, to read 7 those transcripts? 8 A I've read all of the transcripts -- 9 Q Okay. 10 A -- up -- you know, up until this week. 11 Q Then this question will make sense. Are you the 12 same Mr. Minton that has been discussed in the testimony as 13 far as funding anti-Scientology litigation, both here in 14 the state of Florida and around the country? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q All right. And when did you start to do that, 17 sir? 18 A I think the first monies that I gave was to an 19 organization called FACTNet, and that would have been in 20 late 1995, early 1996. 21 Q And have you been funding litigation not only in 22 this country, but around the world against Scientology from 23 that period of time on? 24 A Yes, I have. 25 Q And can you tell us in a ballpark figure, I--- -------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 20 1 guess, about how much, if you've calculated it, you have 2 provided in funding for anti-Scientology litigation? 3 A Well, I'm not sure I can segregate it out with 4 specifics to litigation, but, you know, involving the LMT 5 litigation, the movie, you know, which is all part of this 6 anti-Scientology thing, you know, the figure would approach 7 $10 million. 8 Q Well, I'm going to ask you to go through in terms 9 of what you funded outside of this specific litigation 10 here. 11 MR. FUGATE: And I'll do it now, Judge, and 12 see if we can get through that quickly. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q We've heard about a man named Mr. Wollersheim. 15 Did you fund any of his litigation against the Church of 16 Scientology? 17 A Yes, I did. 18 Q And approximately how much, if you recall, did 19 you provide to Mr. Wollersheim? 20 A To Mr. Wollersheim directly, at the present time 21 he owes me about $700,000. 22 Q And did you secure that in any way? 23 A Well, first it was -- there was, you know, a loan 24 agreement in connection with both the amounts that were 25 advanced that he ended up owing the 700 million -- $700,000---------------------------------------------------------------- - KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 21 1 on. And there was a filing, a UCC-1 filing, against -- in 2 the state of California against his judgment that he 3 expected to collect from the Church of Scientology, which I 4 now understand he's collected. 5 Q Actually, has it been interpled to the Court? 6 A Sorry, interpled into the Court. I don't think 7 he's actually got hold of the money yet. 8 Q Now, have you provided any money to fund FACTNet 9 litigation? 10 A Yes, I have. 11 Q And approximately how much was that, sir? 12 THE COURT: FACTNet is actually a 13 corporation -- 14 MR. FUGATE: I should -- let me ask that, 15 Judge. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q What -- at the time you were funding FACTNet - - 18 what was FACTNet, for the Court's benefit? 19 A Well, FACTNet was a group that -- an 20 anti-Scientology litigation group that was set up. That 21 was its original purpose, that it was to sell its services 22 to help other people who wanted to litigate against 23 Scientology. 24 It evolved -- mainly because nobody was 25 interested in paying what they were selling, paying for- ---------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 22 1 what they were selling -- it evolved into sort of a 2 straight anti-cult group, mainly anti-Scientology. And 3 then after a settlement agreement back in 1989 that Stacy 4 Brooks and I entered into with the Church of Scientology, 5 it became more of a general sort of anti-cult enterprise. 6 Q And to your knowledge, who put together FACTNet 7 to sell its services to anti-Scientology litigation? 8 A Principally Lawrence Wollersheim. In addition, 9 there was another gentleman named Robert Penny. 10 THE COURT: Just once again, FACTNet, is 11 that a corporation or a nonprofit corporation or a 12 for-profit corporation? 13 THE WITNESS: It's a -- 14 THE COURT: I don't know the answer. 15 THE WITNESS: -- Colorado nonprofit 16 corporation. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q And I think I asked you, do you recall 20 approximately -- well, you say that you negotiated the 21 settlement to end the FACTNet litigation. What was that 22 settlement, sir? 23 A Well, FACTNet had been sued by Religious 24 Technology Corporation, or I've heard it referred to as 25 "Center" here, but I'm not sure whether it's Religious-- --------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 23 1 Technology -- RTC. RTC -- or, FACTNet had published some 2 of the Church's copyrighted materials on the Internet and 3 got sued for it. And this litigation was ongoing I think 4 from 1995 through 1999. 5 And when -- when I was the president of FACTNet 6 and Stacy Brooks was a member of the board of directors of 7 FACTNet, we wanted to climb out from under that litigation 8 that was hanging over FACTNet's head. And we agreed -- we 9 worked out a settlement agreement with the Church of 10 Scientology or RTC and agreed to a stipulated judgment in 11 the amount of I believe $1 million in the event that 12 FACTNet violated copyrights in the future. That would be 13 this -- 14 Q Did that include a stipulated injunction to no 15 longer post copyrighted -- 16 A Yes, it did. 17 Q -- church material? 18 A That was part of the whole arrangement, yes. 19 Q And the copyrighted material, to your knowledge, 20 had it been stolen from the Church and then published? 21 THE COURT: Who paid the million dollars? 22 THE WITNESS: No, well, it's only -- it was 23 a stipulated judgment, so if FACTNet did it again, 24 automatically a judgment of $1 million would be 25 entered against them.------------------------------ ----------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 24 1 MR. FUGATE: Liquidated damages, Judge. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, liquidated damages, I'm 3 sorry. 4 THE COURT: I'm confused. I thought we were 5 getting to how much money he had spent to fund 6 anti-Scientology litigation, and now I'm hearing 7 something -- that's not it? 8 MR. FUGATE: Well, this is part of -- I'm 9 just taking him through the various things to get to 10 the case -- 11 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 12 MR. FUGATE: -- the ones that he's funded. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q And tell us, did you actually, if you can recall, 15 expend in your own funds with regard to FACTNet, your 16 participation with FACTNet. 17 A Well, it -- probably 300 to 400 thousand dollars. 18 And that would -- that would include monies that were paid 19 to, you know, people like Jesse Prince while he was working 20 there. 21 Q And did you come to meet a lawyer by the name of 22 Dan Leipold, we've heard about in this case? 23 A Yes, I did. 24 Q And did you -- what was his -- or, what was he 25 doing as you came to know him as a lawyer?-------------- --------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 25 1 A I believe I first encountered him when he -- I 2 think he was representing FACTNet in that FACTNet 3 litigation. 4 Q Okay. Did you provide any funds to Mr. Leipold 5 that you could tell us about? 6 A Yes. He was with a law firm when he was doing 7 this FACTNet litigation called Hagenbaugh & Murphy, and -- 8 MR. FUGATE: Did you get that, Madam Court 9 Reporter? 10 THE REPORTER: I have something down. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Okay. Can you spell that, if you know? 13 A H-a -- 14 Q Besides needing glasses, I think I need my -- 15 A H-a-g-e-n-b-a-u-g-h and Murphy, M-u-r-p-h-y, I 16 think. 17 Q And I interrupted you. 18 A And Mr. Leipold and two of his partners -- well, 19 Hagenbaugh & Murphy weren't exactly pleased with the status 20 of the Scientology/anti-Scientology litigation that Leipold 21 was involved in. You know, very little money was coming 22 into the firm, and a lot of contingency things were being 23 done and costs weren't being paid, you know. So his firm 24 wasn't happy as far as I could understand. 25 And he wanted to go off and set up his own law----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 26 1 firm, which he did with -- and this is sometime in 1998, I 2 believe it was. He wanted to set up his own law firm with 3 a man named Donohue, Bob Donohue and Kathy Shipe, who were 4 also involved -- well, Kathy Shipe was involved in the 5 Scientology aspect. 6 And so I loaned him $180,000, which -- you know, 7 to get his law firm off the ground to continue his, you 8 know, anti-Scientology litigation work. 9 Q Was that sort of the purpose of your funding to 10 Mr. Leipold? 11 A Well, that's what he wanted it for, and, you 12 know, that's what I gave it to him for. And then I also 13 have given him since then at least another $320,000. 14 Q So approximately $500,000? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And did you -- in funding him, did you get any 17 loan agreements with him? 18 A Before answering that, let me go back to -- I 19 forgot to answer your question about FACTNet. Oh, no, I 20 did, about the amount of money, I'm sorry. 21 Yes. The -- there was a loan agreement covering 22 that initial $180,000, which was disbursed in two amounts, 23 I believe. 24 Q And so at the present time he still owes you some 25 amount of money that has not been repaid to you?-------- --------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 27 1 A The bulk of that 180,000 has not been repaid. 2 There have been a few small installments paid on it, but it 3 is still largely fully outstanding. 4 Q And the 320? 5 A That's fully outstanding. 6 Q Now, we've heard about a Keith Henson. Have you 7 funded -- or, can you tell us who Keith Henson is first. 8 My question then would be if you funded him. 9 A Keith Henson has been, you know, a very vocal 10 critic of Scientology. He's been -- I guess he's, you 11 know, one of the more outlandish critics in some respects. 12 And he was involved in some litigation with Scientology I 13 think in '97 or '98, which I provided funding to his 14 attorney. 15 Q Was that copyright infringement? 16 A It was, yes. 17 Q What happened with that case, if you know? 18 A Mr. Henson was found guilty of copyright 19 infringement and I believe was -- for one single count of 20 copyright infringement, and a jury awarded $75,000 to 21 Religious Technology Center and court costs, which are 22 several hundred thousand dollars, I think. 23 Q To your knowledge, that was a jury trial? 24 A Yes, it was. 25 Q And how much did you provide in funding to---- ------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 28 1 Mr. Henson? 2 A Somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 or 28 3 thousand, I think. His attorney was Graham Berry. 4 Q We heard about him yesterday. Is this also the 5 same Mr. Henson that we heard was convicted of terrorist 6 threats against the Church and then fled to Canada? 7 THE COURT: You know, the truth of the 8 matter is your question here has to do with how much 9 has he paid, and so we don't need to repeat all 10 these -- what these other suits are about. 11 MR. FUGATE: I'll move on. 12 THE COURT: Thank you. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Now, did you come to know in the critic community 15 an individual by the name of Arnie Lerma? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And did you provide funding -- 18 THE COURT: Larma? 19 MR. FUGATE: It's A-r-n-i-e, Lerma, 20 L-e-r-m-a. 21 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Did you provide funding to him? 24 A Yes, I did. It was principally, you know, 25 personal living-type expenses. He was involved in------ ----------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 29 1 litigation. You know, RTC again sued him for copyright 2 infringement. 3 Q And approximately how much did you provide in 4 funding to Mr. Lerma? 5 A Sixty -- 60,000 for sure at that time. 6 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, may I approach the 7 clerk? 8 THE COURT: You may. 9 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your 10 Honor? 11 THE COURT: You may. 12 MR. FUGATE: Do you have Defendant's 13 Exhibit 81 up there -- it's this exhibit -- Judge? 14 THE COURT: I do, yes. 15 MR. FUGATE: This may be helpful, really. 16 As I said, it's kind of like a score card, if you 17 will. 18 THE COURT: I have it, but you see I'm 19 stacking up stuff looking for the affidavits -- 20 MR. FUGATE: I'll see if I can get a couple 21 of copies. 22 I'll get a copy of that, and we can move on. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor? 25 THE COURT: You may.---------------------------------- ------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 30 1 MR. FUGATE: I'll just give you a courtesy 2 copy. You've already got it. It's Exhibit 81. 3 And I'll give one to Mr. Minton. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 MR. FUGATE: Just bear with me a moment, 6 your Honor. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q The Arnie Lerma that we were just talking about, 9 was he on the advisory committee of the Lisa McPherson 10 Trust? 11 A Yes, he was. 12 Q The Keith Henson that we talked about a moment 13 ago, was he on the advisory committee of the LMT Trust? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And we talked about Mr. Wollersheim. Was he on 16 the advisory committee of the Lisa McPherson Trust? 17 A He was. 18 Q Now, you see on the advisory committee a man by 19 the name of Gerry Armstrong? 20 A Right. 21 Q Was he -- did you come to know Mr. Gerry 22 Armstrong? 23 A Yes, I did. 24 Q And was he another individual who you provided 25 funds to to -- well, did you provide funds to him?------ ----------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 31 1 A Yes, I did. 2 Q And do you recall approximately how much you 3 provided to him? 4 A 100,000, at least. 5 Q And did he file some sort of lawsuit against 6 David Miscavige individually? 7 A He did. 8 Q And did he use the funds, to the best of your 9 knowledge, to fund that litigation? 10 A He did. 11 Q And is Mr. Armstrong, the other fellow that you 12 saw in the transcripts that has fled to Canada for -- 13 THE COURT: Counsel, we all know who he is. 14 Why do we care if Mr. Minton knows? It's already in 15 the record. 16 MR. FUGATE: Moving right along, Judge. 17 THE COURT: Thank you. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Do you see, under the office and staff of the 20 LMT, Grady Ward, Webmaster and security director? 21 A Yes, I do. 22 Q Did you provide any funds to Mr. Grady Ward? 23 A Yes, I have. 24 Q And do you recall approximately how much that 25 was?---------------------------------------------------- ------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 32 1 A I really would be hard pressed to tell you on 2 that because, you know, I have a continuing financial 3 commitment or support that I give to Grady Ward. 4 Q You mean continuing up to the present time? 5 A Yes. 6 Q All right. Can you give us a ballpark of what 7 you think -- and I realize it would be a ballpark -- to the 8 present time, you've given him funds or provided funds to 9 Mr. Ward? 10 A Around 100,000. That's a ballpark. I'm not - - I 11 don't think it's less. 12 Q And so we can separate this out, if you can, are 13 these monies in addition to any salaries that you may have 14 paid any of these individuals through the LMT? 15 THE COURT: I'm not sure what we're doing 16 here. Are you talking about money he's given to 17 people -- 18 MR. FUGATE: Provided -- 19 THE COURT: -- the corporations that he's 20 been involved in that paid salaries? I think things 21 are quite different if someone has given me a salary 22 I've earned versus someone gives me something as 23 either a loan or a gift. 24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the reason I've asked if 25 all these folks were involved or are involved in--- -------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 33 1 anti-Scientology litigation is to establish that he's 2 funded them, and I just asked him the question in 3 addition to that -- 4 THE COURT: Okay, in addition to that. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Did you pay monies to them in the form of some 7 sort of salary agreement through the LMT? 8 A Well, the only one we talked about so far that 9 received any sort of salary arrangements from LMT I believe 10 is Grady Ward. 11 Q Now, in addition to these individuals that we've 12 talked about, did you fund any litigation in Germany where 13 you caused the Church of Scientology or Scientologists to 14 be sued there? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And approximately how much did you provide in 17 funding to Germany? 18 A Approximately $100,000. 19 Q And did you fund similar litigation in France? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And how much did you provide in funding to France 22 for litigation against the Church or individuals within the 23 Church? 24 A About $300,000. 25 Q Now, the monies that we've talked about up to the----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 34 1 present are monies that have been funded to other 2 litigation other than directly related to this Lisa 3 McPherson wrongful death lawsuit and the LMT. Is that 4 correct? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q Now, sir, how much, if you can tell us, have you 7 loaned to the Estate to cover expenses in the wrongful 8 death lawsuit? 9 A 2 million -- 10 MR. DANDAR: Objection, leading. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. That is an issue in 12 this case, and at that point, I don't think you ought 13 to be saying -- that's an issue. I'd like to hear him 14 say what it was. 15 MR. FUGATE: I'll back this out and go 16 through it. 17 THE COURT: It's kind of late now, so just 18 go on to your next question. 19 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer? 20 THE COURT: It's all right. 21 MR. FUGATE: I think an easier way to do 22 this, Judge, is I'm going to -- and I've given copies 23 to counsel -- 24 May I approach, your Honor? 25 THE COURT: You may.---------------------------------- ------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 35 1 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying to do this a little 2 bit more expeditiously. 3 Our next number is? 4 And, Judge, I think that these are -- 5 maybe -- these are copies of all of the checks that I 6 have. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. DANDAR: And, Judge, I would object and 9 cite the three Second District Court opinions on money 10 financed to the -- me or the estate as being totally 11 irrelevant. 12 THE COURT: I would agree with you on that, 13 and I do agree with you on that, with this one 14 exception. This is all over the place. We all know 15 what it is, we all know the checks, we all know what 16 the amount of the checks are. You know, it's kind of 17 like the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. It's a 18 little late. 19 MR. DANDAR: The horse is out of the barn. 20 THE COURT: The horse is out of the barn. 21 However, if you wish for me to not permit inquiry into 22 this line of questioning because of that opinion, I 23 will do that. 24 That kind of leaves us at an awkward spot, 25 doesn't it, because there's been an allegation of-- --------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 36 1 perjury here. And if I say, "Well, it's irrelevant," 2 well, then we don't go there. So, you know, as I 3 said, this is my suggestion to you, Counsel, and it's 4 for your protection. My suggestion to you is to let 5 the checks in, discuss the money, but have me continue 6 to protect you, which I don't think is out of the 7 barn -- at least it isn't out of my barn -- as to what 8 you've spent. Because I think that's kind of the 9 issue here, and I really think we need to sort it out 10 to make a decision on this case, always remembering 11 that the Second District said that it's irrelevant. 12 MR. DANDAR: That's right. 13 THE COURT: So it's up to you. Do you want 14 them kept out or do you want us to go ahead and get 15 through this, just that part, the money? 16 MR. DANDAR: No, we can go ahead and get 17 through it, but I still want to have my standing 18 objection. 19 THE COURT: I'll keep it out. You have an 20 objection that it's irrelevant, and it is irrelevant. 21 And that is, of course, something that I would expect 22 you to argue legally at the conclusion of this case, 23 because the Second District has said this is 24 irrelevant. And if you don't want any questions 25 asked, then I won't ask any. But, I mean, I'm aware----------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 37 1 of the fact of what Mr. Minton says and I'm aware of 2 what you said because another judge has ruled that its 3 admissible and because it's in. So if you want me to 4 kind of decide that on your credibility versus others' 5 credibility, I've almost got to hear it. 6 MR. DANDAR: All right. 7 THE COURT: It's not as if the world doesn't 8 know. 9 MR. DANDAR: I understand that. But even in 10 the other case the Second District said it's 11 irrelevant. 12 THE COURT: That is true. So do you want me 13 to keep all this out? Because I will. 14 MR. DANDAR: Actually, right now I'm at a 15 loss of what to do. I mean, my credibility is on the 16 line, and you need to make a decision on it. 17 THE COURT: It is, because even if this -- 18 you know, irrelevance goes to perjury. 19 MR. DANDAR: Right. 20 THE COURT: It's irrelevant; therefore, it 21 can't be perjury. The allegations are sort of if you 22 encouraged somebody to lie under oath, whether it's 23 perjury or not, it would seem to me that that would be 24 important as to whether or not you should be removed 25 as counsel.---------------------------------------- ------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS Volume 1, Page 38 1 MR. DANDAR: It's important to me, so let's 2 go ahead. 3 THE COURT: All right. But I will not -- I 4 think that's a good decision. However, I will protect 5 you as to the expenditure of those funds, what they 6 were spent for, because that's what I look to the 7 Second District in saying that the Church is not 8 entitled to know how much of that you have left to 9 litigate your lawsuit. 10 MR. DANDAR: Correct. Thank you. 11 MR. FUGATE: If it's of any service to the 12 Court, I don't intend to ask any questions about 13 expenditures. 14 THE COURT: We've been through that, and I 15 indicated we're not going to go through there. And 16 that includes, by the way, what accounts Mr. Dandar 17 may have put this money through. 18 MR. DANDAR: So then we're not going to be 19 discussing the facts of the checks. 20 THE COURT: We're not going to discuss 21 whether you put it in your trust account, whether you 22 put it in a personal account, versus whether you put 23 it in an operating account, because from that very 24 information they could glean which ones you thought 25 you needed to spend for the expenditure of this---- ------------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS ||||| From: Nomen Nescio Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- testimony day one (afternoon) C Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Sender: remailer@dizum.com Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 2147 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!central.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550827 comp.org.eff.talk:105649 misc.legal:433675 139 1 Verizon and Nextel." 2 So this order, which says here you agreed to 3 it, says that the parties agreed to cancel the 4 deposition. That would be you. 5 MR. DANDAR: I'm not so sure about that but -- 6 but look at -- look what you have in front of you, 7 Judge. Where is the sealed telephone records? How 8 were they unsealed? Why -- 9 THE COURT: I assume they went to Mr. Keane. 10 MR. MOXON: Exactly right, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: And that Keane -- it says 12 thereafter Keane shall unseal the records and 13 categorize the records. 14 This -- again, I signed this. When I hear 15 "agreed" -- I don't even read it, to tell you the 16 truth. When somebody said we have agreed on the 17 order, I say, goodie and I sign it, so I don't know 18 what this order contained. And I'm sure I glanced 19 at it, but I don't read it with the same depth I do 20 when you-all don't agree. 21 "Thereafter, Keane shall unseal the records and 22 shall categorize the records with sufficient 23 specificity that the parties understand what they 24 are, but in a general enough way that the content of 25 the records are not made public. Within five days Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 140 1 thereof, counsel for LMT and Minton shall set forth 2 in writing the identity of all records they agree 3 are discoverable and not subject to privilege. 4 These records shall be turned over to Mr. Moxon, 5 with copies going to all other interested parties in 6 the lawsuit." 7 So did you get them? 8 MR. DANDAR: No. 9 THE COURT: You never got them? 10 MR. DANDAR: No. And my name doesn't appear on 11 there as the stipulated parties, either. 12 I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, 13 Judge. I just wanted to voice my objection to the 14 whole procedure. 15 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, your solution, I 16 think, is -- I think you can see by the orders there 17 is no chicanery. If he wants to look at the records 18 and make sure -- I agree with your Honor. I don't 19 think we would ever ask for law firm telephone 20 records unless there was some notification and some 21 process that occurred. But if he wants to look at 22 the records, we'll come back to it on Tuesday, which 23 I agreed to before we took the break. 24 THE COURT: Okay. It does show you got a copy 25 of this -- of this letter. And -- Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 141 1 MR. DANDAR: I did. It was Mr. McGowan who was 2 negotiating with Mr. Moxon and Mr. Keane, and he 3 told me that is what they were going to do, I think 4 one or two days before the scheduled deposition. 5 I had no interest in it because it said Robert 6 Minton on the subpoena. 7 THE COURT: So you didn't get a copy of this 8 order? Is what you are saying? 9 MR. DANDAR: I may have. 10 MR. MOXON: He got a copy of the order. In 11 fact, I have the transcript where Mr. Dandar was 12 there present. 13 THE COURT: I don't see certificate of service 14 on this order. 15 MR. MOXON: No. 16 THE COURT: That is unusual. Why isn't there 17 one? 18 MR. MOXON: I have no idea. Mr. McGowan 19 handled it. 20 THE COURT: Well, okay. You will be able to 21 take until Tuesday to look through these records. 22 And if, in fact, there is anything in there that you 23 believe to be privileged in any fashion that relate 24 to the business of your law office and clients, what 25 have you, if you'll bring that to my attention, we Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 142 1 will deal with that at that time. 2 MR. DANDAR: All right. Thank you. 3 THE COURT: Okay. So maybe you can just move 4 to some other subject to finish off today. 5 MR. FUGATE: I had and I will, Judge. 6 THE COURT: Good. Now, what can I do with 7 this? Because I don't really want it. 8 MR. FUGATE: What do you have there? 9 THE COURT: Notice of taking deposition. And 10 an order. 11 Now, if Mr. Dandar is not sure he has that 12 order, why don't you give him that order. And that 13 is the letter. Give him both of those. 14 MR. FUGATE: All right, I'll take this off. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor? 17 THE COURT: You may. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Mr. Minton -- 20 THE COURT: McGowan, of course, isn't here, but 21 I don't blame him. He has been here a long time. 22 I'm sure he had other work to take care of. 23 Proceed. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Mr. Minton, I think when we broke there, I had Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 143 1 asked you to look at an August 27, 1999 check and asked you 2 about a meeting, if I remember correctly. Is that right? 3 A That is correct. 4 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your 5 Honor? I'll take this out -- 6 THE COURT: You may -- 7 MR. FUGATE: -- of here, too, just so -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Can you -- I think I asked you, just as we were 11 about to break, sir, what -- who was at the meeting and 12 where was the meeting. If I didn't, I'll ask you now. 13 A The meeting was in Philadelphia. Mr. Dandar, I 14 believe, was there for deposition of some sorts. Ms. Brooks 15 and I were traveling at the time. And we said okay, it's 16 sort of on the way back to New Hampshire, we'll stop by 17 Philadelphia on our way. 18 And, you know, Mr. Dandar needed money. That was 19 the purpose of going there. He gave us a little briefing 20 about what was going on in the case. 21 And it had been a subject of fairly intense 22 discussion amongst myself and Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince 23 that -- 24 Q Could I ask you to stop a minute. 25 What had been the subject of discussion between Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 144 1 you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince? 2 A About focusing more on the Scientology-related 3 issues in this case, the wrongful death case. 4 Q And did those -- those discussions had preceded 5 this meeting? 6 A Yes. 7 Q This August 26, I think you said, '99 meeting? 8 A It might have also been on the 25th at night. 9 There was a morning meeting and an evening meeting. And I 10 forget which -- whether it is the 25th, 26th, 27th; or 26th, 11 27th. 12 Q As I understand, you date the times by the check. 13 It was dated ahead, correct? 14 A Yes, that is correct. There was a meeting on the 15 26th for sure. I don't remember whether we had breakfast 16 that morning, as well. But then we had a meeting in -- I 17 think in Mr. Dandar's hotel room before dinner and a meeting 18 in -- in my hotel room after dinner. And we had gone out to 19 dinner with a couple other people. 20 Q Let's break this down so we can -- what -- which 21 meeting was the check ultimately delivered? 22 A The one on the night of the 26th after dinner. 23 Q And who was present when the check was delivered? 24 A Stacy Brooks was there. I was there. And Ken 25 Dandar was there. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 145 1 Q And who delivered the check to Mr. Dandar? 2 A Well, I wrote it right in front of him and tore it 3 out of my checkbook and handed it to him. 4 Q Prior to that, you said there had been a request 5 for money. Can you tell us what that involved? Who made 6 the request? What was the subject? 7 A Well, Mr. Dandar made a request for additional 8 funds. And, you know, this was done by phone. This wasn't 9 a face-to-face meeting. It was done by phone a few days 10 before this Philadelphia meeting. 11 As I said, Ms. Brooks and I were traveling. At 12 the time, we might have been out in Colorado. I'm not sure 13 really where we were at that stage. 14 And we said: "Okay, fine, we'll meet you in 15 Philadelphia." 16 Q All right. Was there any discussion about whether 17 or not you were going to continue to fund the litigation at 18 this meeting? 19 A Well, there -- not directly. You know -- 20 Q Tell us what happened. 21 A It was a situation where neither Stacy Brooks, 22 myself or Jesse Prince felt that there was being put enough 23 emphasis on the Scientology-related issues in the case. 24 You know, Mr. Dandar had -- by this time, he had 25 plenty of, you know, ammunition in this respect. He had Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 146 1 gone through the process of -- with Jesse of this 2 August 20th affidavit which ultimately got used, to add 3 to -- you know, the attempt to add additional parties to the 4 case. 5 But, you know, things were moving kind of slow. 6 And, you know, this was a real push by me, supported by the 7 feelings of Stacy and Jesse. 8 Q For the record, was Mr. Prince present at the 9 meetings that we've been discussing? 10 A He wasn't. No. 11 Q I wasn't clear on that. 12 A Okay. And so, you know, I told Mr. Dandar, you 13 know, "Look, we really need to start pushing this case more 14 on the Scientology front. You know, this is not just a 15 simple wrongful death case. And, you know, this is a case 16 about a Scientologist who died on the introspection 17 rundown." 18 So, you know, Mr. Dandar said, "Look, it is going 19 to cost more money to do this." 20 And I said, "I realize that." 21 So this is the first -- I think this is the first 22 check I gave him that was more than 100,000. This was for 23 250,000. 24 Q And have you got the check there in front of you? 25 A Yes. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 147 1 Q Or a copy of the check, to be more exact? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Would you read the "for" line where it says "for." 4 A "McPherson." 5 Q Was that notation made by you? 6 A Yes, it was. 7 Q What did that notation mean to you as you noted it 8 on the check for $250,000? 9 A Well, this was for the McPherson case. 10 Q Did Mr. Dandar voice any opposition to your 11 suggestion? 12 A Only that it's going to cost more money. 13 Q And you gave him the check? 14 A Yeah. 15 Q And by this time, which was August of 1999 -- I 16 think I had hopped ahead there earlier this afternoon -- but 17 by this time, August of 1999, was Mr. Prince working at 18 Mr. Dandar's office, to your knowledge? 19 A Yes, he was there, yeah, and working. 20 Q And do you know at this point in time -- do you 21 know if he was being paid by Mr. Dandar to work out of his 22 office? 23 A I -- I'm not exactly clear on the timing of 24 Mr. Prince being paid by Mr. Dandar. You know, it was all 25 just sort of the same thing, to me, the same ball of wax. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 148 1 Q Did you have any understanding of what money was 2 being used to pay Mr. Prince by Mr. Dandar? 3 A Yeah. It was the moneys that I was providing to 4 the estate. 5 Q And by this time, was Ms. Brooks working actually 6 out of Mr. Dandar's office, do you recall, August of 1999 7 and thereafter? 8 A You know, I don't think she was full-time down in 9 Tampa. 10 Q I'm asking you. 11 A Well, I'm sure she wasn't full-time down in Tampa. 12 But she was coming down for, you know, a week or two at a 13 time, you know, frequently. 14 Q Now, did there come a time when you went to a 15 meeting at Mr. Dandar's office, after you had delivered this 16 check for $250,000 in 1999, after August 26 of 1999? 17 A Yes, I did. 18 Q Do you recall, can you date that? 19 A Mmm, I think it was -- well, it was late fall. 20 Q Do you recall which office of Mr. Dandar's you 21 went to? 22 A It was the -- the new one that was across from 23 that pink hotel, I think, on West Kennedy. 24 Q For the sake of the Court who doesn't know the 25 transition, can you tell us, did you know that Mr. Dandar Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 149 1 had another office prior to that one? 2 A Yes. Prior -- prior to that, he was on Cypress 3 Street. And then -- and then this other office wasn't very 4 far away, it was -- I'm not sure whether it was a temporary 5 facility for him. I think he was going to ultimately move 6 out of it. But it was a fairly large office. And, you 7 know, that is where the meeting took place. 8 Q The temporary office being the one next to the 9 hotel? 10 A Across the street from a hotel. I think the hotel 11 was pink. There is also -- there were a lot of policemen 12 there because it's some sort of state police thing going on 13 in that office building, too, that he was in. 14 THE COURT: What was the date of this meeting 15 again? 16 THE WITNESS: It was sometime in the fall, late 17 fall, of '99. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q And can you tell us what happened at this meeting, 20 what you observed or heard? 21 A Yes. Well, there were five people there. Stacy 22 Brooks. Jesse Prince. Myself. Michael Garko -- Dr. Garko. 23 And Mr. Dandar. 24 And Mr. Dandar basically was going through his 25 reasoning as to why he wanted to add additional parties to Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 150 1 this case. 2 Now, there had -- there had been other attempts 3 before to add parties, which failed, for a variety of 4 reasons, which -- some of which at the time I wasn't aware 5 of. 6 But I knew that there had been attempts to add 7 additional parties. And Miscavige was the person -- David 8 Miscavige was the person who was trying to be added in his 9 capacity as the head of the Sea Org. 10 Q Do you have any -- 11 A And so -- 12 Q Let me just interrupt you. Do you have any 13 knowledge -- do you have any knowledge as to why that was 14 happening? 15 A Well, you know, it was -- it was clearly a focus 16 on the Scientology aspects of the case. That's for sure. 17 There was nothing that could be more dramatic about this 18 case than having David Miscavige, who is the head of the 19 Church of Scientology, added as a defendant in it. 20 And this was something that Mr. Dandar was 21 extremely thrilled about the possibility of. I mean, he'd 22 been trying to do this for years, at least a couple years. 23 And when I encouraged him, you know, we needed to 24 focus on the Scientology aspects of the case, you know, this 25 was a natural thing to keep doing, I mean, despite the Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 151 1 failures previously to do it. 2 And I believe that Judge Moody had sort of opened 3 the door for, you know, another way to add parties to the 4 case. And, you know, this was sort of the final attempt to 5 go through that door and add the parties. 6 Q Can I ask you a question, sir. In August of 1999, 7 which you just discussed, were you aware then, sir, that 8 there was an agreement that had been entered into between 9 the estate and the Church not to add parties? Were you 10 aware of that agreement then? 11 A At that time, and this is a surprise to everybody, 12 that I didn't know about this agreement. You know, I have 13 obviously since learned about the agreement. But at that 14 time I didn't know it. 15 The other people who were in this meeting were 16 very familiar with it because they had all attended hearings 17 that related to it, you know, these other attempts to add 18 parties. And that agreement -- you know, and I'm learning 19 this subsequent to this, that agreement was the stumbling 20 block. 21 Q When you say subsequent, so there is no confusion 22 in the record, are you -- 23 A Prior. Prior to that. 24 Q I know. Let me just ask my question. 25 A I see. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 152 1 Q We skip back and forth. We went to August. 2 Now we're back in the fall of '99. Are you saying 3 that is when you learned that there had been an agreement? 4 A No. It wasn't until -- well, at some stage 5 Mr. Dandar had sent to me a very large document, sometime in 6 '99, probably the second half of '99. I'm just not sure. 7 But it was, you know, about yeah thick (indicating). 8 Q You are indicating, for the record -- 9 A About six to seven inches, something like that. 10 And it was Scientology's motion -- or opposition motion to 11 one of the attempts to add parties. 12 And, you know, it wasn't my habit to pour over 13 these copies of these court filings, that were that big, 14 anyway. And, you know, I stuck it under a bed in my house. 15 And then the first time I really ever looked at 16 that was sometime in the winter of 2000, you know, like 17 January to March sometime. And I broke it apart. There 18 were like 22 or 25 tabs to it. I broke it apart. 19 And the first tab, I believe, was the -- was this 20 November 1997 agreement. And that was really the first time 21 that I actually knew about that agreement. 22 Q And do you recall, in substance, what that 23 agreement was about? 24 A Well, it was -- 25 THE COURT: What does that have to do with this Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 153 1 hearing? 2 MR. FUGATE: It's just an agreement not to add 3 parties. It was the subject of the breach. Really, 4 other than the fact -- 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q You didn't know about the agreement, you paid the 7 money, and that is when you found out about the problems 8 when you were there in the fall? Is that essentially what 9 happened? 10 A Found out about the problems? 11 THE COURT: He's saying he did not know about 12 this agreement at the fall meeting. 13 THE WITNESS: Right. I didn't know about it at 14 the fall meeting. 15 THE COURT: He said that twice or three times. 16 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge. 17 THE WITNESS: This agreement -- what this 18 agreement basically was, was that Mr. Dandar 19 wouldn't attempt to add any additional parties, 20 corporate parties or their officers, in return for 21 the Church agreeing -- 22 THE COURT: For something I don't know is -- 23 now I have to listen to Mr. Minton tell us what this 24 agreement was that he wasn't even a party to. 25 MR. FUGATE: I'll get to the point I want to Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 154 1 ask a question about, Judge. 2 THE COURT: Well, if it is whether or not he 3 knew about it in the fall, he's now said several 4 times that he didn't, and he didn't know about it 5 until 2000 when he got this thing out from under his 6 bed. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q The meeting -- let me focus your attention back to 9 the meeting in the fall. 10 A Yeah? 11 Q You described that as a meeting to talk about a 12 way to get around, I think you said, Judge Moody's order. 13 What essentially was talked about? 14 A No, I didn't say get around Judge Moody's order. 15 I said go through an opening that Judge Moody apparently 16 gave. 17 Q All right. 18 A And this was this whole concept of, you know, 19 adding Mr. Miscavige as head of the Sea Org. 20 So, you know, the problem of the Moody aspect or 21 the agreement wasn't discussed at this meeting. This was 22 already, you know, on track, so to speak. 23 So Mr. Dandar gave his views about this. 24 Dr. Garko gave his views. Mr. Dandar's views were extremely 25 favorable. He wanted to add the parties -- Mr. Miscavige at Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 155 1 that stage. He thought this would be extremely sensational, 2 lots of publicity for the case, and would clearly put 3 Scientology in a position -- and this goes back to this 4 whole theory of adding Miscavige -- to make people pay up 5 or -- pay up more money. 6 So Dr. Garko -- my recollection at the time was 7 that Dr. Garko was supportive of Mr. Dandar's position. But 8 I have subsequently learned that that wasn't the case. 9 Mr. Garko and Stacy Brooks reminded me of something that he 10 had said at that meeting which I now remember. So he wasn't 11 really in favor of it because there wasn't any evidence to 12 support it. 13 Jesse Prince was in favor of it. 14 Stacy Brooks was the most enthusiastic about it 15 because, you know, this has been a drum she has been beating 16 for a long time. 17 I wasn't -- I wasn't in favor of it for one 18 reason. 19 Q What reason was that? 20 A Mmm, because of how much more money this was going 21 to cost. I mean, this was a huge leap. But -- well, and 22 during the course of that meeting, I have got to tell you, I 23 was down at the far end of the conference table. This was a 24 very long conference table in the room. And it was a very 25 hot day. And I was at the end closest to Kennedy Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 156 1 Boulevard -- or West Kennedy, whatever the street is there, 2 the other end being the parking lot end. And that was where 3 there was an air-conditioning vent, as I recall. And the 4 room was very hot. 5 And, you know, I really only asked one question 6 during that whole course of this thing. And I asked 7 about -- "What about Ray Mithoff?" 8 And, you know, the consensus was, "Well, look, you 9 know, that is not a pressure point." 10 Well, that -- that was really the first time that 11 I recognized something about this whole case. And that was 12 that people weren't really interested -- or at least 13 Mr. Dandar and Jesse Prince, who were the ones principally 14 talking, because Prince knew Mithoff's situation, no one was 15 interested in getting to the truth of what happened here, 16 because if anybody in California would have been interested 17 in who might know about what happened with Lisa McPherson, 18 it would be the senior case supervisor. 19 So at the end of this meeting, despite having said 20 to Mr. Dandar that, "I don't think that this is a good idea 21 because of the money that will be involved in this," I went 22 up to him at the end of the meeting and I said to him, 23 "Look, whatever we decide to do on this thing, I will 24 support you 100 percent. You know, you need to talk about 25 this with Dell. And whatever we decide, I'll support you Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 157 1 100 percent." 2 Q And did you mean financial support, as well? 3 A Well, that was the -- that was the -- the only 4 means of support that I was giving Mr. Dandar. 5 Q At the conclusion of the meeting, did you have any 6 conversation -- further conversation with Mr. Dandar about 7 the meeting? 8 A Yes. When we -- when we left the building, Stacy 9 Brooks and I were going down -- Jesse Prince was in the 10 elevator, as well. Mr. Dandar came down the elevator with 11 us. And before the elevator got -- it was only two floors, 12 so when it got to the first floor, before the door opened, 13 Mr. Dandar said that, "Look, this meeting never happened and 14 we can't talk about it." 15 Q And what did you say, if you recall? 16 A "Okay." 17 Q Did you have an understanding why you were being 18 told not to talk about the meeting? 19 A Well, I got the impression generally that this is 20 not something I should have been involved in. 21 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor? 22 THE COURT: You may. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q And you mentioned that Mr. Dandar had sent you a 25 six- or seven-inch packet of pleadings. How long before Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 158 1 that package -- or had you ever been getting packages of 2 pleadings in the case from Mr. Dandar before that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And did you continue to get them after that fall 5 meeting? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Wherever it was? 8 A Well, in fact, I got them somewhat more after that 9 fall meeting because of the LMT being down there. And, you 10 know, whether he would send them over to the LMT, or whether 11 Jesse would bring them back, or Stacy would bring them back, 12 you know, there were more of them at that stage. 13 Q And did -- were there times when Mr. Dandar would 14 discuss things that -- that were confidential in the case 15 with you, do you recall? 16 A Yes. 17 MR. FUGATE: May I approach? 18 THE COURT: You may. 19 MR. FUGATE: This will be 98. 20 THE COURT: You may have the same permission I 21 gave Mr. Lirot. As long as you have papers in your 22 hand, feel free. 23 MR. FUGATE: Judge, it's a custom with me. 24 THE COURT: I know it is. And that is fine, 25 too. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 159 1 MR. FUGATE: I remember one time -- 2 THE COURT: If you don't remember, it will be 3 all right. 4 MR. FUGATE: All right. This is 98, Judge. 5 I'll give you a courtesy copy. I'll give this to 6 the witness. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Would you take a look at this posting and see if 9 you can identify the posting. 10 MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number? 11 MR. FUGATE: 98. I'm sorry. 12 A Yes. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Is this a posting? 15 A That -- 16 Q I'm sorry? 17 A That is a posting I made to that 18 alt.religion.scientology group. 19 THE COURT: I'm sure I'm just missing this, but 20 where is it you are posting this here? Bobbarn -- 21 is that you, too? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, that was another address, 23 your Honor. 24 THE COURT: So any postings I see in here that 25 has Bobbarn whatever the rest of this is, that would Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 160 1 be you, as well? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: I see you have Robertsminton, too. 4 So you have two posting -- addresses, whatever you 5 call it? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 THE COURT: I got it. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Do you see a portion highlighted in yellow there? 10 A Yes. I do. 11 MR. FUGATE: First of all, may I move this into 12 evidence as Defendant's Exhibit Number 98? 13 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 14 THE COURT: It will be received. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q Could you read the yellow portion, sir, the 17 highlighted portion? 18 A "After the insulting settlement proposals and 19 multimedia cryathon presented to Lisa's family and 20 Mr. Dandar." 21 Q Were you made privy to any information about a 22 settlement proceeding? 23 A Yes. Mr. Dandar told me about this discussion 24 that took place in this -- I think it was in July sometime 25 of '98. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 161 1 Q And did you understand that to be a mediation? 2 A I just understood it as a settlement conference. 3 I didn't -- the word "mediation," at least to my memory, 4 didn't come up. 5 Q Did you know that it was confidential? Or did you 6 have any information that it was a confidential meeting? At 7 that time, I should ask. 8 A Yeah. Yeah. It was not something to be 9 broadcast. 10 Q And several months later, you put an Internet 11 posting out about it, though? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, did you ever receive copies of depositions 14 from Mr. Dandar that related to the wrongful death case? 15 A Yes. I did. 16 Q In case I didn't make myself clear, the settlement 17 offer, did you understand that to be in the wrongful death 18 case? 19 A Yes. It was. 20 Q Did you ever receive any depositions from 21 Mr. Dandar that you understood to be taken in the wrongful 22 death case? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you have any understanding, when you were 25 receiving -- well, can you tell us when, if you recall, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 162 1 time-wise? 2 A Oh, well, I got several. It would have -- I 3 wasn't really able to look to see what I might have had 4 because the special master had all those. 5 Q You mean these were documents at the LMT -- 6 A These were documents I either received at the 7 LMT -- I'm certain I received at least one or two hard copy 8 documents in New Hampshire. And then depositions, that is. 9 And at least one or two E-Mails from Mr. Dandar with 10 depositions -- of depositions. 11 Q You mean like an ASCII disk, E-Mail of the 12 deposition? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Were you told they were confidential depositions 15 and not to distribute them? 16 A You know, I don't think I was. I mean, I 17 remember -- because it was fairly recent, the last one that 18 was E-mailed to me, it was, "Don't say you got this from 19 me," he said, "and don't post it on the Internet, and also 20 don't say you got it from me." 21 Q Do you remember which deposition it was, as you 22 sit here? 23 A It was a deposition of Teresa Summers. 24 Q Did you post it on the Internet? 25 A No, I didn't. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 163 1 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor? 2 THE COURT: You may. 3 MR. FUGATE: May I -- 4 THE COURT: Just so I know, what are you 5 talking about, disks? The court reporter, do they 6 give you-all disks of something, or depositions? 7 MR. FUGATE: It just went over my head. But as 8 I understand it, there are disks, like a floppy 9 disk, that you can get delivered with a transcript 10 of the deposition which will have the deposition on 11 it and, therefore, can be E-mailed. Am I -- 12 MR. MOXON: Right. 13 THE COURT: The court reporter gives those to 14 folks if they ask for them or pay for them? 15 MR. FUGATE: When they pay for the 16 transcription, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. FUGATE: It's a way you can input it into a 19 computerized system for searches and what have you. 20 I just expended all my knowledge. 21 THE COURT: Well, you had more than I. 22 MR. FUGATE: This is 99. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q This is something I think you may remember, the 25 Brenda Hubert knowledge report. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 164 1 Did you receive, sir -- first of all let me ask 2 you, can you identify the posting I handed you as 3 Defendant's Exhibit 99? 4 A Yes. This is an Internet posting that I made to 5 alt.religion.scientology. 6 Q And did you receive what you understood to be a 7 knowledge report of Brenda Hubert? 8 A Yes, I did. 9 Q And can you tell us how you came to receive that? 10 A Mmm, I received it from Mr. Dandar at his office 11 on -- sometime in -- not exactly on, but early 1999. 12 Q And were you given any instructions when you 13 received it? 14 A It was, "Don't say you got this from me. And 15 don't put it on the Internet." 16 Q Did you put it on the Internet? 17 A About a year later, yes. 18 Q And did you -- were you ever asked as to where you 19 got it by anyone? 20 A Yes. In a deposition. In my -- yeah, in a 21 deposition, I was asked if I got it from Mr. Dandar. And -- 22 Q What did you answer? 23 A I said no. 24 Q What did you say in that deposition? 25 A I said that I got it in an envelope from somebody, Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 165 1 you know, postmarked Florida, anonymously. 2 Q Was that true and accurate testimony at that time? 3 A It wasn't. And it was one of the items that I 4 covered in my recantation affidavit. I believe it was. 5 Q Did you receive E-Mails from -- 6 THE COURT: Of all this, this is the one thing 7 I asked for. There was a name for it. 8 MR. FUGATE: It was a knowledge report. 9 THE COURT: A knowledge report? Okay. 10 MR. FUGATE: Of Brenda Hubert, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Thank you. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q And, in any event, sometime later, I think you 14 said about a year later, you posted the contents of it on 15 the Internet? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And what was the purpose of posting a document 18 that had been received in the wrongful death case on the 19 Internet by you? 20 A Well, this was basically to try to put pressure on 21 Brenda Hubert to come forward with what we expected was 22 different information than what had been coming out so far 23 from the Scientology side in the wrongful death case. 24 Q Would you say to put pressure on her? What did 25 you mean by that -- or what do you mean by that now? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 166 1 A Well, you know, to make her feel bad about what 2 had happened with Lisa. And, you know, try to put her in a 3 position -- or, you know, just put pressure on her to come 4 forward and tell the truth, because, you know, we didn't 5 think she was telling the truth about all of the things that 6 happened with Lisa McPherson. 7 THE COURT: If I might just ask this witness, 8 what was it that gave you occasion to believe that 9 Brenda, whoever she was, Hubert -- 10 THE WITNESS: Hubert. 11 THE COURT: -- from the Church of Scientology 12 was reading this fairly offensive website? 13 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, it was just a 14 chance that somebody else might read it who might 15 have gotten it to her. 16 And, you know, Mr. Dandar thought this woman 17 definitely had more information than she was 18 providing. 19 THE COURT: But nothing beyond a hope or 20 some -- maybe somehow it would wind its way there? 21 THE WITNESS: Right. There wasn't any, you 22 know, targeted effort to get it to her. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q You knew that Brenda Hubert was a witness in the Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 167 1 case for the Church of Scientology. Correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Did you, in fact, phone Brenda Hubert? 4 A You know, I might have. I might have. I -- I 5 have a recollection of it. Yeah, I believe I did. 6 Q Do you remember the purpose of that telephone call 7 to Brenda Hubert? 8 A Well, if she hadn't had it brought to her 9 attention before this thing was posted on the Internet, I 10 was trying to make sure that she got it brought to her 11 attention. 12 Q Now, besides the E-mailing of depositions in the 13 case and the postings that we've talked about, did you 14 receive E-Mails from Mr. Dandar about the case throughout 15 this period of time, '98, '99, 2000, 2001? 16 A Mr. Dandar didn't tend to write much -- or put 17 much in writing about the case. He would send me E-Mails 18 concerning the case. But they were generally requests for 19 money for the case. 20 Q And I think I asked you this before. But would 21 they go to -- which computers of yours would they go to? 22 The computer at the LMT? The home? The laptop? 23 A Well, they would go potentially to all of them 24 because, you know, if I downloaded in New Hampshire, you 25 know, I -- at that stage, I was keeping my mail on the Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 168 1 server. I think I have got it set up so that after two 2 retrievals, it deletes it from the server. 3 But it is on the two computers I would retrieve it 4 from. So you get it on one computer, and then it 5 automatically, when you retrieve it from your laptop, it 6 takes it off the server that holds your E-mail, the Internet 7 service provider you have, from their server. So I could 8 have gotten it on any or all of them. 9 Q Are you saying it was sent to any or all addresses 10 so you can get it wherever you were, if I understand what 11 you were saying? 12 A That is not exactly right. But Mr. Dandar also 13 did send them to multiple addresses of mine. 14 Q Let's get exactly what happened with the E-Mails, 15 the best you recall. 16 A Okay. Well, this goes back to the question as to 17 where I would have got them, which computers I would have 18 got them on. 19 As I said, I could have got them on all three 20 computers, for example. But when Mr. Dandar would send me 21 one of these E-Mails, he would address it to Bob@Minton.org, 22 or Bobminton@Lisatrust.net, then a third one which was wrong 23 and he kept sending it to this wrong address, but it didn't 24 matter because I got it at one of the other two. 25 Q Did you get a -- phone calls from Mr. Dandar to Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 169 1 discuss the case or in which you discussed the case? 2 A Yes. There were phone calls in which we discussed 3 the case. 4 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm going to break off at 5 that point because I'll go back once we get the 6 phone bill issue -- I'll make a note to myself here. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment? 9 THE COURT: You may. 10 MR. FUGATE: Take a moment, Judge. I have to 11 flip-flop what I was doing here. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q If you go back to Defendant's Exhibit 81, if that 14 is still up there, which I think is the LMT list of board 15 members, advisory members. 16 A Oh, yes. It is probably on the bottom here. Yes. 17 Q As part of your being "Public Enemy Number 1" of 18 Scientology, as you said, did you have -- or did you cause 19 other people to come to Florida to assist in the litigation 20 in any way? By that, I mean to assist in the litigation. 21 A Yes. 22 Q And can you tell us what you -- how you -- who you 23 brought in and how you accomplished that. 24 A Dan Leipold and Ford Greene. 25 Q What did Dan Leipold -- when I say litigation, I Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 170 1 mean the wrongful death case. 2 A Well, there were -- you know, Leipold, which I 3 already testified about, I think your Honor heard all you 4 need to hear about my relationship with him -- but, you 5 know, he was somewhat of -- he was more experienced in the 6 Scientology litigation arena than Mr. Dandar. 7 And there came a time, and I think it was in 2000, 8 summer of 2000, that Mr. Dandar needed help with respect to 9 two issues -- 10 Q Do you recall what the issues were? 11 A -- in this case. 12 Yeah. One was this religiosity. And I think 13 there has been long hearings on that. 14 And the second one, which I'm not sure whether it 15 has ever really come to play in this case, was on the alter 16 ego issue. 17 Ford Greene was an attorney who had expertise in 18 the first amendment issues and religiosity angle. 19 And Leipold was anxious to get involved in this 20 case in some way. And, you know, I was -- I was pushing 21 Mr. Dandar to get Dan Leipold and Ford Greene involved in 22 this case because of their expertise, you know, on the 23 anti-Scientology type litigation. 24 So they came down here and they had meetings with 25 Mr. Dandar concerning these issues. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 171 1 Q Had you gotten any requests for assistance? 2 A What do you mean, requests for assistance? 3 Q Had you been in communication with Mr. Dandar 4 about the two issues that you talked about? 5 A No. I don't think he requested anything of me 6 about that. No. 7 Q So -- 8 A But Leipold wanted to get involved in this case. 9 Leipold knew what the issues were in this case. And he was 10 happy to get involved. I mean, he thought it was a good 11 case. I think, you know, he was looking to make some money 12 out of it, to actually get some fees out of it or something. 13 And, really, I think where the whole breakdown 14 happened between Mr. Dandar and Leipold and Greene was over 15 Mr. Dandar's reluctance to give up part of his contingency 16 fee. 17 In fact, what happened, Mr. Leipold, because of 18 this reluctance on Mr. Dandar's part, he said, "Look, I'm 19 not going to work on this thing unless you're going to pay 20 me some hourly fees." 21 I said, "Well, what's it going to cost?" 22 So he eventually sent me a budget, which he also 23 sent to Mr. Dandar, concerning how much it would cost for 24 him to work on this, you know, without any contingency 25 arrangement, without having any benefit of participating in Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 172 1 Mr. Dandar's contingency arrangement. 2 Q Did you, in fact, make any payments to Mr. Leipold 3 for assistance in the case? 4 A Well, through the moneys I loaned to the estate, 5 because he did do work -- he and Mr. Greene both did work on 6 the case. And, you know, they were paid. But not directly 7 by me but, you know, through the moneys that were loaned to 8 the estate. 9 Q But, in any event, to your understanding, they 10 couldn't get into the contingency arrangement, so did they 11 do anything else in the case? 12 A Mmm, well, yes. I mean, you know, Ford Greene did 13 prepare this whole motion or argument on the religiosity 14 issue. 15 The reason Mr. Leipold was needed with Ford Greene 16 involved, because Ford Greene was somebody who was a little 17 erratic and needed somebody to shepherd him on his work. 18 And he was not somebody who Mr. Dandar or Mr. Leipold 19 thought could be left on his own to do the work, that he 20 needed somebody to sort of ride herd on him. 21 There were other problems that developed between 22 Mr. Dandar, Leipold and Ford Greene that sort of added to 23 their inability to get together. 24 Q Did you bring in -- if you'll look on the -- I 25 have it here -- Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 173 1 A If I could just add one other thing there 2 concerning this. 3 Back in January of 1998, and I know that is a big 4 jump back, but the law firm in Boston that was representing 5 me in the first deposition that I ever had in this case was 6 Hale & Dorr. Steve Jonas, who was my attorney who 7 represented me on, you know, non-litigation matters up to 8 that point, you know, he said to me at that time -- 9 MR. HOWIE: Objection on the grounds of 10 attorney-client privilege. 11 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Hearsay and relevance. 12 THE COURT: Well, the privilege is his. So is 13 the waiver. But it is hearsay. 14 MR. DANDAR: Hearsay. 15 THE COURT: I'll sustain it. 16 MR. FUGATE: I'll ask my question, Judge. 17 A Well -- 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q I think there was an objection and you should 20 abide by your attorney's advice. 21 A Okay. 22 Q My question is going to be, were you aware of a 23 witness being utilized in the wrongful death case by the 24 name of Gerry Armstrong? 25 A Yes. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 174 1 Q Is Gerry Armstrong also an individual that you had 2 provided funds to? 3 A Yes, he is. 4 Q Is that the same Gerry Armstrong we see on the 5 advisory committee? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And did you bring Mr. Armstrong to Florida to 8 participate in the wrongful death case? 9 A Well, you know, the money that -- that I was 10 loaning to the estate got him here. I mean, I didn't 11 specifically pay him to come here directly. But definitely 12 he was -- well, he had either used moneys that I had given 13 him before to come here, or he used moneys that Mr. Dandar 14 received, you know, on behalf of the estate and paid him to 15 come here. 16 Q And prior to his coming here, was he, Gerry 17 Armstrong, someone you had known and dealt with in the past? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And was he someone that you knew to be involved in 20 anti-Scientology litigation/criticism? 21 A Very much so. 22 Q And were there any restrictions on his appearing 23 as a witness, if you know, in a case? 24 A Yes. There were. 25 Q And what were those restrictions, if you know? Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 175 1 A Well, he entered into a settlement agreement with 2 the Church of Scientology -- 3 THE COURT: I'm sure this is of some interest 4 to me, but it escapes me, quite frankly. Maybe 5 because it is late on Friday afternoon, but what do 6 I care what Gerry Armstrong did out in a California 7 court and how he breached it and now he escaped the 8 country and he has all kinds of debts he owes? 9 The deal is that is not what this case is about 10 right here. 11 MR. FUGATE: I agree with you, Judge. The 12 point I was -- 13 THE COURT: How nice. 14 MR. FUGATE: Well, you know, it is late and I 15 think it is time to agree on something. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q Could he come and be a witness in the wrongful 18 death case, to your knowledge? 19 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Legal conclusion. 20 Outside of the scope of the affidavits, motions. 21 THE COURT: Absolutely. Sustained on any basis 22 that you can come up with. 23 MR. DANDAR: Thank you. 24 THE COURT: I think I already told you, I don't 25 care about it. Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 ||||| Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:43:41 -0500 From: xganon Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Summarised Message-ID: <4fe985c4df4234f0c11312db3f856065@xganon.com> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 652 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!image.surnet.ru!surnet.ru!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550828 comp.org.eff.talk:105650 misc.legal:433676 P.01 Header, 02 appearances, 04 index of proceedings [which witness called when] P.05 Discussion of which case this applies to, MS BROOKS begins a P.12(L.11). P.13 There are two affidavits: the second, lodged on April/30, is exhibit 72. P.15 Is that affisavit a tur record of the facts? then I have questions on it. How is it you came to make this affidavit.......? P.16 MS BROOKS explains how she came to lodge a recantation of her 1st affidavit. P.17 (L.20) she believed herself and Bob were is a position of testifying falsely. P.18 She had many discussions with Mr Dandar (Ken, not his brother Tom) about this. P.19 Mr Minton at that time, 2001/Oct, believed he should continue to fund. P.20 But the depositions of 2002/April/4th and 9th were the last straw in this. P.21 In 2002/Jan she asked Bruce Howie to negotiate with Scientology. P.22 The COURT: settle what, exactly? BROOKS: the counterclaim initially but also anything else consequently demanded by CofS to settle that: P.23 it would be to stop involvement and funding in all activities against CofS. P.24 What false testimony had been given by you or Minton previously? BROOKS: this was about denying the existence of a secret agreement P.25 and of certain cheques. The COURT: is your knowledge of this first-hand? BROOKS: Minton began loaning money to the estate in 1997 and CofS were saying this was a "business deal" or "investment." Q: and was this so? P.26 LIROT: objection, witness is not competent to answer on that. (SUSTAINED) BROOKS: this is when Minton founded LMT rather than FactNet to get the cash. P.27 Minton and I settled the lawsuit against FactNet, and left it in 1999; winnings were to go to a new organisation. Q: how did you become a critic? P.28 My then husband, Vaughan Young, and I left Scientology in 1989. For a while we just tried to get our lives back. But in 1993 we were approached to testify in a case against CofS. It was a big step. P.29 We met with attorneys Dan Liepold and Graham Berry in LA. They discussed how much experience of CofS we had, and hired us as expert witnesses. P.30 We continued that work for five years, from 1993 to 98 and into this case. Q: this as your primary source of income? A: yes, it was hard to get work. P.31 Q: right up to the present? A: Yes, until I was directly paid by Minton. Q: consulting on how to get biggest damages of cases settled? A: In these first two cases for defendants, trying to get the case dropped. Q: What was your strategy to do so? OBJECTION, work product (OVER-RULED). P.32 A: When in CofS I knew they feared deposition of the leader Hubbard, so I suggested deposition of the current leader Miscavige. P.33 Q: And you later worked with Mr Liepold in the Wollersheim case? A: Yes. P.34 Q: In what form. A: In the California courts, by written declarations. P.35 Q: And you angled it to suit whatever scenario was needed? A: Yes. Q: and that extends to this case? A: Yes. The COURT: were these declarations true? A: I angled them to fit the need, not having personal knowledge of the facts P.36 Q: And you swore to your knowledge and belief they were true? A: Yes Q: You knew they were only specualtion? A: Yes P.37 Q: You made this known to people in the case? A: Yes Q: Who A: Dandar+Garko the COURT: have I seen Brooks 1st affidavit? FUGATE: copy can be supplied. P.38 (L.12) In Wollershein , did Mr Minton hav a financial interest? A: Yes. Q: What was it? A: a lien of $750,000 against the judgement, a UCC. P.39 A: That probably means he has made a public filing to protect his lien. P.40 Q: was there other funding of that case? A: I have taken calls from Dan Liepold as Minton's represenative about money; a further $450,000 was loaned. Q: Evidenced by a written loan agreement? A: Yes. Q: Are there any such agreements evidencing loans in the Lisa case? A: Yes. P.41 Q: What were they? A: Initially Minton put in writing that they were loans. Q: To save time, I will continue that line with Minton. The COURT: OK. Q: Did the reply point out that you had no control over the case? A: Yes. P.42 Q: But did Minton in fact involve himself in case strategy? A: Yes. Q: How? A: Well... LIROT: this is hearsay. the COURT: unless she was present. The COURT: a funder can chat about the case, but not have confidential info: P.43 which it seems the new affidavits say he did. In Dandar's letter it quotes the rule that "the client must consent to funding (which she does); funding does not entitle you to have control or to recieve confidential information." P.44 You need to show in detail whether it crossed from discussion to control. Q: You understand what the letter said about no control? A: Yes. Q: And what involvement did you observe to actually happen? A: I pretty much acted as Bob's agent to oversee Mr Dandar's actions. P.45 Q: Why did Bob have you do this? A: Well... LIROT: Objection, specualtion. the COURT: does she know of discussion between Minton and Dandar showing why? Q: Can you answer that? A: I can. the COURT: also, was Mr dandar aware that she was present to report everything to Mr Minton? P.46 Q: To the best of your knowledge, did Dandar know you were doing this? A: Yes Q: You have no doubt about this? A: I discussed it with him. Q: And you were present at talks between Minton and Dandard about case control? A: Yes. Q: Can you describe them? A: specifically there was one in August 1999. P.47 I told Bob I was concerned Dandar should put more Scientology in the case; so Dandar wanted to meet Bob in Philadelphia, preferably without me present because Dandar did not get on with me. But Bob made sure I was present. P.48 Bob wanted much more involvment of Scientology practices and beliefs. Q: "Involvement" means adding attcks on these things into the case? A: Yes. Q: Where the 5th amended complaint specifically mentions the Introspection Rundown, and letting Lisa die to avoid trouble, that's what is meant? A:Yes P.49 the COURT: this needs to come from her not you; I am not at all sure what she means by bringing more Scientology into it. Yopu should ask "what did you mean", not "did you mean this." P.50 Q: Backing up a bit, did you know Jesse Prince at that time? A: At what time? Q: The time of the Philadephia meeting. A: Yes. Q: How long had you known him? A: Since 1976, when we were both in CofS, but we got together again in 1998 when he started working with us. Q: Working as what? A: as expert witnesses paid by Mr Minton. Q: And, to your knowledge, was this Jesse's sole source of income. P.51 LIROT: objection, competency. Q: Only if she has direct knwoledge. (OVER-RULED) A: Yes since July 1998. Q: How do you know? A: I arranged most of the payments. Q: How much? A: $4 to $5,000 a month, irregularly, as living expenses. P.52 Q: Returning to the Philadephia meeting, what happened there? A: Jesse and I thought Mr Dandar didn't really undertsnad Scientology e.g. didn;t use questions we prepared for him to Scientology witnesses. the COURT: and what exactly were these Scn issues you wanted addressed? P.53 A: e.g that Lisa died on the isolation step of the introspection rundown; both Jesse and I had supervise isolations while in CofS. P.54 I also advised that CofS witnesses be asked about the accessibility of their auditing (confessional) material in ethics (disciplinary) proceedings: P.55 and that CofS witnesses be asked had they omitted anything or told half truths, in the manner of a CofS security check. P.56 Q: but you and Bob particualrly wanted the isolation step included. A: Yes, we felt at the time he didn't appreciate how bad this Scn stuff was. the COURT: yopu were not saying they shoul include anything untrue, though, you were suggesting they include Scn issues which you told them were true? P.57 A: well my whole job from 1993 to 99 was finding hwo to present things about Scientology in a bad light. the COURT: but in talking about the P.58 isolation step, you were talking about some insight you had into what Lisa went through based on your personal experience of similar events? A: Exactly the COURT: so, when you wanted Dandar to include this information, it was true from your perspective at the time? A: Yes. the COURT: You believed this really had happened to here and he wasn't exploring it? A: Yes. the COURT: were any other Scientology issues discussed there? A: It was all in fairly general terms. But we felt it was more than P.59 death by negligence from rogue individuals not doing their job: Mr Minton was engaged in a specific anti-scientology campaign. the COURT: And tehse things you told Dandar were probable as what had happened to Lisa, in the light of your own personal experiences in CofS? A: Sort of, but I hand't known Lisa, I left before these events happened; "it was my job to basically fabricate some areas based on my experience" (page 50, lines 24 and 25). P.60 the COURT: when you say "fabricate", do you mean that your experience was A but that you'd make up a lie and say "no, my experience tells me how things were done is B"? A: All right. the COURT: or do you mean that your experience had been A, and you would properly reason that "my experienmce tell me that what they probably did this time was A?" A: a bit of both. I thopught at the time I was telling the truth. But I would perhaps know that my experience had been A, then extrapolate and say what probably happened was A++ which was somewhat more serious. P.61 the COURT: so it was a bit like those decalrations where you swore you had good reason to believe something was true, but you didn't? A:Yes FUGATE, Q: so you were mixing fact with fiction? A: fact and hypothesis perhaps. Q: "But the purpose of the hypothesis was [...] to attack religious beliefs and practices?" (page 61, lines 24 and 25). P.62 A: Yes, to aid the aims of the case I was working on. Q: And you did this with the intention of targeting particular practices, by taking a good practice and making it bad? A: Yes. BY THE COURT: But was it a practice, good or bad, you knew to be true? A: Yes. One I thought to be good when I as in Scn, and to be bad when I left Scn. Q: You clearly were in Scn and know a lot about itm and you say you considered practices to be good when you were in but bad when you were out? A: Yes P.63 Q: And in what you offered to say for Mr Dandar, were you offering to describe practices you knew to be true, or were you saying "I will testify to something even worse than that though it is not true"? Or were you just passing on what you had learned, that you now thought bad? A: That's how I felt then, yes. Q: You didn't feel you were lying to them? A: I din't feel I was. Q: you felt like you were passing on observations based on your long experience? A: Yes. Q: The insider information they needed to puruse the course they were on? A: Yes, but exaggerating a bit. P.64 I would put a spin on it to help the aims of that lawsuit. Q: And I will pursue this exageration later, but let's return to direct. BY MR FUGATE: What was this spin that Mr Minton sought? A: well, he had never been in CofS, so he thought he new more than he did. P.65 Most of what he learned came from the Net, from dsiaffected ex-members; and this slanted view he had acquired he saw, wrongly, as simply the truth. Q: And this was the attitude underlying the Philadelphia meeting? A: Yes. BY THE COURT: We need to explore what, specificlly, was gone into. P.66 The meeting mentioned step zero? A: I'm not sure ir even went specifically into that, we spoke in general terms. Q: so what were they? and what exactly did you put to Mr dandar in writing? A: Minton said "I know I'm not supposed to be controlling the case but, unless it goes into the practices that led to Lisa's death, I don't see why I'm funding it. P.67 I said "it's not just about a wrongful death but Scn practices causing it." Q: Which you then believed true? A: Yes. Q: And that's what you wanted Mr Dabdar to explore? A: Yes. BY MR FUGATE: Mr Minton was among the most extreme critics of Scn? A: Yes. P.68 Q: And he was looking to attack religious beliefs and practices? A: Yes. Q: This is what he was talking to Dandar about? A: Yes. Q: How, then, was Dandar meant to do this? A: By reducing the emphasis on medical evidence and increasing it on the Introsospetion Rundown. A: How did Dandar react? A: He said "I see your point", and Bob gave him a cheque. p.69 Q: Who, if you knew, was it made out to. OBJECTION, competency. (OVER-RULED) A: I did not know. Q: But we could look at the cheque. the COURT: Break here. P.70 Q: One more question, Bob handed Mr Dandar a cheque? A: Yes Q: Which you didn't see? A: I saw him writing it, but not the actual words on it no. Q: Did Mr Dandar do anything after receiving it? A: He filed an amenbded complaint shortly afterwards. Q: Who helped to draft it? A: Myself and Jesse Prince, it was based on Jesse's affidavit. Q: I'm ready to break now. P.71 BY THE COURT: before we finish - when you did this you were a consultant to the firm. A: I was not being apid directly by them. Q: but you wer considered his consultant. A: I'm not sure what he considered me, I felt I was there to oversee the case for Mr Minton. Q: Mr Prince was at that time a consultant paid by Dandar and Dandar? A: Yes. Q: When you and Mr Minton wanted destructive practices attacked, did you and he then believe they were true based on your experience? A: Yes. P.72 Q: when you or whoever had drafted the new compalint, did you believe it contained practices which led to the death of Lisa MacPherson? A: I don't know for sure what led to her death, but it was a plausible scenario. Q: Based on your experience you thought it was plausible? A: Yes. Q: And Mr dandar learned that it was through you and others he had consulted about Scientology. A: Yes. Q: there was nothing in it you knew to be false? A: No, there wasn't. Q: We will take a break, P.73 but you must not consult with anyone even your own attorney during it (a BREAK was taken at 14:40 hours). P.74 THE COURT: Mr Fugate to resume. MR FUGATE: I'm handing up a copy of the affidavit sworn by Jesse Prince on 20/aug/1999. P.75 THE COURT[ checks that it is the same affidavit refered to before ]. P.76 MR FUGATE: is this the affidavit filed to support the new complaint? OBJECTION, no foundation. THE COURT: answer if she has knowledge. Q: Do you recognise the affidavit? A: Yes Q: Did you help prepare it? A: Yes P.77 Q: In what way? A: I hasd several discussions with Mr Prince. (Interruption because the P A system is off) Q: Did you help prepare it? A: Yes. Q: I refer you to page 17, paragraph 43... P.78 Where it says Mithoff and others had no option but to let her die rather than take her to hospital and face questioning, was that true? OBJECTION, competency, not her affifavit. THE COURT: insofar as she helped draft it (OVER-RULED). Q: Was it true. A: No. Q: Where it ssays there wasn an "end of cycle" policy of letting people die, was that true? A: No. P.79 Q: Is there such a thing as "end of cycle" as portrayed here? A: No, but I know where the idea started. OBJECTION, competency. THE COURT: Over-ruled, she was a senior offical MR LIROT: we do not know if she was at the same level as Mr Prince. THE COURT: What level were you at? A: Chass 4, XDN auditor, OT5 [NOTE these are scientology processing level, not organisational rank] Q: Would you have heard of an End Of Cycle if it existed? A: Yes Q: Do you know what it is supposed to be? A: the therm first appeared P.80 When I was working with Graham Berry in Fishman vs Church of Scientology. Fishman claimed in a 1991 TIME magazine article that he had been ordered to End Cycle i.e. commit suicide. MR FUGATE: who used the term? A: Fishman; so it was obviously one of the first things I was asked about. And I told him there was no such thing in Scientology. P.81 BY THE COURT: the level you were at was a fairly high level? A: Yes Q: high enough to know an "end-cycle" doesn't exist? A: Yes MR FUGATE: But you wrote a section of the affidavit saying it did? A: Yes Q: You assisted in writing a section of the affidavit which describes it? A: I helped get Mr Prince in the proper frame of mind to write it. Q: And it is not true? A: Not to my knowledge. Q: In paragraph 44, are the allegations there to your knowledge true? A: No P.82 Q: Did you have any information that Mithoff and co orderd her death? A: No Q: Or that they wanted to prevent bad publicity? A: No, but the idea was mine. BY THE COURT: what was that? A: no, but the idea that they did was mine. Q: What idea? A: that they would let her die to avoid a publicity flap. Q: did you come up with the idea thinking it was true, or did you come up with it knowing this was false and intending to hurt them? A: Somewhere in between; P.83 I certainly knew it would hurt them. But I know for sure the scinetologists didn't sit by and let her die. Q: OK, thank you. BY MR FUGATE: You said earlier there were anti-scientology critics; was there a fraternity-like atmosphere among the critics? OBJECTION (OVER-RULED) P.84 Q: and from 1993 to 99 your income was derived from being a critic? A: Yes. Q: Did you feel at the time what you were doing was right? A: Yes Q: But are these allegations set out in the Prince affidavit true or false? A: they're false: I feel that, among the critical community, there was a view that the end justifies the means, and he... Q: Sorry, which on is "he" P.85 Mr Dandar... knew Minton felt strongly against Scn, and played on that animonity to make Minton feel he needed to lie under oath to win the case. Q: Have *you* lied under oath for the good of Mr Dandar's case? A: Yes, and I have seen others in the case do the same. BY THE COURT: Who? A: Ms Liebrish and Mr Dandar Q: So you believe you felt, and these people felt, that... A: That the end justifies the means. You know what I mean by this... A: I do P.86 A: ...that if the goal is righteous one would do anything to achieve it. Q: the goal being to abolish, or get rid of, Scientology? A: Yes. Q: and this was because of the, what did you say - hatred - they felt? A: Yes. Q: you and Bob were part of this at one time. A: We were, but not any longer; P.87 and that's not because we were extorted by Scn. Q: We'll come to that later. Q: so you belive Ms Liebrich hates scientology and so does Mr Dandar? A: I believe Mr Dandar thinks he can make money off people who hate Scn. Q: So you think this is a monetary thing... A: Yes Q: rather than a strongly felt, but misguided, moral crusade. A: Yes Q: You think for him it's money. A: Yes. MR FUGATE: May I appraoch the witness? THE COURT: yes, but I have another important point first. P.88 BY THE COURT: you said that para 43 and 44 were false, and you had worked on them with Mr Prince, that you had got him in the state of mind....? A: I had many conversations in which I discussed the scenario of Miscavige getting daily reports and being worried about a PR flap, I helped Jesse... Q: Believe this? A: Beleive this, yes. Q: and did you tell Mr Dandar the information was false? A: no, I told him the obvious, that Jesse and I P.89 were not there so could not possibly know. Q: but you didn;t say what you've said here in court, i.e. that it is false? A: No. Q: Thank you. A: I said "this could have happened". Q: So you toldhim that although you were not present at the specific events you believed, based on your experience, that this could have happened? A: Happened, yes. Q: And Jesse said the same? A: Yes; when he testiffies, he'll likely tell you it did happen. Q: OK. BY MR FUGATE: And what did you men by saying "it did happen". THE COURT: No, whe says that Jesse will say it did happen. P.90 BY MR FUGATE: Is Jesse's description in the affidavit of an End-Cycle accurate or is it a falsehood? A: A falsehood, but I'd like to talk about that briefly. Q: OK... A: It may come from a section in scientology where people do 'assists' on others to help them deal with the distress, and spiritual case, of illness; sometimes, to help someone inevitably dying be at peace about dying. Q: Like in a hospice. A: Yes. End-Of-cycle means completing any course of P.91 action but, in particular, Scn's believe we have many lifetimes and it means coming to the end of one lifetime among many. Q: OK. MR FUGATE: May I now approach the witness. THE COURT: You may. MR FUGATE: I am showing her the 5th amended complaint, of January 2000. MR LIROT: the one with a certificate of 21/dec/1999? THE COURT: Yes. P.92 BY MR FUGATE: Please examine page 12, count I, paragraph 34. A: OK. Q: Where End-Cycle is mentioned there, is it an assist as you just decribed, or the concept you talked Mr prince into putting in? A: The latter. P.93 Q: Were you aware of any fact that would support the inclusion of this? A: No Q: Was Mr Prince aware of any? OBJECTION, Speculation; SUSTAINED. Q: This End-Cycle was your concept you talked to Mr Prince about? A: Yes, the same concept of End-Cycle origuinated by Fishman. Q: Which is a false concept...? A: Correct. Q: And it is not portrayed as a true concept here? OBJECTION, Competency; SUSTAINED. P.94 Q: Do you have any factual information to suuport the allegations that "Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation" (lines 5-6) through "It was the chosen option to minimize a public relations flap" (lines 10-11 P.94)? OBJECTION. The COURT: where is this from? MR FUGATE: paragraph 44 of the Prince affidavit. THE COURT: objection because asked and answered? MR LIROT: Yes, judge. THE COURT: sustained. P.95 BY MR FUGATE: Now at paragraph 34of the current complaint where it says the decision was "to protect Scientology from bad public relations"(7-8) were there any facts known to you to support this? A: No Q: And in the next section... THE COURT: No, that's asked and asnwered. Q: From your conversations with Mr Dandar do you believe he understood there were no facts supporting this? MR LIROT: Objection, speculation. P.96 THE COURT. Sustained. Since they didn't tell Dandar the information they put in affidavit was false, how would he know it was false in the complaint? BY MR FUGATE: did you tell him the End-Cycle comments were false? A: Yes, Jesse and I objected to use of the term because it wasn't credible, it would be easy for Scientology to discredit. Q: But he put it in anyway? A: Well... Q: He being Mr Dandar THE COURT: If you know, if you were there. [I don't understand this section at all; if it is there then, ipso facto, Mr Dandar put it in] P.97 A: I wasn't there when he wote it THE COURT: then you can't testify to that. Q: But you were there for the drafting of the Prince affidavit? A: Yes. Q: And you helped in drafting the 5th amended complaint? OBJECTION, asked and answered; OVER-RULED. A: what was the question... Q: Did you take part in drafting the 5th amedned complaint? A: No, and regarding the Prince affidavit... Q: Ho hum. P.98 A: I wasn't actually at the office for that, I may be wrong. Q: I can't hear properly. THE COURT: Quiet, please. A: I don't recall whether or not I was there for the drafting - I think I was but can't be sure. But I had many priot converations to coach him in the correct state of mind... Q: ...to be able to put in the End-Cycle material etc? A: In order to create the scenario where the leadership directly ordered her death. Concerning End-Cycle I didn't think it should be used because not credible, but it does make a strong assault on Scn. P.99 Q: But it was in fact used? A: Correct. Q: And this was Minton's intention? OBJECTION, speculation. THE COURT: If she knows. A: I do know, and it was. Q: Were you present where Minton and Dandar decided to say the daeth was ordered by the leadership? A: In phone calls. Q: What can you tell us about those? A: I was at Minton's end of the call. Q: OK. A: So I wasn't hearing what Mr Dandar said at his end. P100 But I heard Mr Minton was pleased to with the language accusing the leadership of murder. BY THE COURT: when you say you got Jesse in the right state of mind, you mean you got him stirred up enough to say these things? A: Yes, though he was pretty stirred up already. Q: So he would come along and say these allegations were true, because you had conversations with him running through what might have happened...? A: Yes. Q: And you were helping get him in the state of mind where he could say this believing it true? A: Correct. P101 Q: Then he passed the information to Mr Dandar? A: Yes, and will probably testify believing it to this day. OBJECTION; Over-Ruled. A: I think it is wrong to say Mr Dandar believed it because his behaviour did not make me think that. BY THE COURT: OK. And this was happening around dec/1999? A: Yes. Q: Did he say anything specific, P102 maybe on the lines of "I know this is false but I'm going to say it it's going to really get them." A: No, he's too careful to openly say things like that, it's more implied with a few nods and shrugs. Q: So what did he do that made you think he was filing a complaint which he knew to be false? A: reading Jesse's affidavit, I thought it was too exaggerated to be credible and I said so, but Dandar said "I'm using it because it says what we need to have said." Q: OK. A: And then he did this kind of guesture he does (witness demonstrates the guesture). P103 BY MR FUGATE: Just to establish the dates, the Prince affidavit was in aug/1999 and the complaint was drafted on 21/dec/1999 but filed in the new year? A: Yes. Q: And prior to this there were other complaints naming Mr Miscavige. THE COURT: do we have to hear the witness examined about things which are a matter of record? P104 Q: I'm sorry? THE COURT: You don't need to ask her about undisputed matters of record, just on her personal witness of case facts. Q: When Judge Moody had ordered that Miscavige not be included, were there discussions how to get round the order? A: Yes. Q: What was that discussion? THE COURT: and who was present at it. A: Minton and I with Garko, Prince, and (Ken) Dandar. Judge Moody had ruled that we could not include Miscavige as chairman of RTC. P105 Q: To confirm, were you at that hearing? A: Yes. I suggested then that there may be some other way to include Miscavige. Q: Other than as chair of RTC? A: Yes, then it wouldn't breach the contract. Q: At the time of the Prince affidavit in aug/1999 did you know such a contract existed. A: I knew it after the hearing, certainly. Q: So you felt the order presented a problem you had to get around? P106 THE COURT: You mean, a legal problem -- isn't that what lawyers do? I'm not sure you should ask this. Is she a lawyer... are you a lawyer? A: No. THE COURT: OK. Q: Well, what did happen? A: I said, name him as head of the Sea Organisation instead. P107 Q: was this a legitimate tactic; was it true he is? A: Well there isn;t really a "Head of the Sea Org." Q: OK. A: But I thought it might work. Q: And it did work? OBJECTION, that is yet to be seen. Q: Do you have the complaint there? THE COURT: Look, you're not going to ask her hether Miscavige's name is on the complaint, because we can see for for ourselves it is without the nedd to ask her about it. P108 Q: Look at paragraph 34 of the ameneded complaint as read out before where it says a decision of those officals led to her death. And this language was fabricated... OBJECTION, mischaracterises the facts. (SUSTAINED). Q: how did that allegation get into the complaint? A: By my sufggestion. A: To Mr Dandar? A: Yes. OBJECTION, competency. (OVER-RULED). Q: and was the addition agreed bt everyone on the trial team? A: Everyone except Dr Garko. P109 Q: He objected? A: Strenuously. Q: Did you explain to Dandar the allegation was untrue because there was no "Head of The Sea Org." A: No I didn't. I said I thought it was a credible argument. The discusion was more whether it was an effective strategy. Q: And the conversation also linked this with Bob giving more cash? A: Yes. Q: And did you also talk about making them settle for large numbers? P110 A: Yes. Q: How Large? A: Well when Dandar 1st conacted us in 1997... THE COURT: is there anything improper about trying to get good damages? If not, let's move on to something else; unless the discussion was on how they could *fraudulently* get higher damages. P111 A: the discussion was on how to put pressure via the leadership. THE COURT: Yes, you said earlier that bringing Hubbard into lawsuits when he was alive made Scientology drop complaints. BY MR FUGATE: When the five of you met about circumventing the Moody order, what else was said there. A: Dandar was seeking feedback from the others whether to add Miscavige to the case. P112 I said "yes". Q: And Mr Minton? A: ...didn't say much until the end. Q: What did he say the? A: he was aginst as it would increase cost. Q: And Mr Dandar? Q: He said he would think over what we all said. Q: What happened then? THE COURT: you mean, did they go home....? Q: Then the amended complaint was filed and they got more money. P113 THE COURT: No, you can't say he followed Mr Minton's instruction and then got more money, as your witness just testified otherwise. P114 Q: Returning to para(7)of your affidavit, you got a letter from Mr Dandar in 1997. A: Yes. Q: and you quote there from it... OBJECTION, Best evidence; produce the letter itself, not quotes. P115 THE COURT: do you have this letter? MR FUGATE: Yes. MR LIROT: I also object that it is work product for Mr Dandar. I have deep concerns... THE COURT: So do I, but a work product rule is to stop the opposition getting your papers, and they've already got this one beyond recall. Who should not see it, me or the witness? MR LIROT: No objection to your seeing it, I'm just curious how they got it. THE COURT: I agree, but I can't see how to enforce a privilege against produceing work P116 product when they;ve already got it. Look, we're not going to finish this afternoon are we... or the next day, or the next... P117 MR FUGATE: OK, I'm handing up two pages, do you recognise the letter to you of 02/may/1997? A: Yes. P118 (after some discussion, the letter becomes exhibit 73). P119 Q: You say "Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their condition [as I mean to add him as defendant]." This was how you first got involved with Mr Dandar? A: Yes. OBJECTION (WITHDRAWN). A: I understand it was on the basis he had read some of my declarations in other cases. Q: To your knowledge had Dandar mer Mr Wollersheim at that time? A: I believe so. P120 Q: Did you also know Minton had met Mr Wollersheim and was funding the case as of his anti-Scn... THE COURT: do we care about this? Q: It ties up with what she said earlier. THE COURT: OK. A: I'm aware of it now, I wasn't then. THE COURT: she wasn't aware. BY THE COURT: So how did you answer Dandar's question as to whether Miscavige would know about people in Isolation? A: I said he could do. Q: so you answered something like yes, he could have. A: I said, if you want to pressure Scientology then go after Miscavige. I think he said he intended to go after Miscavige because of the phone conversation with us, but he may have already intended to. P121 Q: Mr Dandar said he intended to go after Miscavige and asked you, as consultants, whether Miscavide would have personal knowledge of people in Isolation, and you said...? A: "He could have." BY MR FUGATE: Re page 7... A: For your purposes, he could have. P122 BY THE COURT: I read somehwere that anyone in a PTS3 condition would be reported all the way to the top, which is Miscavige. If that's true, he would; if it isn't, he wouldn't. A: That's something I said. Q: Was it true? A: I don't believe so. Q: Oh; generally when something is said in an affidavit I assume it is true and I can rely on it. A: I can see why you would. Q: So how high does it get reported - does it just stop with P123 Mr Karduzinski who is in immediate charge? By the way at Scientology's request I'm keeping the IR from the jury as religious. A: When somebody freaks out, certainly in scientology, they have to be kept under watch for a while. And this is what they did, based on my experience in the 1980s. But not everyone who freaks out is reported to Miscavige. Q: But this is someone who was held for 17 days. A: Right. Q: Which is a long time. A: True; it was on this basis we speculated Miscavige would have been told. But it's impossible to be sure yes he would be or no he wouldn't. P124 Q: But he might have been, which is a basis to ask somebody about it in deposition. Was that discussed? A: No. MR FUGATE: Did you understand from Dandarthat adding Miscavige was a legal manoevre to get round judge Moody's order? A: Not at the time of the letter. Q: Sorry, I've skipped from the 1997 letter to the 1999 order of Judge Moody. OBJECTION, mischaracterises, what is a legal manoevre anyway. THE COURT: she can answer whether that term was used or not. P125 MR FUGATE: Returning to page 7 and 8 of the affidavit, THE COURT: We've done with the letter now? MR FUGATE: Yes. Q: To paragraphs 15 and 16 on those pages, of oyur 2nd affidavit. A: OK. P126 Q: You say "I knew there was really no such thing as 'Head of the Sea Org;, but Dandar thought it would work as a legal manoevre." A: The Sea Org is not a heirarchical thing, it is something a Scientologist joins to show extreme dedication. THE COURT: It is a non-public (staff) member. [This observation is incomplete: A "public" member is someone who pays for scientologycourses and has a normal job. A "staff" member is someone who works full-time for scientology, but lines at home in their own area. The "Sea Org" is a special group within staff who are uniformed, usually work away from home, and hence live in communal quarters]. A: It is the most dedciated people in scientology. It's a bit amorphous really, it doesn't have an organisation in and of itself. Q: It is not a corporate entity. A: Correct. But it does exist. The contract excluded all the true corporates like RTC and CSI. p127 OBJECTION, competency. THE COURT: OVER-RULED, she understands scientology structures. MR LIROT: I meant she is drawing legal conclusions about the workings of the contract. THE COURT: OK, but she knew in general the contract existed and excluded corporates. It was a tight contract. A: Correct. THE COURT: Which they all knew. But was anyone trying to do anything illegal here? All they said was, without breaking the contract on organisations, can we lawyer a smart way round to still include the person we want. P128 Isn't that it? A: Yes, they were trying to figure out how to still add Miscavige without violating the contract. Q: OK. And you had told Dandar that, based on your experience, Miscavige could have had reports on Lisa, which would be the way to make this hapoen. And Mr Dandar felt he might get a higher and sooner settlement that way. As a judge, I do tend to know what is going through both sides' heads; while parties tend to have tunnel vison only seeing their own side of it. BY MR FUGATE: Well, I'm going on the affidavit, which takes a slightly different view. P129 Q: I'm reading where you said this would be done "by falsely claiming that Mr. Miscavige had a different role as head of the Sea Organization [than his role in RTC]" (L16-18 P129) MR LIROT: Objection, I would prefer questions. THE COURT: Absolutely; the affidavit is evidence, you don't revise it. P130 Q: Would you read the next para, #16? LIROT: same obhjection. She can't create testiminy by refreshing her memory all the time from the affidavit. THE COURT: Agreed. She swore an affidavit on oath, you're now saying "read it out again and tell me on oath it's true." MR FUGATE: I'm just asking... P131 THE COURT: What you will now do is ask "what happened at the end of the meeting" and see if this opens any new material, not already in the affidavit. MR FUGATE: We went a bit afield of where I intended things to go, and I need to get back. Q: after the meeting ended you went down in the elevator and Mr Dandar made a comment; what was it and how did you take it? A: He said "by the way this meeting never happened" Q: meaning the meeting just spoken of? OBJECTION (SUSTAINED) P132 THE COURT: the remark she alleges speaks for itself. She can't say what Dandar meant by it, we must ask him that. You can ask what it meant to her. Q: What did it mean to you? A: That Mr Minton wasn't supposed to be in on strategy meetings so we should not discuss this meeting with others. Q: Were you, Minton, and Dandar involved in other strategy meetings? THE COURT: Not good enough; you would have to get into specific meetings with time, place, and attaendance list. Q: can you name any other such strategy meetings. P133 A: there was the one just discused, and the one in Philadephia. Q: Ho-hum. A: Plus phonecalls to Minton's home in New Hampshire. THE COURT: Were you listening in on them? A: Usually, yes. THE COURT: then you had beeter go into them, one at a time, if they really were strategy sessions in which Minton told Dandar how to run the case. If they were general discuusion, ignore them. A: That was pretty much what happened. THE COURT: Then ignore them. P134 Q: What happened? A: when Mr Dandar told Bob what was going on. BY THE COURT: To clarify, there is an allegation that, because Minton paid money, he was actually giving Mr Dandar instructions on how to run the lawsuit. Was this so? A: I've pretty much covered that, when I said earlier that Bob wanted the focus more on Scientology practices; and these phonecalls continued that. In a number of phonecalls over a period of time. P135 Q: Keep the emphasis on Scientology rather than individual workers? A: Correct. Q: Was it ever telling Dandar to use materials which he and Dandar knew to be false? A: No. Q: Or just a matter of where the emphasis would be? A: The emphasis. Q: Keep the empghasis on the chuch not the individuals. A: Yes. Q: so if someone got damaged, if someone got bad publicity, that someone would be the church? A: Yes. Q: Not about some minor staffer that nobody knew or cared about, but so people wrote about the church. A: Yes. Q: OK. P136 Q: Was there a purpose in creating the Lisa Trust to get bad publicity for Scn? OBJECTION, best evidence, we have the Trust's own mission statement to tell us what it was set up for. Q: How was the Trust started, if you know? A: Picking up where I left off earlier, there was an agreement between the Estate and Minton to put the case proceeds into an anti-cult group controlled by him as a way of re-paying him, allowing him to pursue his aims of attacking Scientology. When we left FactNet we made plans for a new organisation. P137 We talked to Dell and to Dandar, who filed incorporation papers. I thought it should be in Washington but Bob wanted it directly confronting Scn in Clearwater to get maximum publicity. Q: Did he discuss that plan with Mr Dandar? THE COURT: What plan? Q: The location and aim of LMT. THE COURT: How is that relevant? P138 Q: It's in our papers... THE COURT: We're here to discuss (1) case control and (3) fraudulent statements, which we've done, and (2) the agreemnt which we do next. What is this about? Q: It goes to the agreement. THE COURT: OK. Q: Did Minton and Dandar discuss locating LMT in Clearwater? A: Yes. OBJECTION, it would ask what, if any, personal knowledge she has of such discussions. THE COURT: You must ask if she was party to them, otherwise it is for Minton or Dandar to say. P139 Q: Did I say "to your knowledge"? A: I don;t know but I am answering only about meetings where I was present. Q: So, of those meetings... A: Bob and I had no office space at the time so were working out of Dandar's conference room, so we were often in his office discussing plans with him. Q: Who was present t these discussions? A: Me, Minton, Dandar. A: Was there a decision to have Dell Liebrch in the Trust. P140 A: Dandar wanted her on the board to publicly demonstrate the question with the case. Q: And... A: A sort of stamp of approval on the organisation. Q: At a discussion you witnessed between Minton and Dandar? A: Yes. Q: And there was a decison about using Lisa's name? A: Yes. Q: For, in your understanding of it, what purpose? A: Because Minton wanted the case to be a symbol for the worldwide critic community and what they considered all the abuses of Scn. Q: Was the generation of publicity an element discussed? P141 LIROT: objection, leading. THE COURT: Anyway irrelevant: it's clear that Minton, and possibly also Dandar, wanted to bring to this death (which they considered Scientology had caused), to the forefront of attention. And so what? We are exploring only whether there was an agreement to pay the proceeds of the case into this organisation. It is now 4:15, we are going to break at 4:30, we are going to continue until we finish this witness today then see no more of her in this hearing. Monday morning will be Minton, then the defence: we must come to a decision whether there is to be a trial or not. P142 BY MR FUGATE: was there a discussion about generating negative publicity against the Church of Scientology. OBJECTION, asked and answered. THE COURT: Look, you are telling me what is plainly obvious on record, that these people took part in protest and media actions to get publicity against Scn, if it matters. If you wish to challenge me then I will make a specific adverse ruling on that in the record, and you can go to appeal. We are in recess until 4:30pm. (a BREAK was taken at this time). END OF THIS FILE, NEXT FILE CONTINUES FOR 4:30pm ON 03/may/2002. ||||| From: Anonymous User Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Testimony day1 (morning) A Message-ID: <0e76e52ef2c0d5e227fb7171d176f9b6@remailer.havenco.com> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 14:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 1275 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.eunet.at!newsfeed.austria.eu.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550830 comp.org.eff.talk:105651 misc.legal:433678 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 0001------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 4 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 5 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. VOLUME 1 9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 11 Defendants. 12 _______________________________________/ 13 14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 15 DATE: May 3, 2002, afternoon session. 16 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding 17 St. Petersburg, Florida. 18 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 19 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, 20 Notary Public, State of Florida at large. 21 22 23 24 25 0002------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 MS. HELENA KOBRIN 12 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 13 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for David Houghton. 14 MR. LEE FUGATE and 15 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 16 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 17 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 18 MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 19 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor New York, New York 10003 20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 21 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 22 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 23 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 24 Organization. 25 0003------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 APPEARANCES (Continued) 2 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 3 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 4 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. 5 ALSO PRESENT: 6 Ms. Donna West 7 Ms. Dell Liebreich Mr. Rick Spector 8 Mr. Allan Cartwright Ms. Lara Cartwright 9 Ms. Sarah Heller Mr. Ben Shaw 10 Ms. Joyce Earl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0004------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 2 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 3 PAGE LINE 4 STACY BROOKS 12 12 DIRECT DIRECT 12 15 5 EXAMINATION The Court 21 21 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 24 4 6 EXAMINATION The Court 35 13 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 36 14 7 EXAMINATION The Court 52 21 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 61 17 8 EXAMINATION The Court 62 8 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 64 11 9 EXAMINATION The Court 65 21 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 67 18 10 EXAMINATION The Court 71 1 Recess 74 4 11 EXAMINATION The Court 79 16 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 80 17 12 EXAMINATION The Court 82 13 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 83 13 13 EXAMINATION The Court 85 16 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 89 20 14 EXAMINATION The Court 90 8 EXAMINATION The Court 100 6 15 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 103 6 Defendant's 73 Letter 118 23 16 EXAMINATION The Court 120 11 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 121 12 17 EXAMINATION The Court 121 17 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 124 9 18 EXAMINATION The Court 134 6 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 136 2 19 Recess 143 11 20 21 22 23 24 25 0005------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: Well, my telephone call just ended 2 so I didn't have a chance to read a thing, so -- it 3 was a long call and it was an important call. And 4 for whatever it's worth, the Sixth Circuit has got a 5 new judge to be elected by this January. So that 6 was just one of a lot of things. So any of you all 7 want to be a judge, I wouldn't advise it, but if you 8 do, there's an opportunity for you. 9 MR. FUGATE: I think from what I've seen the 10 answer would be no. 11 As I understand it you want us to open now with 12 our evidence as it relates to the motion that we 13 filed, omnibus motion for sanctions. And we will do 14 that by calling Ms. Stacy Brooks. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. FUGATE: And I think she's here -- may I be 17 excused? 18 (Witness sworn.) 19 THE COURT: Not open, but continue with the -- 20 with the hearing that we've already started in front 21 of Judge Baird, continuing here. 22 MR. LIROT: That's -- that's our question, 23 Judge. 24 I'm curious as to where we are procedurally. 25 It was my understanding that this afternoon would be 0006------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 a continuation of the hearing in front of Judge 2 Baird. 3 THE COURT: Yes. That is my understanding too. 4 I think when he said open, he -- he meant that he 5 would be continuing. In other words, what I 6 indicated to the two of you all was that I wanted 7 the plaintiff in Clearwater defendant -- since it 8 started up there as the plaintiff and it's the 9 defendant's motion here, to finish whatever it is 10 they wanted to finish. Because I had noticed you 11 kind of wanted to make an argument on the law at the 12 conclusion of their case, and I said you can't 13 really do that until they conclude their case. 14 MR. LIROT: And correct. And that's in the 15 what we'll call the breach of contract action. 16 MR. FUGATE: Then I go back to what I said 17 before. I thought -- 18 THE COURT: That is not true. I have no idea 19 what Judge Baird is going to do, whether he's going 20 to accept the procedure that I have allowed or not. 21 What I have allowed here is that so that Mr. Minton 22 and Mr. Dandar don't have to just repeat everything 23 that's happened, to basically allow their -- 24 pursuant to agreement, their testimony in that 25 hearing to be introduced as part of this hearing. 0007------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. LIROT: Correct. 2 THE COURT: So we are not in that case at all. 3 I don't know what Judge Baird will do; whether he'll 4 accept any of this testimony or not. But in this 5 hearing we've agreed to accept the testimony thus 6 far, I believe -- we've had three witnesses, 7 Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Liebreich. 8 MR. LIROT: Correct. 9 THE COURT: They have testified, and I am 10 accepting that testimony. And I think Lee and the 11 church has adopted that testimony as part of the 12 testimony in this case and they're continuing. And 13 when they're done with their testimony in this case, 14 then I'm going to hear you as to the motion filed in 15 this case. If Judge Baird says, "I don't -- I'm not 16 interested in taking any of that testimony down 17 there in my case, I want it all put on again," you 18 continue up there. Is that what you understood? 19 MR. FUGATE: Well, yes and no. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MR. FUGATE: And now I go back to what I 22 suggested just before we went to lunch. 23 I misunderstood that point with your Honor, and 24 if he wants to complete the testimony of Mr. Dandar 25 in that case and expand it into this case, then what 0008------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Ms. Brooks was going to be called for is our motion 2 and our hearing as it relates to the motion that's 3 before your Honor in this case. And it's my 4 understanding that she's available Monday or Tuesday 5 if he wants to complete that. That's what I thought 6 I was saying at lunchtime. 7 THE COURT: There's no point. What I did was 8 agreed to fill up the time this morning because 9 Ms. Brooks I didn't think was here and we had time 10 to go. And so I said rather than just calling 11 Mr. Dandar for whatever cross, why don't you just 12 start with the whole thing. 13 Now we're ready to continue on your case. So 14 it's almost as if he never started, you're 15 continuing. And then when you're done, he'll make 16 his legal argument; if he doesn't prevail, the first 17 witness he's going to call is Mr. Dandar, or doesn't 18 have to be the first, but second, third, fourth, 19 whatever. 20 MR. FUGATE: All right. 21 MR. LIROT: That's exactly my understanding, 22 your Honor. 23 THE COURT: And what -- where are you and I not 24 either seeing eye to eye, which is okay, or where 25 are we miscommunicating? 0009------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: Well, where we're miscommunicating 2 is I actually thought we were going to start our 3 case. Because it's my understanding that in the 4 breach case, that Ms. Brooks was not going to be 5 called as a witness, and I didn't intend to call her 6 and certainly am not in -- you know, calling her in 7 that case. I would be calling her and I'd be 8 calling Mr. Minton, as I told your Honor, with 9 counsel on the conference call, as witnesses in -- 10 if the court conducts an evidentiary hearing -- 11 THE COURT: Which I'm doing. 12 MR. FUGATE: -- in this matter on our motion 13 that's before your Honor in this case. 14 THE COURT: That's fine. 15 MR. FUGATE: And if that's what I'm starting to 16 call her for, I'm ready to call her. If you want to 17 finish with Mr. Dandar, I'm ready to let you do 18 that. You tell me. 19 THE COURT: I want you to put on your case. 20 And when you're done with your case, I want you to 21 say, "That's all we've got." 22 MR. FUGATE: Got you. 23 THE COURT: And when that time comes, I want to 24 listen to legal argument. And if we go past the 25 legal argument, he's going to put on his case in 0010------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 opposition to your motion. 2 Now, if you want to introduce -- which I 3 thought we'd already done -- the testimony that had 4 already occurred so all that doesn't have to be 5 repeated, that's your business. 6 MR. FUGATE: It's in. 7 THE COURT: And it's in. So this would be in 8 essence your -- I believe Ms. Liebreich was called 9 up there as a plaintiff's witness, was she not? 10 MR. WEINBERG: No. In that case, they're not 11 the plaintiffs in that case. 12 THE COURT: Well, I understand. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes -- 14 THE COURT: You are and the church called her. 15 MR. WEINBERG: She was called by us. 16 THE COURT: The church has called thus far as a 17 witness in front of Judge Baird, Mr. Minton 18 Mr. Dandar and Ms. Liebreich. 19 MR. WEINBERG: That is true. 20 THE COURT: And I've allowed if you want those 21 witness's testimony from up there to be considered 22 to be admitted in this case. And so -- 23 MR. FUGATE: And that's where I still think I'm 24 confused. Ms. Brooks would not be called in that 25 case, and Mr. Minton, what I had understood and what 0011------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 I had anticipated was, as it relates to our 2 motion -- when I say our motion, the motion in the 3 case before your Honor, the wrongful death case -- 4 that if we put affidavits in front of you -- I've 5 known you for a lot of years, and I think in 6 fairness, with the type of allegations that are 7 made, that you would want to see Ms. Brooks and you 8 would want to see Mr. Minton. 9 THE COURT: Very true. 10 MR. FUGATE: And I'm calling them in that case. 11 If he's not finished with whatever he wants to do 12 with Mr. Dandar, which is what I thought he was 13 saying before lunch, then I don't have any problem 14 with him finishing that. She's going to be called 15 in the other -- in the wrongful death case. Am I 16 missing something? 17 THE COURT: We are not at odds. 18 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 19 THE COURT: Pretend Mr. Dandar never took the 20 stand. 21 MR. FUGATE: You got it. And I'll start. 22 THE COURT: Pretend it never happened. 23 MR. FUGATE: Did you swear -- 24 THE COURT: I swore her. 25 And if you did not want to call her up there, 0012------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 then whatever -- whenever this is over, if Judge 2 Baird says, "Well, gee, maybe I can consider some of 3 this," you need to say, "Not the testimony of 4 Ms. Brooks because she was not going to be called in 5 this case." Meaning his case. 6 MR. FUGATE: Well, I think I'm confused enough. 7 I'll just start asking questions, Judge. 8 THE COURT: I'm not confused, but -- 9 MR. FUGATE: Well, you know I'm always 10 confused. 11 ________________________________________ 12 STACY BROOKS, 13 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 14 and testified as follows: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q Would you state your name for the record, please, 18 Ms. Brooks? 19 A Stacy Brooks. 20 Q And we have had some testimony prior to your 21 taking the stand and there's been a reference to a Stacy 22 Young. Are you Stacy -- or were you Stacy Young at one 23 time? 24 A Yes, I was. 25 Q So for the court's purposes, Stacy Brooks, Stacy 0013------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Young, is you, and the same person at different points in 2 your life. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, you have -- you have executed two affidavits 5 which have been filed in the record in this case, as I 6 understand it. And do you have those before you there? 7 A Yes. 8 Q There's first a notice of filing, a short 9 affidavit and a notice of filing a longer affidavit. Do you 10 have those there? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 THE COURT: I may only have the one. I may 13 have them both, but the one that I have, that I know 14 I have, is one that is dated the 30th of April of 15 2002 and it's 16 pages. I'm sorry. It's 17 pages. 16 MR. FUGATE: That's the one that we will be 17 talking about as Exhibit 71 to our memorandum of 18 fact and law. 19 THE COURT: Okay. If there is another 20 affidavit, I'm not sure that I have it. I'm not 21 saying I don't, because I've gotten a lot of stuff. 22 I remember this one and I remember reading this one. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I think it's 72 and not 71, just 24 for the record. 25 THE COURT: Okay. 0014------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: Well, let's make sure we're right 2 on that. 3 MR. MOXON: It looks like there may be an 4 error. At some places in the paper it's referred to 5 as 71, but the copy we have, it's listed and 6 attached as 72 -- 7 THE COURT: Let's put it this way: In my book 8 which you all provided to me -- which really isn't 9 that important. We need to know where it is in the 10 record. But in my book it's tabbed 72. 11 MR. FUGATE: Well, then let's refer to it as 12 72, Judge, and I apologize. 13 THE COURT: We'll all know what it is. It's 14 Stacy Young -- is it Stacy Young now? Stacy Brooks' 15 affidavit that is dated April 30th, and it's 17 16 pages long. 17 MR. FUGATE: It's actually, Judge, filed on the 18 30th. It appears on the back to be signed on the 19 29th of April. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q Is that -- are we talking about the same 23 affidavit? 24 A Yes. 25 THE COURT: Is that the same one that you have 0015------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 in front of you that I have, ma'am? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Now we're all on the same 4 page. 5 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Ms. Brooks, the affidavit, the 17-page affidavit 8 that we now have, I think, identified for the record, which 9 is entitled "Second Affidavit of Stacy Brooks," did you in 10 fact -- is that the affidavit that you executed and your 11 attorney, Mr. McGowan, filed -- McGowan filed in this 12 record? 13 A Yes, it is. 14 Q And is it -- is it true and correct to the best of 15 your knowledge and belief? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Now, the judge has read it and I'm going to ask 18 you some questions about it. I'm not going to try to go 19 through it; I'm not going to try to repeat anything, Judge. 20 But I will, if I may, ask you, Ms. Brooks, can you 21 tell us how it is that you came to execute this affidavit; 22 how it is that you came to be testifying in this matter, if 23 you will? 24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think that's the subject 25 of my entire affidavit, your Honor. 0016------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE COURT: You can go on ahead on a narrative. 2 I mean, that's a fairly open-ended question. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 THE COURT: So you can -- you can just go until 5 somebody objects, and we'll see where it leads. 6 Okay? 7 THE WITNESS: All right. 8 A Well, I guess I'll start a little bit more 9 recently and go back -- go backwards in time. 10 In March of this year, I found myself and Bob 11 Minton in a situation in which we were both in extreme 12 danger of being found guilty of perjury. And particularly, 13 Mr. Minton was extremely -- extremely worried, distraught, 14 frightened about going to jail, either by Judge Schaeffer or 15 by Judge Baird. Judge Baird had already threatened to put 16 him in jail in October. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q October of -- 19 A In October of 2001. 20 And -- 21 Q Let me interrupt here because I think everybody 22 understands, but for the sake of the record, Mr. Minton, 23 Mr. Bob, or Robert, Minton, was he the individual who was 24 the original president, CEO, if you will, of the Lisa 25 McPherson Trust -- 0017------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Yes. 2 Q -- that's referenced in your affidavit? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And were you the same Stacy Brooks or are you the 5 same Stacy Brooks that took over that position when 6 Mr. Minton removed himself? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And were you the same or are you the same Stacy 9 Brooks that had worked with Mr. Dandar in, quote/unquote, 10 the trial team in the litigation in this case, which is the 11 estate of Lisa McPherson, with Dell Liebreich as the 12 personal representative versus the Church of Scientology 13 Flag Service Organization and other defendants? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. So with that stage set, there were legal 16 proceedings, if I understand what you're saying, that were 17 ongoing, that were beginning to cause concern. And I'm not 18 putting words in your mouth. You tell this judge what 19 happened and what caused you to be where you are today. 20 A There were many legal proceedings, both in this 21 case, in the wrongful death case and in the breach of 22 contract case. There was about to be another case, which 23 was the counterclaim case. And in all of these cases, both 24 Mr. Minton and I were being ordered into deposition on a 25 fairly regular basis. I was aware for some months that 0018------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Mr. Minton was testifying falsely. 2 THE COURT: Let me check with my bailiff. Is 3 that water fresh? 4 THE BAILIFF: Fresh, yes. 5 THE COURT: Take your time, ma'am. 6 MR. FUGATE: Too late now. 7 THE COURT: Well, I worried about it 'cause 8 I've been known to take this and realize that it 9 wasn't. 10 THE WITNESS: It tastes okay to me. 11 THE COURT: I knew the bailiff had made mine 12 fresh and I wanted to be sure yours was too. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 A I was extremely concerned about the fact that he 16 was doing this. Mr. Dandar knew he was doing this, was -- 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Knew Mr. Minton was doing what? 19 A Was testifying falsely. 20 Q And when we say Mr. Dandar, is he here in the 21 courtroom? 22 THE COURT: Oh, come on, Counsel, we don't 23 need -- this record can be real clear -- 24 Mr. Kennan Dandar, right? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 0019------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: Apologize, your Honor. 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q And I will shut up. 4 A I had had many, many very heated discussions with 5 Mr. Dandar about the danger that he was putting Mr. Minton 6 in by continuing to have him fund this case -- 7 THE COURT: Let me just stop you for one 8 minute. I'm going to assume that every time you say 9 Mr. Dandar that you're talking about Mr. Kennan 10 Dandar. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: You do know he has a brother. 13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. But I didn't work with 14 Tom. I worked with Ken. 15 THE COURT: So anytime if you're referring to 16 anyone other than Kennan Dandar, his brother, you 17 let me know. Otherwise I'll assume anytime you say 18 Mr. Dandar, it's Ken Dandar. 19 THE WITNESS: That's right. 20 THE COURT: Fair enough? Okay. 21 A My relationship with Mr. Dandar had degenerated 22 really badly because of this situation, and I was urging and 23 begging Mr. Minton to stop his involvement in this case. 24 Mr. Minton had a lot of faith in Mr. Dandar. He felt that 25 he should continue to fund it. 0020------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Fund what? 3 A The wrongful death case. 4 And he felt that he had a commitment to the estate 5 of Lisa McPherson because he felt that the estate of Lisa 6 McPherson had made a commitment to him with regard to the 7 proceeds of the case. And he wanted to hold up to his end 8 of that deal. 9 And I told him repeatedly that Mr. Dandar didn't 10 really care how much money he took from him and he really 11 didn't care about what was going to happen to Bob Minton as 12 a result of what he was doing. And so finally -- finally 13 what happened was there were two orders to show cause for 14 criminal contempt brought against Bob Minton. One was in 15 Judge Schaeffer's courtroom and one was in Judge Baird's 16 courtroom. One was scheduled for Friday, April 4th, and one 17 was scheduled for Tuesday, April 9th -- Friday, April 5th? 18 In any case, right together -- 19 Q April of this year -- 20 A Right together. And, you know, Mr. Minton was in 21 terrible shape about this. I was, you know, continuing to 22 beg him to not fund. He had just given Mr. Dandar another 23 check in February -- or in early March, right before these 24 orders to show cause hearings. 25 Q Of what year, so we can keep fresh? 0021------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Right now. Of 2002. 2 Q Of 2002. 3 A You know, I told him that he was, you know, 4 getting himself into terrible trouble. And at that point he 5 said, "You know, I'm in so deep in this now it doesn't 6 really matter." 7 And I got in touch with his attorney, Bruce Howie, 8 in -- I think probably as early as January -- 9 Q Of this year? 10 A And -- of this year, of 2002. And told Bruce that 11 I wanted to have him approach Scientology for a settlement 12 with Bob Minton, and asked him for his opinion about that, 13 or whatever. We had several conversations about it. 14 And after talking to Bruce, then I approached Bob 15 Minton and I told him that I wanted him to authorize me to 16 have Bruce Howie to approach Wally Pope -- 17 Q Okay. 18 A -- for settlement. 19 And, you know, at first Mr. Minton said, you 20 know -- 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY THE COURT: 23 Q I'm sorry, and I -- I don't mean to stop you 24 either, but when I hear settlement, I don't know what that 25 means. Settlement of what? What's going on? 0022------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Well -- well, there were -- you know, Mr. Minton 2 was getting drawn into a lot of different legal -- or 3 litigation with Scientology. It was -- in the wrongful 4 death case, in the breach of contract case, he was about to 5 be named as a party in the counterclaim. And you know, it 6 seemed to me that he was being -- you know, he was going 7 down a road that was going to destroy him. 8 Q So when you say settlement with Scientology, 9 settle against -- this is again my question -- settle what? 10 A Well -- 11 Q Settle out as a defendant? Settle -- I mean, 12 settle what? 13 A Well, it was going to start out with Bruce Howie 14 asking Wally Pope for the possibility of settlement in 15 the -- in the counterclaim. But my -- what I had in my mind 16 was that I knew that Scientology would never just be willing 17 to settle one little case with Bob Minton, because I knew 18 that their point of view was that he was responsible for 19 pretty much all the litigation problems that they were 20 having in the United States. 21 And so I knew that, you know, even -- even though 22 Bruce might -- Mr. Howie might call Wally Pope and ask for a 23 settlement of that one particular case -- 24 Q That being I think you mentioned counterclaim -- 25 that being the breach of contract case? 0023------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Breach of contract -- yeah, I think maybe it was 2 the breach of contract. I can't remember -- 3 Q Okay. 4 A But, you know, one particular case that Mr. Howie 5 was working on. I think it was the breach of contract case. 6 And -- and I knew that when Mr. Howie approached 7 Wally Pope to settle that case, that what he would get back 8 from Wally Pope was going to be, "We're not interested in 9 settling one case, we want a global settlement with 10 Mr. Minton." Well, global settlement with Mr. Minton 11 didn't -- I mean, my understanding was, not that it would 12 just be all the litigation, but it would be that he got out 13 of the anti-Scientology litigation business altogether. 14 That he stop funding any litigation; that he stopped his 15 anti-Scientology litigation activities. 16 So -- 17 Q So that's what you perceived -- 18 A That was what I meant. 19 Q Okay. 20 A So -- so Bruce Howie did call Wally Pope. Wally 21 Pope did come back with the answer that I expected he would; 22 that Scientology was not willing to settle one case, they 23 wanted a global settlement. And so I encouraged and urged 24 Mr. Minton to go forward with talks for a global settlement, 25 because it was my feeling that it was the only possibility 0024------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 he had to save himself from a nightmare of sanctions, 2 criminal charges, perjury charges, legal nightmares for the 3 rest of his life. 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q You mentioned perjury charges or you mentioned the 7 fact that there had been testimony, in your judgment, that 8 had been given that was not correct or not true; that you 9 wanted to address. Can you explain that to the court? And 10 I guess in two counts. If it applies for Mr. Minton, and if 11 you would identify what you understood applied to 12 Mr. Minton; and if it applies to yourself, if you would 13 identify what would apply to you. 14 THE COURT: Or both, if it applies to both. 15 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry. 16 THE COURT: That's fine. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Or both. 19 A Well, both of us had lied in deposition about 20 there not being a -- an agreement with the estate to -- for 21 the proceeds of the judgment to go to the LMT. Bob had lied 22 about that and so had I. Bob had lied about it more 23 extensively and more often than I had. This had been at 24 Mr. Dandar's urging. That was one. 25 Another was that Bob Minton had lied about how 0025------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 much money he had given the estate or loaned the estate, I 2 should say, because he had left out some of the money that 3 he had loaned to the estate at Mr. Dandar's urging. 4 Q Can you explain that to the court? 5 THE COURT: And first of all, I guess she needs 6 to -- she needs to say whether or not she was 7 present for this discussion or whether this is 8 something she just learned from Mr. Minton. We need 9 to at least know that. 10 MR. FUGATE: Let me -- let me back up a minute 11 then and try to ask some questions. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q Was there -- can you tell us how the LMT, the Lisa 14 McPherson Trust, came into being? 15 A Some of it happened before I was involved in it, 16 so it'll just be my understanding. 17 Q If you'd give us your understanding. 18 A Mr. Minton began to give the estate loans for the 19 litigation starting in, I believe, the fall of '97. And 20 from what he's told me, in early '98, I believe, he 21 suggested to Mr. Dandar and/or the estate that in order to 22 sort of defuse, I guess, the accusations that Scientology 23 was making about his -- the way they were characterizing his 24 relationship with the estate, they were characterizing his 25 relationship as a -- basically a business deal; that he had 0026------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 invested in the lawsuit and that he was therefore expecting 2 to make a lot of money from the lawsuit. And he -- he 3 suggested that -- 4 Q Let me stop you there. Was that fact at the time 5 that was happening, to your knowledge, true? 6 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency. 7 THE COURT: Sustained. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Go ahead. 10 A So he suggested that they make an agreement that 11 the bulk of the proceeds of the estate would go to an 12 organization that would be established in Lisa McPherson's 13 memory. And so that agreement had been made. And then -- 14 well, excuse me, I -- that wasn't the case at that moment. 15 At that moment when they first made the agreement, 16 Bob Minton was part of another organization called FACTNet. 17 And so the agreement originally was that the money would go 18 to that organization. But shortly thereafter, I began 19 working with Mr. Minton in the late winter/early spring of 20 1998, and he asked me to go on the board of FACTNet with 21 him, and then we were both on the board for some months 22 until -- I'm sorry -- I'm just trying to make sure my dates 23 are right here. 24 THE COURT: We understand this has been over a 25 long period of time and so -- 0027------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 2 THE COURT: -- just do the best you can. 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. 4 A Until, I believe, March of '99, if I'm not 5 mistaken, we left -- we settled -- Mr. Minton and I were 6 involved in settling the FACTNet lawsuit that Scientology 7 had brought against FACTNet, and we successfully settled 8 that lawsuit. And then we resigned from the board of 9 FactNet and Mr. Minton began to make plans to establish a 10 new organization that would be specifically in Lisa 11 McPherson's memory. 12 And at that time it was my understanding that the 13 agreement about the bulk of the proceeds shifted from going 14 to FACTNet to going to the new organization. Because the 15 whole point of the agreement was that it was going to be in 16 return for what Bob Minton was doing to enable the case to 17 go forward. 18 So -- 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q All right. Now, let's back up a second because I 21 think it would be helpful, from reading your affidavit, 22 to -- to give the court a little background on your 23 involvement in anti-Scientology or as a Scientology critic, 24 litigation. Could you just tell us when that began and how 25 that began? 0028------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Well, my husband and I left Scientology in 1989 -- 2 Q And your husband would be at that time? 3 A That was Vaughn Young. 4 Q Okay. 5 A We left together. And we didn't have anything to 6 do with Scientology or anti-Scientology for several years. 7 We were just trying to get started with a new life 8 basically. 9 In 1993, we had occasion to meet a woman who was 10 part of an organization that was in litigation with 11 Scientology at that time, and she asked us if we would be 12 willing to speak to her attorney, who was fighting -- who 13 was litigating against Scientology. 14 And so -- that was sort of a big step for us at 15 the time, to actually cross a treshold and start working 16 against Scientology. I'd been in for 15 years so -- and my 17 husband had been in for 20 years, so you know, it was a 18 fairly major shift for us to do this. 19 And we finally decided, you know, to meet with 20 this attorney and see what it was that he wanted us to do or 21 what he wanted to know from us or whatever. 22 You're going to have to fill this up. 23 Q That water's okay? 24 A Yeah. It's okay. 25 So a meeting was set up with us, and -- and that 0029------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 attorney and another attorney also came to that first 2 meeting. 3 Q And who were they, for the sake of continuity, and 4 where we are? 5 A Their names were Dan Leipold and Graham Berry. 6 They were both -- this was in Los Angeles. They were both 7 litigating cases, or I should say, defending their clients 8 in litigation against Scientology. In other words, 9 Scientology had brought the lawsuits against their clients. 10 Q And did you and/or your -- your then-husband, 11 Vaughn Young, begin to participate in that litigation? 12 A Yes. We had a lengthy interview with these two 13 attorneys in which they asked us about our experiences; you 14 know, what our positions had been in Scientology. Both of 15 us had, at various times in our careers in Scientology, held 16 high management positions. And so both of these attorneys 17 said that our experience would be really valuable and that 18 they would like to hire us as expert witnesses -- 19 Q And did that happen? 20 A -- in their cases. 21 Q Did that happen? Were you hired as expert 22 witnesses? 23 A So yes, it did. 24 Q And did that expert witness experience extend over 25 a period of time? 0030------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 MR. FUGATE: And I'll get it wrapped up, Judge, 2 to where we are here. 3 A Yeah. We started doing this in '93 and basically 4 continued to do this work through -- well, my husband, I 5 think, continued to do it through '98. I continued to do it 6 in one form or another until -- well, I'm hesitating 7 'cause -- 8 THE COURT: Before or after he -- 9 THE WITNESS: After. 10 THE COURT: Okay. So -- 11 THE WITNESS: I mean, I was going to say until 12 about a month ago, but in fact I -- I haven't been 13 really doing the litigation work for some months. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q Well, let me ask you this question. You say in 16 the affidavit that -- that you -- your role as an expert and 17 as a consultant was your primary source of income. Is that 18 accurate? 19 A Yeah. My husband and I had had a pretty difficult 20 time getting going after we got out of Scientology, and we 21 were, you know, having a pretty difficult time financially 22 when we met with these two attorneys. And so financially it 23 was a really good job for us at the time. 24 Q And did that then -- that relationship as an 25 expert witness/consultant, did that then become essentially 0031------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 your sole source of income up till the present time? 2 A Well, it was certainly our primary source of 3 income and was my primary source of income until I began to 4 be paid directly by Mr. Minton. 5 Q Now, in that earlier litigation, you indicated -- 6 MR. FUGATE: And I'm not going to go through, 7 Judge, the -- the affidavit -- 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q But you indicate that you were a consultant on how 10 to drive settlements up or how to cause Scientology to want 11 to settle litigation. Can you explain that to us? 12 A Well, as I said, these two attorneys that I worked 13 with initially were both defending their clients against 14 Scientology, and one of the cases involved a client whose 15 credibility was fairly doubtful. And so the attorney was 16 hoping to be able to force Scientology to dismiss their own 17 lawsuit before it ever had to get to trial. And so what he 18 specifically asked for me to help him with was a strategy 19 which would bring that about. 20 Q And can you explain what that strategy was and how 21 you used it? 22 A I -- 23 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge, work product. 24 THE COURT: Whose work product? 25 MR. LIROT: Anything involving work product 0032------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 that would affect this case. She signed a 2 confidentiality agreement. 3 THE COURT: Well, overruled. This is some 4 other case, I take it, way back in -- 5 MR. FUGATE: It is. 6 THE COURT: Something involving Mr. Leipold 7 and -- 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, it's actually in the 9 affidavit, it's set out in there, and I'm just 10 asking her, to eliminate it. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 THE WITNESS: What was the question again? 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q The question is, did you develop a strategy, I 15 think, is where I was headed. 16 A Yes. I did develop a strategy, and it was based 17 on something that I had heard about having happened in a 18 legal case when I was still in Scientology. Which was, 19 there was a lawsuit that had been brought by Scientology, 20 and the strategy of the defense attorneys in that case had 21 been to name L. Ron Hubbard, who was the founder of 22 Scientology, who was alive at that time, get him named as 23 managing agent and get him -- and I mean, I may not be 24 exactly accurate on what actually happened, but this was my 25 understanding -- to get him named as managing agent and 0033------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 therefore get him ordered into deposition. Because -- and 2 when Mr. Hubbard was ordered into deposition, Scientology 3 dropped their lawsuit because they didn't want him to go 4 into deposition. 5 Q That was your understanding? 6 A That was my understanding. I'm not sure that 7 really happened, but that's what I -- 8 Q Okay. 9 A -- that's what I brought with me. 10 Q Okay. And did you transfer that into the 11 litigation with Mr. Leipold and Mr. Berry, I think you said? 12 A Well, specifically with Mr. Berry at the time. 13 Q Okay. 14 A Because I -- I told him about that, and I said, 15 "Mr. Hubbard is dead, no longer the head of Scientology, but 16 David Miscavige is now the head of Scientology, and he's in 17 a very similar position in terms of wanting to shield 18 himself from litigation. So if you want them to dismiss 19 their case against your client, target David Miscavige." 20 Q And so did you then develop a strategy for these 21 lawyers as to how to do that, to try to cause that to occur? 22 A Yes, I did. 23 Q And did you become involved at some point in a 24 Larry Wollersheim case we've heard a little about today in 25 this court? 0034------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Yes, I did to the degree that Mr. Leipold was one 2 of the attorneys on that case. And I had worked with 3 Mr. Leipold in, I think, maybe two earlier cases. And -- 4 Q In the same capacity as an expert/consultant -- 5 A That was always -- 6 Q And the -- 7 A That was always the capacity that I had. 8 Q Were you providing affidavits in those cases? 9 A I was writing -- well, they're declarations. 10 Q In California. 11 A I think in California they're declarations. But I 12 was writing lengthy declarations, very lengthy declarations, 13 in which basically -- you know, the -- we would have these 14 meetings and the attorney would lay out what it was that he 15 was wanting to plead. And then he would ask me if I felt 16 that that was plausible or if I thought that that was, you 17 know, a possible scenario in some way. 18 And -- and so, you know, we would kick it around a 19 little bit and I would say, you know, I don't think it would 20 be plausible that way, but I think it could possibly be the 21 case if you said it this way. And -- and then he would ask 22 me to write a declaration that would support that. 23 And so you know, I'm a writer; I've been a writer 24 when I was in Scientology. And you know, you can -- I've 25 done a lot of public relations writing. And you know, you 0035------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 can communicate something in whichever direction would 2 further whatever your end result is that you want it to be. 3 Q Well, are you saying that if there was a -- a need 4 to establish something in a pleading, you would set about to 5 author a declaration that would fit that scenario, as you 6 called it, so that the pleading could be filed? 7 A That was my job. 8 Q Okay. And did that job extend over into this case 9 that Judge Schaeffer sits on today; the wrongful death case? 10 A Yes. 11 THE COURT: Don't we want to know whether or 12 not these declarations were true or not? 13 EXAMINATION 14 BY THE COURT: 15 Q Were these true declarations or were these 16 declarations that fit the -- that fit the need, whether or 17 not they were true? 18 A They were declarations that fit the need. And I 19 used speculation and I speculated about things that I didn't 20 really have personal knowledge about. So whether or not 21 they were true, I'm not sure. I -- I didn't have personal 22 knowledge about many of the things that I wrote about, 23 but -- 24 Q And did the dec- -- I don't know what a 25 declaration is in California, but does a declaration say 0036------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 something to the effect that I swear of my own personal 2 knowledge and belief this is true or anything like that? I 3 mean, I don't know what they require out there. 4 A I think it must. 5 Q So -- 6 A I mean, it's a sworn statement. 7 Q It's the same thing as what we have; we just call 8 it an affidavit, they call it a declaration. 9 A Yeah. I think they're kind of interchangeable. 10 Q So when you say you had personal knowledge, if it 11 was something you were surmising or supposing, then that 12 wasn't -- would not have been a true affidavit. 13 A That's correct. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q And did that practice carry over into this case, 17 was my question? 18 A Yes, it did. 19 Q And did you prepare affidavits and did you assist 20 in the preparation of affidavits that carried that same 21 pattern of fabrication, I think you called it, into this 22 lawsuit? In other words, the speculation, the assumption, 23 as a fact affidavit? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And did that practice -- did you make that 0037------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 distinction or that fact that they were presumptions and 2 assumptions and innuendo known to anyone involved in the 3 litigation? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And who would that have been? 6 A Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko. 7 Q Now -- 8 THE COURT: I'm not sure, maybe it's part of 9 one of the attachments that I have, I don't 10 remember -- I remember yesterday I said I've never 11 seen the Jesse Prince affidavit everybody kept 12 referring to? Have I seen the Stacy Brooks 13 affidavit that has been previously supplied in this 14 case? Is it at issue in front of me at any time? 15 MR. FUGATE: Have you seen it? I can't 16 remember when I saw it. But I'd be glad to get a 17 copy -- 18 THE COURT: Okay. Can I get a copy so I know 19 what affidavit you provided in this case? You can 20 go on ahead. I just didn't know if I had seen it. 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm not sure that I 22 ever did provide an affidavit in this case. I may 23 not be remembering, but I -- you asked me if I 24 provided one or if I assisted. 25 0038------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Well, let's -- 3 A And I did assist in another affidavit. 4 Q What we'll do, so we can save time and keep going, 5 is we'll look, because I believe there was one -- 6 A Okay. 7 Q -- but I could be in error, but I'm going to get 8 to the assisting others. 9 A Okay. 10 Q And if we find one, we'll hand it up to the judge 11 so she can -- to review. 12 Let me jump back a second because I think it's 13 sort of -- to put things in perspective. In the Wollersheim 14 case, do you know that Mr. Minton had any financial -- had 15 or has any financial interest in the Wollersheim case that 16 you made reference to being involved in? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Okay. And what interest does he have, to your 19 knowledge? 20 A Well, I know that he has the only secured lien of 21 $750,000, I believe, is the amount against that judgment. 22 Q And do you know -- 23 A That UCC? 24 Q A UCC filing? 25 A Yeah. 0039------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q Okay. 2 A That's -- I don't know what that means, but that's 3 what he has. 4 Q That makes two of us. 5 A Okay. 6 THE COURT: Actually I do, so that's -- 7 remember I used to teach -- you know, I used to 8 teach commercial transactions. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, does that mean a secured 10 loan? 11 THE COURT: It's probably a security interest 12 that's been filed to protect the UCC -- filing to 13 protect his interest, giving notice to the world -- 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 15 THE COURT: -- that he has -- 16 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 17 THE COURT: -- an interest in this and he's 18 entitled to collect. 19 THE WITNESS: That's -- that's what I -- that's 20 my understanding. 21 THE COURT: Right. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q And do you know if Mr. Minton has made any other 24 investments in the Wollersheim litigation, with the 25 attorneys or anything of that nature? 0040------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 A Well, he has supported Mr. Leipold's law firm for 2 some time now. I mean, I've received a number of calls 3 myself from Mr. Leipold in which he would have lengthy 4 conversations with me, knowing that I would then talk to 5 Mr. Minton on his behalf, in which he has told me that if it 6 weren't for Mr. Minton, he could not keep -- continue to 7 keep the doors open of his law firm. And that he 8 desperately needed for Mr. Minton to give him some further 9 support. 10 I think that Mr. Minton has loaned him about 11 $450,000 at this point to enable him to continue to 12 practice. 13 Q And do you know -- do you know if there are loan 14 agreements or some sort of writing that evidences that? 15 A I believe there is. 16 Q Do you know -- while we're on that subject, I 17 think the judge would like me to move right to that -- do 18 you know if there are any writings in this case that 19 evidence loan agreements or the moneys that you have 20 described that you're aware of that Mr. Minton has put into 21 the estate of Lisa McPherson litigation? 22 A I believe so. 23 Q What would those be if you -- if you can describe 24 them to us? 25 A I -- I believe that when Mr. Minton first began 0041------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 loaning the estate money, he put in writing that these were, 2 you know, loans to the estate; that he was very happy to be 3 able to help or something like that. And I -- and I believe 4 also Mr. Dandar then wrote him a letter back thanking him 5 for the -- for his help. 6 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to do this through 7 Mr. Minton rather than take the court's time -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. FUGATE: Just want to establish it. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Do you need water? 12 A Sorry? 13 Q Do you have water there? 14 A Yeah. 15 Q Now, was there a letter from Mr. Dandar that you 16 ever saw that indicated that "thanks for the money, but the 17 bar says you can have no control over the litigation"? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you remember that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And do you remember if there were more than one of 22 those letters or only that one? 23 A I don't remember more than one. 24 Q Okay. Now, in your observation, your 25 understanding, your belief, did Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton 0042------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 discuss, plan, strategize the litigation that Mr. Minton was 2 putting the money into? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. Could you describe -- can you describe that 5 for the court, please? 6 A Well -- 7 MR. LIROT: I think this is hearsay unless -- 8 unless it's something that she said. 9 THE COURT: Well, I think that Mr. Minton is 10 going to be present, if she was present when any of 11 these things occurred. But I think where we need to 12 go here is not just -- I don't remember, what did 13 the bar say? The bar said that he couldn't control 14 the case. 15 MR. FUGATE: Couldn't -- yeah. Basically 16 you -- you have to get the client's consent. And 17 that it -- 18 THE COURT: You can't discuss confidential 19 information. 20 MR. FUGATE: Confidential knowledge without -- 21 THE COURT: But surely there's nothing the bar 22 would suggest that somebody who had contributed 23 money couldn't chat, how's the case going or 24 something like this. So we need to define this, if 25 we're talking about issues of controlling the case, 0043------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 issues of confidentiality, or those kinds of issues. 2 MR. FUGATE: Well, what would be the best thing 3 is the letter, so if we can -- 4 THE COURT: I've got it. It's in evidence. 5 But my recollection is that's what it said. 6 MR. FUGATE: Well, I don't have it, but I'll 7 look at it at the break and come back to that, 8 Judge, so I can address that. 9 THE COURT: Well, we can wait and get it. 10 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 11 MR. LIROT: Exhibit 9, Judge. 12 THE COURT: This is a letter from Mr. Dandar to 13 Mr. Minton, so this would have been the letter she 14 saw. 15 MR. FUGATE: Right. 16 THE COURT: Pursuant to Rule 4-1.8F of the 17 rules regulating the Florida Bar, "The client must 18 consent to your donation. Please be advised the 19 client does consent, was very appreciative of your 20 donation. New paragraph. 21 "Pursuant to the rules, your donation does not 22 entitle you to control the litigation nor the 23 disclosure of the client's confidential 24 information." And so that's the part that talks 25 about the Florida Bar rule. 0044------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Now, I will grant you, she may not know what 2 control is. I'm not -- I may not know. But I think 3 if, you know, we're talking about something in 4 passing, how's the case coming, we need to talk 5 about things that were discussed that were more than 6 that. 7 MR. FUGATE: Exactly where I'm going. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Did what the court just read to you refresh your 10 recollection of what the letter said in general, that you 11 can't be involved in the control of the lawsuit? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, rather than have me put words in your mouth, 14 can you tell us what you observed, what you witnessed, what 15 you participated in, with regard to Mr. Minton and 16 Mr. Dandar's involvement in the litigation, however you 17 describe it. 18 A Well, I had a pretty central role in this whole 19 issue, because once -- once I began working for Mr. Minton, 20 I kind of -- he -- he kind of gave me the role of overseeing 21 this wrongful death case and how Mr. Dandar was going about 22 litigating it to make sure that, you know, from my 23 perspective as a Scientology expert, that he was litigating 24 it properly in order to emphasize the Scientology aspects of 25 the case as much as possible. 0045------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Q And what, if you know, of your own personal 2 knowledge, was Mr. Minton's purpose in controlling the 3 litigation or having it litigated, if you will, as you just 4 described? 5 A Well, Mr. Minton was very -- 6 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation. 7 THE COURT: Well, I think what we need to know 8 here is whether she's familiar with any discussions 9 that Mr. Minton had with Mr. Dandar where he -- 10 wherein he indicated this. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q Can you answer that question? 13 A Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. And the same thing, you 15 know, being -- if Mr. Minton sends her over to 16 Mr. Dandar's office to be his eyes -- I believe in 17 the affidavit -- 18 MR. FUGATE: Eyes and ears -- 19 THE COURT: Eyes and ears, we need to know that 20 somehow or another Mr. Dandar knew this or ought to 21 have known it or something. Because if she's there 22 kind of, quote, spying for -- for Mr. Minton, why if 23 Mr. Dandar's not stupid enough to pick that up, 24 well, that wouldn't be very relevant then, because 25 that would be something between her and Mr. Minton. ||||| From: Nomen Nescio Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Brooks -- Affidavit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 17:00:04 +0200 (CEST) Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 481 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!fu-berlin.de!image.surnet.ru!surnet.ru!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!news-in-sanjose!in.nntp.be!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550831 comp.org.eff.talk:105652 misc.legal:433679 >From courtwatch@hotmail.com Thu May 02 12:21:54 2002 Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!supernews.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!h ermes.visi.com!wesley.videotron.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!log bridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!en ews3 From: Court_Watch Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: STACY BROOKS -- SECOND AFFIDAVIT -- April 29, 2002 Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:21:54 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 461 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-089.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1064584 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION Case No. 00-5682-CI-11, Division 11 ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. ____________________________________ AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. ____________________________________/ SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF STACY BROOKS STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) Stacy Brooks, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am over 18 years old, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and am otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I make this affidavit to explain my central role in developing the underlying strategy in this wrongful death case. BACKGROUND 2. My ex-husband Vaughn Young and I left Scientology in 1989. We had no contact with anyone concerning Scientology until some time in early 1993, when we were contacted by two attorneys, Dan Leipold and Graham Berry, who hired us as witnesses in their respective litigation against Scientology. 3. We were paid by these attorneys through 1997 to provide testimony and advice on litigation tactics. This was my primary source of income. First and foremost, the attorneys wanted to know what they could do to put pressure on Scientology, either to get a case dropped or to get a large settlement. The overall strategy that I developed was to target David Miscavige because he was the head of Scientology, so that he could be named as a defendant or have the litigation focused on him personally as a way to harass him. I advanced this strategy although I had no knowledge or evidence of any involvement of Mr. Miscavige in the cases. This pattern of anti-Scientology litigation that I authored is now in use in this wrongful death case and has been used in a number of other cases, some of which are still ongoing today. 4. When I was hired by these attorneys, I had had no previous experience in the legal field. The attorneys referred to me as an "expert witness" and said that as an expert, I was permitted to testify about my opinions. As I understood it, my job was to come up with theories of what might have happened in order to back up what the attorney was trying to accomplish. I wrote affidavits and declarations based on these theories, in which I speculated about how the attorneys' assertions could be true. I used supposition and careful wording to make allegations that would fit the particular assertion so as to create an impression without actually lying. This is what I was paid to do. At various times I have been called a "witness," an "expert," an "expert witness," an "expert consultant" or a "consultant," whichever description best forwarded the needs of the litigation. The common denominator throughout has been that I was being paid to provide anti-Scientology testimony and strategy to these attorneys. 5. For example, one of the first Scientology cases I worked on concerned a man named Steve Fishman who was being sued for libel by Scientology after he was quoted in a Time magazine article saying that Scientology had ordered him to commit murder and suicide. I helped put together information for the attorney (Graham Berry) to use in his pleadings that included an allegation that Mr. Miscavige was implicated in the death of his mother-in-law. There was no evidence linking him to her death, which Mr. Berry knew, but he wanted to malign Mr. Miscavige at every opportunity as part of the overall strategy, so it was written to create that impression without ever actually saying it. 6. I also wrote an affidavit for attorney Dan Leipold, who wanted to use this same strategy of pursuing Mr. Miscavige. He requested that I write a declaration to back up his assertion that Scientology corporations were alter egos of each other, so that he could make Mr. Miscavige the central focus of his litigation. Although I did not have any firsthand knowledge of the corporate structure of Scientology, which Mr. Leipold knew, I wrote a declaration in which I created the impression that I was an expert on the subject and offered conclusions to support this alter ego theory. THE McPHERSON WRONGFUL DEATH CASE 7. I first became aware of the wrongful death case in early 1997 when Mr. Dandar hired me as a consultant/expert witness for the case. He was already familiar with the litigation strategy I had helped develop in other Scientology cases, and in his first phone call he made it clear that he wanted my help to pursue that same strategy of targeting Mr. Miscavige in his case. He sent a letter in May 1997 in which he stated: "I am also enclosing a copy of the proposed amended Complaint. I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent. Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their condition?" Mr. Dandar and I had a number of conversations in which I fabricated possible scenarios that could have included Mr. Miscavige, and we discussed the idea of alleging that Lisa's death was pre-meditated, although since I had left Scientology in 1989, obviously I could not possibly have any personal knowledge of what had happened to Lisa McPherson. 8. I first spoke to Robert Minton in September 1997, when he helped my then-husband and me financially, which enabled us to continue our anti-Scientology activities. At the same time, Mr. Minton had begun to fund the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar subsequently incorporated the strategy I had developed to target Mr. Miscavige and the upper echelon of Scientology in his first amended complaint, following Mr. Minton's initial $100,000 loan to the Lisa McPherson Estate. 9. By mid-1998 Mr. Minton had begun to pay me to assist him in his anti-Scientology activities. With regard to my work on the wrongful death case, once I began working for Mr. Minton, I became his eyes and ears in Mr. Dandar's office, to make sure Mr. Dandar emphasized the Scientology aspects of the case as much as possible. 10. Mr. Dandar and I had many conversations in which he asked me how I thought he could bring pressure to bear on Scientology to settle for a high figure. In each conversation I advised him that he should concentrate on attacking the upper echelon of Scientology, particularly Mr. Miscavige. 11. In late 1998, Mr. Minton sent Jesse Prince to Mr. Dandar to assist him in litigating the wrongful death case. At that time, I was being paid by Mr. Minton directly, and Mr. Prince was paid by Mr. Minton directly and through Dandar & Dandar. Over the next year, Mr. Prince and I had several conversations about the effectiveness of this strategy concerning Mr. Miscavige, and Mr. Prince agreed that this was the way to put pressure on Scientology, although we had no evidence to link Mr. Miscavige in any way to the events surrounding Lisa McPherson's death. Mr. Dandar was enthusiastic about pursuing this plan to add other entities and officials. 12. Mr. Minton and I flew to Philadelphia in August 1999 at Mr. Dandar's request so he could provide an update of the case, because he wanted Mr. Minton to give him more funding. By then I was not at all happy about the way Mr. Dandar was conducting the wrongful death case. Mr. Prince and I both felt that he was ignoring many aspects of the Scientology issues in the case, and we had both spoken to Mr. Minton about this. In my presence, Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that he would not give him any more money unless Mr. Dandar began to focus more heavily on the Scientology issues and unless he agreed to listen to Mr. Prince and me much more as Scientology experts. Mr. Minton said he intended his funds to support a case about Scientology's responsibility for Lisa McPherson's death, not just a routine wrongful death case. Mr. Minton made it clear, and I strongly encouraged him to do so, that if Scientology did not begin to take a more central role in the case, he would lose interest in funding it. Mr. Dandar then began to talk about ways in which Scientology could be interjected further into the case. At the end of the meeting Mr. Minton gave Mr. Dandar a check for $250,000. 13. Following this meeting, Mr. Dandar, with the assistance of Mr. Prince and me, moved to add new parties, including David Miscavige. Mr. Dandar needed something on which to base this, and Mr. Prince and I had discussed various hypothetical scenarios with Mr. Dandar. Mr. Prince signed an affidavit based on his speculation, alleging that Mr. Miscavige and others "would have known" about Lisa McPherson, and that "her death was no accident." This was the same pattern of fabricating scenarios I had used in earlier cases and that Mr. Prince and I had discussed. Mr. Dandar knew there was no evidence to support this, and his trial consultant Michael Garko was dead set against it because of the complete lack of evidence, but Mr. Dandar filed the motion anyway, claiming that Scientology intentionally killed Lisa McPherson and Mr. Miscavige "would have known" and decided she should be killed "to protect Scientology from bad public relations." 14. In a hearing that I attended in October 1999, Judge Moody denied Mr. Dandar's motion to add Mr. Miscavige and others as defendants in the wrongful death case, after attorneys for Scientology argued that adding Mr. Miscavige and others would be a breach of the contract Mr. Dandar had signed in which he agreed not to add any corporate representatives of RTC or CSI (since Mr. Miscavige was the Chairman of the Board of RTC). 15. Sometime shortly after this hearing, I picked up Mr. Minton from the Tampa International Airport one afternoon and drove him to Mr. Dandar's new office on Kennedy Boulevard. Mr. Dandar asked us to go into the conference room, which was in somewhat of a state of disarray, with boxes of documents on the floor in the office and the telephone not yet set up properly. Mr. Prince and Dr. Garko also attended the meeting, which, as I recall, lasted more than an hour. Mr. Dandar told us he was struggling with the question of whether or not to try a second time to add Mr. Miscavige as a defendant in the case. Mr. Dandar and I had discussed it, and I had already suggested a scenario of how this could be done, by falsely claiming that Mr. Miscavige had a different role as head of the Sea Organization apart from his corporate position in RTC. I reiterated my ideas in the meeting. I knew there wasn't really such a thing as a "head of the Sea Org," but Dandar thought it could work as a legal maneuver. 16. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Dandar went down in the elevator with Mr. Minton, Mr. Prince and me. As we waited for the door to open on the first floor, he made a shrugging gesture and said, "By the way, this meeting never happened." SECRET AGREEMENT 17. Mr. Minton had an agreement with Mr. Dandar and Dell Liebreich, the representative of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, that the bulk of any proceeds of a settlement or jury award in the case would be donated to an organization in memory of Lisa McPherson. Mr. Minton was to fund the organization until that donation came through. I thought it should be established in Washington, D.C., but he wanted it to be in Clearwater to be "in Scientology's face" and to oversee his investment in the wrongful death case. I was with Mr. Dandar at his office when he prepared and filed the incorporation papers in October 1999 for the Lisa McPherson Trust (LMT), and the corporation came into existence in November. Dell Liebreich was put on the board at Mr. Dandar's insistence, to publicly demonstrate the close relationship between the case and the LMT, since the Estate was going to fund the LMT with proceeds from the case. 18. Mr. Minton insisted that the LMT board of directors and advisory board include all the most well-known Scientology critics and witnesses. He was already paying Mr. Prince through Mr. Dandar, and I became the president of the LMT and was paid by Mr. Minton through the LMT. David Cecere was another former Scientologist that Mr. Minton paid to move to Clearwater to be the executive director of the LMT. Mr. Cecere was no longer working for the LMT after two months, but Mr. Minton saw to it that Mr. Dandar hired Mr. Cecere to do expert work for the wrongful death case. Teresa Summers was another former Scientologist that I hired at the LMT after Mr. Dandar put her on his witness list in the wrongful death case. Mr. Minton had me hire Grady Ward at the LMT so that he could help him financially during and after Mr. Ward's involvement in litigation with Scientology. Mr. Minton put Gerry Armstrong on the advisory board after giving him $100,000. Mr. Armstrong used the money to file a suit against Scientology. Mr. Minton also put Arnie Lerma and Keith Henson on the advisory board after funding their litigation against Scientology. Mr. Minton put Mr. Leipold and Mr. Dandar on the advisory board as the two main anti-Scientology litigators that he was funding. 19. On November 30, 1999, when Ms. Liebreich and her two sisters were in Florida for a hearing on the Probate matter, Mr. Minton took the family, Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and me out for dinner in Tampa to Ruth's Chris Steak House. Ms. Liebreich voiced her support and enthusiasm for the new organization and confirmed her own and her siblings' commitment to the future funding of the LMT from the proceeds of the case. Ms. Liebreich, Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko then all attended the first board meeting of the LMT on December 1, 1999. 20. Mr. Dandar frequently made a point of telling me that he kept Dell Liebriech briefed on the case and its progress. He specifically told Mr. Minton and me on several occasions that Ms. Liebreich was informed and in full agreement with the activities and participation of Mr. Minton and the LMT in the case. 21. Mr. Dandar said he thought the existence of the LMT would be great, because it would create negative publicity about Scientology and its involvement in the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar encouraged us to generate negative media against Scientology, and on occasion, he participated in pickets. Mr. Dandar also encouraged our participation in "The Profit," an anti-Scientology movie that Mr. Minton funded. He and several others, including Mr. Minton and me, had bit parts in the movie. 22. Jesse Prince and I communicated with Ken Dandar routinely. I was Mr. Minton's eyes and ears for the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar did not like this arrangement, as I was essentially a spy for Mr. Minton to protect his investment. I was, in fact, Mr. Minton's agent, directing Mr. Dandar and keeping Mr. Minton informed. Mr. Dandar was always very upbeat and positive with me about the case, as he expected I would repeat what he told me to Mr. Minton in order to continue the flow of money. It was my belief that Mr. Dandar called me a "consultant" so that he could claim he was not communicating with Mr. Minton about the case. I was Mr. Dandar's "consultant," although after 1997 he did not pay me anything - I was paid by Mr. Minton either directly or through the LMT. When I did not do so directly, Mr. Prince relayed information to Mr. Minton. 23. In May 2000, because Scientology was constantly telling the court that Mr. Minton and the LMT were inextricably linked to the wrongful death case, Mr. Dandar suggested I hire a separate attorney for the LMT. We hired John Merrett. He was referred to me by Patricia Greenway after she met him on an anti-Scientology chat channel on the Internet. Mr. Merrett was supposedly separate counsel for LMT and Mr. Minton, although in reality he was an extension of Mr. Dandar, coordinating with him on pleadings he filed and arguments he made. Both were being funded by Mr. Minton, who was also funding the LMT and all the witnesses in the case. 24. In May 2001, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and I had dinner at the Belleview Biltmore at Mr. Dandar's request, because he again wanted more money from Mr. Minton. By that time I was urging Mr. Minton not to fund the case any longer, because Mr. Dandar was dragging Mr. Minton and me into lying to protect him and the case. During dinner I told Mr. Dandar that it was becoming a conflict of interest for Mr. Minton to fund the case, since the more he funded it the more he was being ordered into deposition. I said this because Mr. Dandar and I both knew that Mr. Minton was lying in deposition. I was stunned when Mr. Dandar replied, "But even if Bob goes to jail it won't hurt the case." I took this to mean that Mr. Dandar was now holding Mr. Minton hostage to this litigation, knowing that Mr. Minton had perjured himself and counting on Mr. Minton to remain silent about what he had done to protect himself. 25. At that dinner, Mr. Dandar then had the audacity to suggest to Mr. Minton that he give him another check "like the earlier one for $500,000," meaning a bank check without his name on it. Mr. Minton said he could not do that at that time, whereupon Mr. Dandar then suggested that Mr. Minton, who was planning a trip to Europe, could "get the money in cash" while he was there, or, he said, "I'll go to Europe or anywhere else in the world to pick up the cash for you." I was shocked when Mr. Minton gave him a personal check for $250,000. After this, I implored Mr. Minton to distance himself from the case and get out of it, but he was by then in despair about the situation and said, "I'm in this thing so deep now that there is nothing I can do to get out of it." 26. On August 15, 2001, I was deposed in the wrongful death case with Judge Beach present at the deposition. During that deposition Judge Beach threatened to put me in jail if I did not turn over certain documents. I had already caused documents and videotapes to be removed from the LMT in non-compliance with discovery orders. 27. John Merrett represented me at this deposition and knew I was testifying falsely. Prior to my deposition he had coached me regarding how to falsely answer questions about the source of LMT funds. Mr. Merrett had also advised me to leave unedited video footage from the LMT in the hallway and it would be "taken care of." I directed that they be put there and I never saw them again. I was also aware that several hard drives were removed from computers in LMT prior to the Special Master's inspection of the LMT. 28. Following this deposition, I decided I was unwilling to continue to forward the agenda of the wrongful death case by telling further lies and evading discovery, because I was concerned about exposing Mr. Minton, myself or anyone else to any further risk. Shortly after that deposition I was in New Hampshire at Mr. Minton's house. I told him I wanted to call Ms. Liebreich and set up a meeting with her. I wanted to tell her we could not continue our lies, because Scientology was closing in, and it was only a matter of time before our perjury and violations of discovery orders regarding our involvement in the case would be exposed. Mr. Minton already faced contempt, and I wanted to tell her that the only hope for all of us to stay out of trouble was for her to drop the case. Mr. Minton agreed and told me to go ahead and call her, although he said he did not believe she would drop the case. I called Ms. Liebreich and told her that I wanted to fly to Texas to tell her about some of the things that were happening in the case. She asked if Mr. Dandar could be there. I told her I would prefer to speak to her alone but that if she wanted him there that would be fine. She agreed reluctantly, but a short time later called me back and said she had spoken to Mr. Dandar and he had advised her not to meet with me. 29. The next time I spoke to Mr. Dandar he was very indignant about my having called Ms. Liebreich. He told me that Ms. Liebreich already knew everything that was going on in the case and there was nothing I could tell her that she didn't already know. 30. After Ms. Liebreich refused to meet, Mr. Minton and I decided we had to do everything possible to distance ourselves and the LMT from the case. The next morning I called Mr. Prince and told him that Mr. Minton and I wanted him to resign as an expert witness from the wrongful death case. Mr. Prince also wanted to distance himself from the case, and he informed Mr. Dandar that he was withdrawing immediately. I also informed Mr. Dandar that I would not appear as a witness in the case. Mr. Minton informed Mr. Dandar that he would provide no further funding for the case. We also closed down the LMT, specifically to distance ourselves from the wrongful death case. 31. Mr. Dandar then contrived a "reason" for Mr. Prince's withdrawal and drafted a motion for severe sanctions against Scientology for having harassed Mr. Prince and forcing him to withdraw from the case out of fear. Mr. Dandar also drew up an affidavit for Mr. Prince to sign in which he recounted his arrest and trial for drugs. Mr. Dandar persuaded Mr. Prince to sign the affidavit although in it Mr. Prince admitted to drug use, something he had not done throughout his criminal trial. Mr. Minton and I were both furious that Mr. Dandar would put Mr. Prince in such jeopardy for the sake of a sanctions motion that was based on a false premise. Mr. Dandar knew that Mr. Prince had withdrawn because Mr. Minton and I told him to, as part of our efforts to distance ourselves from the case. 32. Despite the fact that Mr. Dandar knew Mr. Minton wanted nothing more to do with him or the case, Mr. Dandar contacted Mr. Minton in December 2001 and told him he desperately needed more money to get the case through trial. I urged Mr. Minton not to provide any further funds, and in fact, Mr. Minton at first refused Mr. Dandar's pleas. But Mr. Dandar continued to call Mr. Minton. Mr. Dandar asked Mr. Minton to meet him in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Cayman Islands, but Mr. Minton refused to travel to either place. Finally Mr. Minton told him he wasn't going to travel anywhere but if Mr. Dandar wanted to come to his house in New Hampshire, he could do that. I was already in New Hampshire when Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko flew up on the last weekend of February. 33. Despite Mr. Dandar's and Dr. Garko's best efforts, Mr. Minton continued to refuse to provide any further funding. On Sunday morning, I again told Mr. Dandar that I was against Mr. Minton providing any further funding, because it was putting him at such terrible risk legally. Mr. Minton was scheduled to go back into deposition in the wrongful death case to comply with Judge Schaeffer's order to answer between 80-90 questions to which he had previously pled the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Minton and I were both very concerned about this. Mr. Dandar went over each of the 80-90 questions to help Mr. Minton work out what to answer for each one, including how to avoid disclosing the existence of the $500,000 UBS check in May 2000 payable to Ken Dandar from Mr. Minton. Mr. Dandar coached Mr. Minton not to answer the questions truthfully. 34. I have written this affidavit for no other reason than to tell the truth and avoid the consequences I would inevitably face were I to continue to evade discovery and lie in deposition. Mr. Minton was already facing penalties for contempt. It was evident to me that I faced a similar future, especially concerning my obstruction of discovery into LMT. I had no question the Special Master and his computer experts would soon discover missing hard drives, videos and documents that were originally ordered to be produced over two years ago. With that would also come the disclosure of my untruthful testimony as regards discovery. Scientology has been relentless. Even when Mr. Minton and I approached them to try to settle, hoping they would let us walk away from all of this, they insisted that before they would even discuss settlement, we had to be forthcoming with what had really occurred in this case. We had no other option, and to date they have still refused to talk about settlement. I feel that the actions I have taken in connection with this wrongful death case have been disgraceful. I would rather confront the consequences of my actions now than prolong the inevitable. I am available to testify before the court to answer any questions if this is needed. 35. In light of this affidavit, I hereby recant any false statement I have made under oath that may contradict my sworn statements in this affidavit. ss. Stacy Brooks ____________________________________ STACY BROOKS STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me to be true and correct to the best of her ability this 29th day of April, 2002, by Stacy Brooks. She has produced Geogia DL # (Number intentionally omitted) (ID) as identification and did take an oath. ss. Vonda B. Fraska ________________________________________ Notary Public ||||| Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:02:18 -0500 From: xganon Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . References: <20020903072001.30984.qmail@nym.alias.net> <0aa3a86084cdb58a3b5251d78bd92d8b@dizum.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal Subject: (amicus, source docs) Minton -- Summarised A Message-ID: <08abac22113410d2cb932c115e080afd@xganon.com> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com Organization: mail2news@dizum.com Lines: 1094 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!fu-berlin.de!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.itconsult.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1550832 comp.org.eff.talk:105653 misc.legal:433680 MINTON TESTIMONY DAY ONE (VOLUMR ONE), 17/may/2002, ===================================================== in Estate of MacPherson vs Church of Scientology FSO, Pinellas County (FLA), CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 ===================================================== SUMMARY At(p01) header, At(p03) appearances, at(P04) MR FUGATE to call(Line10) Robert S Minton. who is(Line17) duly sworn. At(Line23) the Court raises the notice to produce, and at(P05) Mr Dandar is satisfied apart from the draft RICO suit. Mr Howie(Line16) gives a list of documents produced, the response on that one being they have no such draft. A(P06) the Court has ordered production of LMT tax returns, but currently not Ms Brooks' personal tax returns. Mr Minton has(Line 10) raised, and maintained, a valid 5th amendment privilege concerning his personal tax returns. At(P08), the request for any all bank statements was objected to as unduly onerous, and on 5th amendment grounds; at least, beyond any already produced voluntarily. With the above exceptions there all document requests have been complied with. At(P09) the Court asks what detailed laws apply to earning money overseas and transferring it on or out of the country. At(P11) the earning is lawful but failing to report it for tax is not, the transfer is lawful but failure to report large amounts transferred is not. At(P12) Mr Howie has one other objection, that all cheques between Minton and Brooks or vice versa are already disclosed, or else overly burdensome. The Court will not accept the overly-burdensome grounds; cheques or bank statements for 2000-2001 will be produced. At(P14), Mr Minton has admitted perjury and, if notice is served, then Mr Howie will accept service as his attorney. At(P15) examination of Minton then(Line 12) begins. At(P16) Mr Fugate his placed before the witness his three affidavits, of April/19th ("recantation"), of April/24th ("2nd affidavit") and of same date ("3rd affidavit"). Mr Minton is asked to confirm that they are the affidavits he signed, and that he stands by them as accurate; which, except(at P17) for some small errors in amounts on cheques, he does. The purpose of this(Line 17) was to put on record that he identified these as the affidavits he had executed. At(P18) Mr Minton had been added(Line 19) as party to the counter- claim, and has been given the transcripts so far to read. He acknowledges(P19) that he is the Minton referred to in them, and has funded cases against the Scientology Corporation since 1996; at(P20), including LMT staff and building costs as well, probably to a total amount of ten million dollars. This is broken down into Wollersheim about $700,000(Line 20), secured against judgment on a UCC-1 form; and at(P20) a further sum into Fact-Net, a Colorado non-profit organisation. At(p21) Minton weirdly describes FactNet as an "enterprise" which "sold" anti-cult litigation services; though in 1989 Minton as its chief officer agreed with Scientology it would confine its attacks mainly to cults other than them. At(P23) FactNet had been sued by RTC for publishing copyright materials the alleged Church uses to defraud people, and Minton concede a stipulated settlement of $1,000,000. That is, it was not an amount paid, but to be paid if there were future violations. [Query, has anyone signed a bond to pay if payment becomes due?]. The Court(p24) queries why this is relevant in a list of actual payments to anti-scientology causes. Minton says(Line 14) he probably put in $300- to $400,000, including payments of expert witnesses like Jesse Prince. Minton met attorney Dan Liepold who, at(P25) was then representing Fact-Net. Mr Liepold came to a parting of the ways with the firm of Hagenbaugh and Murphy, because the FactNet case was expensive for little return, and went into sole practice, at(P26), some time in 1986. Mr Minton put in $180,000 on a loan agreement which, at(P27) remains largely unpaid. Keith Henson(Line06), whom Minton describes as "outlandish", was sued for breach of copyright over publishing material which revealed the practice of medicine without license. He lost (Line18) for $70,000 plus costs at a jury trial. Minton paid Henson and his attorney Graham Berry, at(P28), around $28,000. Henson was "convicted of terrorist threats against the Church and then fled to Canada" [i.e. he was set up on crazy charges and allowed no proper defense then fled the country in fear of his life, which the alleged Church now use as something to attack him with], which the Court states is not really relevant to amounts paid. Arnie Lerma(Line 14) was, at(P29) again sued by RTC over publishing copyright material which the alleged Church uses to defraud people; [he was found against, but in the minimum amount of $500 x each of five infractions]. He was paid about $60,000 mainly as living expenses. Mr Fugate raises(Line 12) defense exhibit 81, a list of amounts and recipients. At(P30), Mr Lerma was on the advisory board of LMT as was Mr Henson, and another man called Gerry Armstrong. At(P31) Minton says he handed Armstrong at least $100,000, who used these monies to fund a case against David Miscavige personally. Fugate the sets out to blacken Mr Armstrong's name as another one who has "fled to Canada" [Mr Armstrong is a Canadian citizen who, when working for Scientology, wished to marry and settle in America. After a falling out with Scientology they signed an agreement that neither would defame the other, which the alleged Church broke with impunity, but pursued him for endless sanctions when he replied until he was driven back into exile in his native Canada]. The court again says that the details, outside the amount, are irrelevant. LMT also employed (Line19) Grady Ward as web and security consultant. At(P32) Mr Minton is paying Ward until present time. [Grady Ward was accused of breaching copyright on the material Scientology uses to defraud people, it was never proved, but the court showed him a settlement it had drafted on his part and unlawfully signed if for him. Many defendants have been unlucky in the courts against Scientology, this could be because Scientology has money and fights cases hard]. Query, Ward ceased making public comment on Scientology from roughly then to date: is this a condition by Minton on continued payment? The figure is about $100,000. Fugate asks whether it is over and above LMT salary. The Court makes clear only money to cases, not salaries, is relevant. AT(P33) Fugate asks whether this was over and above salary, Minton answered that the only one of those mentioned so far who received salary was Mr Ward; but not whether the sum named was over and above salary in Ward's case. Also (Line16) about $100,000 was given for a case in Germany, and about $300,000 for a case in France. These (Line 25) so far all refer to cases other than MacPherson. At(P34), he says the total to McPherson is about $2,000,000; objection, no foundation about whether and how McPherson was funded at all. Fugate(Line21) hands out copies of a list scheduling accounts to various cases. At(P35) Mr Dandar raises the three existing orders against information on funding him, the Court says that much of the information has been introduced but she can if he wishes suppress further discuss and enquiry upon it: she advises at(P36) that, since perjury is alleged against him, this would be against his interests, but she will suppress the introduction of new information. Do you want to prevent discussion? Dandar does not, but leaves a standing objection on record. The Court emphasizes at(P37) he should discuss it now because it goes to his credibility and the allegations against him. At(P38) the expenditure of monies donated is still protected from enquiry, so is knowing how much he has left to litigate, so is what bank account they went into. At(P39) the latter may go to bar disciplinary procedures, but not to perjury here. Further down(Line13) he issues photocopies of all Minton cheques concerned, and explains to Mr Dandar how they are numbered, defense exhibits 93-A through 93-I. At(P40) Minton confirms they are his cheques to Mr Dandar. Cheques A,B,C, D,E,F, are upon the personal account of Bob Minton; cheques G and (or through?) I are cashiers' cheques upon the Union Bank of Switzerland. Minton agrees that G and I are also cheques paid for by him and issued by to Mr Dandar. At(P41) cheque G for $500,000 and cheque I for $250,000. [Cheque H is not discussed here]. These are entered into evidence, subject to the existing orders which limit the extent of enquiry upon them. Minton also raises a list of large cheques issued, which he keeps in his calculator case. At(P42), these are not called "drafts" in America, though that may be the European term for them. There are (Line19) a series of codes along the bottom that might on an ordinary cheque say cheque number, Fleet Fidelity bank, account number of Bob Minton. Here they say cheque number, upon Chase Manhattan Bank, and an account held by the Union Bank of Switzerland [who have been paid in dollars to issue it; it can be deposited like any other cheque but, unlike a personal cheque, is considered "as good as dollars" for immediate dispatch of goods purchased]. At(P44) it is "payable at" a branch of Chase Manhattan Bank in New York; at(P45) the number preceding the account is the American Bankers Association number for CMB New York. The Court's own cheques carry a similar number saying that Mercantile Bank is the banker. To the right of that is an account number; in this case an account that the Union bank of Switzerland maintain to make dollar disbursements in America when they need to. At(P46) the system is that you can phone your bank, if it has phone authorisation, and say "please debit so much from my account and turn it into a cashier's cheque payable to Mr So & So, on your account (at Chase Manhattan Bank or wherever)." And they send the cheque to Mr So and So for you, or you collect it from them and send it yourself. At(P47) just like you can write a cheque on your account with them, so they can write a cheque on their account with Chase Manhattan or however. There is nothing on this cheque which says you paid for it, the payee doesn't know who paid for it unless you tell him. There is nothing on cheques 93-G and 93-I which says Bob Minton paid for them, the payee would only know this if Bob told him. At(P48) there is nothing one can see on the cheque which says this, though. Further down(Line10) Mr Minton says that the total paid to LMT is $1.1M in personal cheques plus $0.75M as these two cashier's cheques, total $1.85M. At(P49), was any other money paid to Dandar above this? Yes, $200,000. He is not sure whether this was one or two cheques, but these are other than those cheques 93-A to I which should be located. With them, the total would be $2.05M. At(P50) The sequence is missing a cheque of 17/oct/1998 for $100,000, and another of 01/dec/1998 for $100,000. These are not in the pile of photocopies cheques provided today. Other than that, the pile is accurate to his personal records. A total of $2.05M was paid for the Estate of Lisa MacPherson. At(P51) that was support for the case, how much money was put into LMT? $2.5M, including all payments to employees. And in to the film THE PROFIT? about $2.47M. At(P52)... How much to Stacy Brooks? around $350,000. How much to Jesse Prince? around $300,000. Was this on a regular arrangement? Yes, he said he needed about $5,000 per month to live on, and this is what he was paid monthly up to and including last month. At(P53) that was the average amount, but it was somewhat irregular as to amount and interval. Further down(Line17), Minton provided $50,000, nominally as a loan, for Jesse to buy a house so he could live in the Tampa bay area. At(P54) He says Jesse was somewhat under Stacy's wing, who looked after him and encouraged Bob to look after him. How much of this is funding to the wrongful death case? Minton says it should include at least part of what was spent on Jesse so he could be a witness, and on the LMT and the film which were both designed to influence the case. Plus the money direct to the Estate. At(P55) Minton cannot figure a total on the spot. The Court doubts that the film is relevant, unless they produce a copy and it then has anything about the case in it. At(P56) the film, which contains nothing directly about the case, has had some local release in Clearwater and Tampa, at a proper movie theatre in Clearwater and a press preview in Tampa. It has been reviewed in the S.P.Times and the Tampa Tribune and, though this is not relevant to the case, shown at a location in France. At(P57) even Tampa is marginal, unless a jury member had traveled there to see it. Other than a juror who saw the film and made the connection with Scientology, it can have very little impact. Minton says it was designed to pollute the jury pool, the Court feels it is unlikely to unless it both identifies Scientology and the link with the killing of Lisa MacPherson. What is it about, anyway? At(P58) Mr Fugate will return to questions on that later. The Court wonder how it is identifiably anti-Scientology. At(P59) Kendrick Moxon says this issue arose before Judge Beach in attempting to depose Mr Alexander and Ms Greenaway in connection with making the film, and Judge Beach saw the film. He ruled that the film was clearly meant to identify, and criticise, Scientology; and that this could pollute the jury pool. The Court: how many people in Clearwater saw it? At(P60), Moxon says Mr Lirot told that hearing they had hired a dinner-club theatre in Clearwater, not far from the Fort Harrison, and shown it to an audience of 2000 people. The Court opined that one showing to 2000 people was more like an amateur than a commercial distribution. Mr Fugate said he would get back to it and seek to show relevance. At(P61) as regards how much of the $10M applies to the Lisa MacPherson case, the Court does not accept the film is as yet shown at all relevant on the testimony so far. Further down(Line19), Mr Fugate asks the witness about Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenaway who made the film. At(P62) Bob put them on the LMT board, and owns Courage Productions 50/50 with Peter Alexander which Patricia Greenaway already works for. [Note, Alexander and Greenaway live together as a couple; their main business is Totally Fun Company, which equips and supplies theme parks]. The Court had received a message about an apparent emergency with another judge which she must attend to as acting chief judge, and the time was approaching noon. There was therefore a RECESSS AT 11:43. At(P63) is the reporter's certification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What follows is VOLUME TWO. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At(P64) header, at(P65-66) appearances, at(P67) Mr Fugate resumes direct examination of the witness Robert Minton. Further down(Line07), we have gone through the funding of anti-scientology cases, was there a time when you particularly decided to concentrate on Florida? A: I don't understand. Why did you come here? Because I was already helping a case here. How did you become involved in that case? At(P68), that was in oct/1997; around feb/1997 this case was filed, and on 09/mar/1997 I met was introduced by Mr Wollersheim to Mr Dandar, in Clearwater, after a picket against the CofS. Wollersheim made suggestions how the wrongful death case could be won; I only listened in on their meeting without participating. At(P69), I didn't meet Dandar again until I contacted him in oct/1997 as attorney in the MacPherson case. I had been financing the Wollershiem case, which seemed to be getting nowhere. I thought this wrongful death case was key in fighting the abuses of Scientology, and offered to put in $100,000: cheque 93-A in the bundle. At(P70) Why were you attracted? Because it seemed a chance to nail Scientology hard for a serious offence in an easily-won case; and generate a lot of publicity against CofS. Did you discuss with Dandar what the level of winnings might be? Not then, but in dec/1997 he was talking about 80 to 100 million dollars. And did you make similar comment in the press? Yes. At(P71), and did you then believe this to be true? Yes. Was there any specific agreement about funding the case? I checked with my attorney and Mr Dandar checked with the bar, we found it was perfectly proper so long as there was no control, and Mr Dandar set that forth in a letter. The money was to be repaid if the Estate won as an interest free loan, after covering their other costs first. At(P72) Who was party to this? Myself and Mr Dandar, who had also OK'ed it with his client first. Some time later did you met his clients yourself? Yes. What happened? The dead girl's family would come down to Clearwater for the anniversary of her death on 5th/dec. At(P73) this was the first time Lisa's aunts saw the complete set of her autopsy photos, which I had obtained after their public release. Did you(Line18) have any agreement with them directly about funding, or return upon it? At(P74), Yes. What was it? You mean just the loans? We'll come back to that. The Court: where you say you had a secret agreement for receiving money into LMT, over and above the repayment of loans, was that only with Dandar or with the Estate? Only with Dandar when we first entered into it but he said, at(P75), he had to consult his client before accepting money form outsiders. [There is a confusion here, whether or not deliberate: the court asks about "extra-payback", Minton replies only about the interest free loans]. The Court: is there correspondence on file? Yes, the previously referred to initial letter from Dandar to Minton, and a handwritten note from Minton to Dandar. Did the letter from Dandar comport with the agreement you felt you had made? It was a little skimpy, but it would do. At(P76) How did you see this money? as forwarding my general "anti-scientology campaign." Did you expect a return on investment? The Court: leading question. At(P77) what did you expect to get consequent on this funding? Primarily this was a flagship case against the abuses of Scientology. I paid Dandar a cheque in oct/1997 and, when I was down here on 1/dec/1997 for the picket I heard [which he echoes uncritically] the allegations from Scn that the dead girl's family were just out for a lot of money; I said it would be good to put winnings into a single focused campaign against Scientology abuses. At(P78) Did you have anything specific in mind? Yes, I had just been elected onto the board of FactNet, to take office on 15/dec. You discussed this with Dandar? Yes, he said he had already thought something similar and discussed it with the family. Had you discussed with Mr Dandar your feelings about Scn? Yes And what did you then feel about it? I really didn't like it. At(P79) Did Dandar discuss with you his own feelings about Scn? Yes, I don't think I've met anyone who hates Scientology more. Now, about this published time-line of harassment? Ok... Were you posting on the Net at this time? Yes, from about oct/1995, ending in 2001. I have some sample postings marked 94-A through 94-G. Do you identify these as yours? Yes. At(P80) 94-A is yours? yes. It talks about hanging Miscavige in effigy? Yes. 94-B is ours? Yes. It says John Travolta is a shill for Scientology? Yes. 94-C is yours? Yes. It says Hubbard will be hanged and burned in effigy? Yes. What were these meant to do? To stir up opposition to Scientology. At(P81) 94-D of nov/1999 is yours? Yes. And it criticises attorneys Wienberg and Hertzgerg? Correct. And you engaged in such extreme criticisms during this period? Yes, I have apologized to Weinberg and Hertzberg for that post. OK, but I do want to you identify whether each of these is yours: 94-E of 26/july/1998 is yours? Yes. Can you read this bit out? 24 "On Sunday, Rinder calls and asks if Jesse Prince 25 is on my payroll. Jesse will be devastating for 01 Scientology. Get ready." At(P82) What was the purpose of this? It was to confront and discomfort Scientology, especially after the meeting I had with Rinder and Rathbun in july/1998 which broke off acrimoniously. This is discussing whether Mr Prince was on your payroll; was he then on your payroll? Rinder assumed I was paying Jesse. This was more or less true, he got money most months with slightly irregular timing and amount. He was telling us all the stuff he knew about Scientology from his time in it. At(P83) Did you then put Prince in touch with Dandar? Yes When, in relation to this posting? Shortly after. 94-F is yours? (the Court: made sure these were entered in evidence). Yes, of July 1999. At(P84) you say you called Mr Miscavige's mother... and you gave an address and TelNo, are those accurate? I believed so at the time. Why post her contact details? To annoy Scientology. the Court: and presumably to induce others to phone her? Partly that too. The letter concludes by saying Scientology officials' families will not be kept out of things [Bear in mind here that Scientology had no hesitation in harassing Minton's wife and children, directly in their own neighborhoods not just by giving addresses i.e. they did worse first; although two wrongs still don't make a right]. At(p85) You wrote that? Yes. Intending what effect? Chiefly the part about pressure upon anyone who funded Scientology misdeeds being included. [Just as CofS have targeted people who fund any deserved action against them and did worse first, though again that doesn't make it right for Minton to do it]. And the part about families? That was just being inflammatory. 94-G is yours? Yes. This is where you reply others asking what message you left? Yes. And the message just gives your name and phone number, saying that you were the principal opponent of Scientology and had some messages to pass on to DM? Yes. At(P86) You wrote that? Yes. And you believed you were in fact "Scientology's Public Enemy Number One." Yes; it wasn't a name I made up, it was something the press said about me. They used that very line? Yes. At(P87) and you were proud of that? At the time, yes. You meant these postings to be as offensive as possible? Yes. And that was what the critic community did too? Yes. The Court: can we take it that all postings from your email address, Bob@Minton.org, are from you? Yes. You said you wanted to "get in Scientology's face", At(P88) did you employ or fund others to do that too? Yes. Did Mr Dandar read your postings? I usually sent him copy; Dell Liebrich also said she read everything by or about me on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. This newsgroup is generally hostile to Scientology? Yes. At(P89) I notice criticism was often answered by someone trying to blunt it from a pro-Church position? Yes, the newsgroup is open to all to post in. So some pro-Scientology people do get replies in? Yes, the majority is critical of Scientology but there are a minority of pro-Church people, and of ex-members who still think the beliefs are good if no the organisation. At(P90) I asked originally whether you discussed any of these postings with Mr Dandar? He was aware of them, yes How do you know that? It came up in conversation. And I sent him copies of the most important articles. At times he never quite knew what to do with all the email from me. You were fairly prolific on the newsgroup then? Yes Were some of these postings from LMT when it appeared? Yes At (P91), from computers there? Yes. And from computers at your home in New Hampshire? And -- do you have a laptop? Yes. So some also from your laptop? Yes. Did your postings discuss the wrongful death case? Fairly often. And your funding of it? Yes. And Mr Dandar knew they did? Yes. He encouraged it; he wanted Scientology to know he was well funded. At(P92) did you have anything to do with Ms Brooks and Mr Prince coming to Clearwater, to work for Mr Dandar. Yes. Starting with Mr Prince, what exactly? I was giving them both money and said they needed to go down there to work with Mr Dandar; they would have gone wherever required. And when they came here to Florida, their sole source of income was you? Yes. And they did come here to work for Mr Dandar? Yes. The Court: in what capacity, as consultants or the like? Mr Fugate: I will ask. The Court: working as a consultant is a fairly normal thing. At(P93), by Mr Fugate, what did you think they were here to do then? I didn't specifically say "consultant" or "expert witness", just whatever Mr Dandar needed them to do. And you communicated with Mr Dandar about these arrangements? He made clear he needed them, if he could get someone to fund and facilitate their presence. Did he know they were paid by you? OOBJECTION leading (Sustained). Were they funded by you? Yes. Did you tell Mr Dandar their financial status? Yes. Where did you tell Mr Dandar? At(P94) THE COURT: I am not happy about this: after all, Mr Minton was romantically involved with one of them and the other was his close friend. So, does "paid" mean you paid them to do work? Or what... you have a lot of money? I used to. And you were sharing it with someone important to you, Ms Brooks? Yes. And with Jesse prince as a friend... so, you weren't paying Ms Brooks to live with you as a commercial hire? No; and I was completely supporting Mr Prince. So you weren't paying him for work, but supporting a friend in need? At(P95) actually it wasn't that way round: I paid him to work for me when I did not know him, and it was only later that we became friends. What were you paying him for before he was at Dandar's? Before that he worked with Dan Liepold based at FactNet: he told us all the stuff he learned in Scientology. So he was paid for work against Scientology? Yes. Which you required him to do? Yes. He didn't simply volunteer it, he was paid for it? Yes. And the same with Ms Brooks? Well, no, we had a personal relationship and, as we were living together, I obviously supported her. OK; direct examination BY MR FUGATE resumes. At(P96) so Mr Prince and Ms Brooks were both paid to do anti- Scientology work? Yes. Did Mr Dandar know this? I think so. What did you understand each of them was in Florida to do? In each case, to work with Mr Dandar on the wrongful death case. MR DANDAR: Between what dates? Q: Ok, between what dates? At(P97) Mr Prince was in Florida for later 1998, most of 1999, when LMT was formed then at LMT but for Mr Dandar during the first six months of 2000. After that he came back and spent part of the day at LMT, going to Dandar's office as needed. And Ms Brooks? sometimes in 1998, more often in 1999, then with LMT she spent the first six months of 2000 at Dandar's. Did you talk to Mr Prince about his work at Dandar's? Yes. At(P98) And Mr Dandar knew this? Yes, sometimes argued about it. Did you talk to Ms Brooks about her work at Dandar's? Yes. And Dandar knew this? Yes. You talked earlier about them being "your eyes and ears in his office": was that accurate? yes. The Court: did she say she was, or did she say Prince was? Well... The Court: he should know who said this; I thought her testimony was that she said she was. At(P99) Mr Fugate: I was going to ask his understanding of the situation; but let's move on. And when that pair were in Florida, were they working on any affidavits? Mr Prince wrote at least one... I think he also wrote some for Mr Liepold on Wollershiem, FactNet, or Lopez. And Ms Brooks wrote affidavits? Not affidavits in recent years, but she was actively advising Dan Liepold and Ford Greene on those cases. At(P100) and this writing of affidavits etc would be described on the Internet by you and other members of the critic community? Yes. And you told Mr Dandar about such postings? OBJECTION leading; OverRuled. Could I hear the questions again... At(P101) this activity was described on the Internet? Yes. And... I can't remember what the other question was. The Court: move on, then. Did you communicate to Dandar about how the case was run? Yes. How? verbally. In more detail? After the oct/1997 cheque I wrote on the Internet I wanted Miscavige prosecuted for murder, and sent Dandar a copy. I was told at(P102) Mr Dandar was leery of me at first, but by the time the cheque cleared he was no longer leery. Within a month I had a draft of the first amended complaint. Even in 1997 I was trying -- I don't remember it was Miscavige or just RTC -- to add parties. I asked Dandar why he hadn't put more inflammatory language in it. The reply was? well, the draft evolved over a period of weeks and became more inflammatory in tone including the word "murder". At(P103) what sort of things did you want included? Anything that would hammer scientology. You discussed these wishes with Brooks and Prince? Not right then, because I had only just met Ms Brooks; but I did later. So, later in this process of communicating your wishes, that pair were in Florida? Yes. And you communicated your wished through them? Yes; mostly for more emphasis on Scientology in the case. Did you come to understand that there was a trial team? Yes. At(P104) Who was on it? Dr Garko, though not initially; plus Brooks, Prince and Dandar were the core of it, with others on the fringe including me. Dud you believe Mr Dandar considered you part of the team? Well, yes, because everything he shared with them he shared with me. This continued into 2002? Yes. I now bring this document as exhibit 95... At(P105) You recognise that? Yes. As a document you received? Yes. Two pages? Yes. I wish to move this into evidence...? MR DANDAR: It is marked Confidential. The COURT: It is marked confidential to Bob Minton and, if you say hew is part of your trial team, it is privileged; if, as I think you're saying, he is not then it isn't. MR DANDAR: He is not part of the team. At(P106) You provided this document to us? Yes. You received it around mar/2002? Yes, by courier. With any enclosure? Yes, a phone encryption device, Had you requested one? No. Could you read the letter out? The COURT: we don't need that if the letter is in evidence. Does the "re" line say it is about the MacPherson case? Yes. Could you read the letter and I will ask several questions... At(P107) the letter is read out, saying it is from Mr Dandar's video production specialist and offering a device to obviate phone tapping, invoice for cost included. And there is a note on the second page? The COURT: he must identify it. At(P108) Is this note what you received at the time? Yes. What does it say? It suggests payment by untraceable means. The Court: this does... what: scrambles conversation against people on a wire-tap understanding it? Yes. So you felt Scientology had placed an illegal tap on your phone? I didn't, Mr Dandar did. Why use it then? Well, in fact I never used it. He said at several points, at(P109), that my phone and my car might both be bugged. He believed he was being bugged, and I was too. He wanted to have conversations about funding without being tapped into. Mine was non-working on arrival and had to be returned to factory for repair. His was working but incompatible with his switchboard type, and also had to be returned. At(P110) by this time the discussions on funding has finished and we didn't need it for that, nor did I ever use it later. The Court: but why think of having this; if you and I wanted to talk about money, lawfully, on an unbugged line, then we would be happy with our privacy? Presumably. So you must have considered there might be an illegal wiretap, especially given what you have written about people following your every move? At(P111) Actually we found there were many easier ways to track our movements -- maybe they would put an infiltrator in the office, which is much more effective than the tap Mr Dandar was worried about. Come on, you were concerned about a tap too? No. Never? Well, I thought about it at times. And Ms Brooks wasn't? No. So neither you nor Ms Brooks was ever concerned about phone-tapping by Scientology? We may have believed it at one or other time; but we bought expensive bug-sweeping equipment for the Florida offices, and hired outside experts to employ it. At(P112) you weren't concerned, but you hired outside people to come and sweep your office? Mr Dandar's private eye was very sure there were bugs but none were found on sweeping. When LMT closed down, the equipment went to New Hampshire unused. However there is nothing I have ever said on the phone about Scientology that could not become publicly known. So I wonder why encryption devices were sent out? Well, they were always Mr Dandar's idea not mine. Resume direct BY MR FUGATE: At(P113), Why did it suggest untraceable means of payment? I suppose, so Scientology didn't know I was buying it. Do you know the electronics guy, Rick Spector? I'd met him once years before but didn't know much about him; he was Mr Dandar's security and electronics man. Is he in court today? Yes. Where? To the right of Mr Dandar. At(P114) The Court: he is working as part of Mr Dandar's trial team? Mr Dandar: yes, he is an independent contractor for us. Were phones used to communicate among LMT people? Yes. What sort? small "Mextel" mobiles. Did you help Mr Dandar prepare his website? Yes. How? I helped him register his own domain. I wish to introduce an exhibit....? At(P115) OBJECTION, relevance. The Court: OK, what is the relevance? Mr Fugate: it shows an association between Minton and Dandar. Don't most lawfirms have a website these days? Mr Fugate: Yes. At(P116) does it mention the wrongful death case? No, but I does say Mr Minton is administering Mr Dandar's domain. Can I ask, why set up this site Mr Minton? Because Mr Dandar wanted a domain. The Court: what is a domain? It is registering a memorable name as the name for your information, like www.lisatrust.com for the LMT website; but Mr Dandar didn't know how to set one up, so I did it for him. The Court: OK it does show that Minton and Dandar were friends, so Minton helped Dandar out on a technical issue (though I don't see any other relevance). At(P117) it's offered merely for association and contact. The Court: so at the time, you were more or less friends? Yes, it was just done as a favour to him. Not as part of the MacPherson case? He wanted a domain, so I did it for him; I paid but it was only cheap. MR FUGATE: How much? $50/year for 3 years maybe; after my second deposition I transferred control entirely to him. At(P118) and the bill? No, I haven't; but Moxon and Rosen made a big deal of my name on his domain registration, so I took it off and transferred all control to him. Now, on those Mextel cell-phones, I have itemized bills which I will distribute now to deal with later... the Court: we will be going through dates and times of calls? I think we should take a short break. FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS. At(P119) the phone bills were entered as defense exhibit#97. At(P120) Did you receive a subpoena for your Mextel records? Yes. Does that appear to be it in the pack? Yes. The following pages are Mextel bills? Yes. Your Mextel records as subpoena'd? Yes. At(P121) I'd like to move this into evidence.....? OBJECTION, relevance. Also the witness needs to identify each bill as his. Mr Fugate: We see at the front who the phone was registered to. Mr Dandar: the first four months are registered at the office of Dandar & Dandar, so privileged. Mr Fugate: they are all records of Minton and LMT, and after the first four months the registration changes to show that. At(P122), the Court: what does the subpoena demand? Mr Minton: I believe, to my phone records. The Court: it asks the archivist at Mextel Ltd, for any and all records of Robert S Minton from nov/1999 to dec/2001. Mr Fugate: the records produced show each of the TelNos concerned. At(P123), the Court queries exactly which phones were meant and Mr Moxon, who issued the subpoena, says it was for all phones used by LMT i.e. the base phone and all staff mobiles. Mextel responded they were not listed as LMT but Minton, so we amended the subpoena to add phones owned by Minton. At(P124) the records went to Mr Keane as discovery master, and it was agreed with the other side -- McGowan representing LMT -- that they were LMT phone records, including those registered to Mr Dandar. The Court: you gave proper notice to the other side? Yes. Where is the notice to Mr Dandar? At(P125) it may not be in that bundle, but it exists and can be produced if demanded; and they did, on receiving it, file a motion for a protective order [which was rejected]. Mr Fugate: I can get further documentation to cover this. The Court: Otherwise I can foresee objections to, say, Dandar & Dandar phone records being included. At(P126) Moxon: they are LMT records. It says Dandar & Dandar on them, was he asked about their release? Well, we go on the acknowledgement by Mr McGowan as LMT attorney they are LMT records. And was LMT then cooperating in settlement negotiations with Scientology? Minton: not yet by that time. Moxon: it is an old motion. The Court: dated 11/feb/2002. At(P127), Moxon: there were no negotiations by that time. However, according to the timeline of Ms Brooks testimony, the following are admitted to have happened already. [2001, early September, Mr Prince withdraws as witness, it may be partly because he was brought up on a judge charge which the court has ruled involved impropriety (+178), it may be partly because Mr Minton threatened to stop paying Mr Prince's monthly living expenses if Mr Prince did not comply. Mr Dandar files a motion for sanction because Mr Prince has been forced to withdraw by being framed for a drugs offence. Ms Brooks says she is simply acting to protect herself from harm and therefore her intentions were (+177) that she and Minton "were going to try to distance ourselves from the case so that we could get protection so that it could move forward without hurting us." 2001, October (+185), at a deposition with Judge Beech, Minton comes close to being jailed for contempt over non-disclosure. 2001, December (+191), Mr Minton is coming under criticism for ceasing to fund because, inevitably, some critics close to the case know in private what is going on, though it is not public knowledge at the time. Mr Minton has had to post $20,000 bond in deposition. Brooks says Dandar is pressing Minton for more money, and she is pressing Minton not to pay]. [2002, January (+193), Dandar wants Minton to come and meet him in various locations, which Mr Minton declines to do. 2002, February(+194), Minton finally goes ahead with a meeting, where Dandar and Garko come to Minton's house in New Hampshire. 2002, March, order disputed: this is when Brooks says that she and Minton began settlement talks with the alleged Church. At around the same time, in her version before the talks, another cashier's cheque was issued (+216). 2002, March/24th. This is the date on which the second affidavit of Robert Minton was signed, though it may not have been filed with the court until a few days later]. Further down(Line 6), the Court: I rule that you do not get any record of Dandar & Dandar unless Me Dandar consents to it. Mr Fugate: judge---. The Court: objection sustained; move on. BY MR FUGATE: Mr Minton, did you have meetings with Dandar in aug/1999? Yes. Where and when? At(P128), 25 or maybe 26/may 1999, Philadelphia. May, or august? I can see on cheque 93-E issued there; yes, August. The details of that cheque are? $250,000 payable to Dandar & Dandar; it is dated 27/aug 1999, I think dated the next day from the evening I wrote it and handed it over. The reason it is post-dated by one day is that I had to transfer money into the chequing account to cover it. At(P129) the Court: I'm sorry, I'm getting messages I need to deal with as acting chief judge; we must take a recess. A BRIEF RECESS WAS TAKEN. At(P130), MR WEINBERG: Your Honour, the process concerning the phone records was as follows. We asked Mextel to produce records for LMT, and Mextel told us there were no records for LMT, only for Minton. We asked Mextel for records of Minton, and Mextel produced those folders. Hearings were held on motions by Ms Brooks and Mr Minton, with Mr Dandar present, to block this discovery. Even though the bills for the first three months of eighteen are billed to Dandar & Dandar, you will see that the phones are those of Minton, Brooks, and Prince at others at LMT. Mr Dandar did not himself have one of these cell-phones. After those first three months, the bill was thereafter paid by Bob Minton. At(P131) We maintain that, first, there are several hundred calls from these people to Dandar & Dandar, which goes to the degree of association or indeed case control; and, second, paying the first few bills through Dandar & Dandar further demonstrates association. At(P132) we can go through the records on Tuesday, but we want to make clear bow they are not Dandar & Dandar records but LMT records. The Court: I hear that... Mr Dandar? First, the way the order was issued and the records brought then no deposition held violates the rules. Now the first three months have my name on, and I was NEVER noticed of this subpoena. At(P133) the reason, by the way, is that the newly-formed LMT had no credit, so I arranged the phones for them as a favour. I object because they breached the rules; and now they're trying to put the fruits of that into evidence. The Court: OK, first let's deal with privilege; I will not let anyone get your records and delve into your office's communications to clients. At(P134) I think you concede these are not your office's dealings but LMT's dealings. Incorrect procedure I will look at separately, but disclosure of privileged material will not happen and I will order the return of anything privileged to you. Mr Dandar: I would have to check the content. The Court: come back when you have. Mr Moxon: we have here a certificate of certification showing Mr Dandar was noticed of the subpoena. When they were, wrongly, delivered to us before deposition, we did not open them; we handed them to the deposition master as ordered. At(P135) I am handing up a copy of the letter noticing Mr Dandar, so he is incorrect on that. The Court: if I were a lawyer then I would consider a call to deposition with order to produce a proper notice. The archivist would happily bring the phone records of Bob Minton for that period, and for all I know LMT; but Dandar & Dandar attorneys should give him pause. At(P136) Moxon: absolutely. The Court: I am not sure your version differs from Dandar's. Mr Dandar: I got notice of the deposition; but it was not of a type where the depo would be cancelled if the records were produced, and the subpoena did not name records by me so I had nothing to object to. At(P137) The Court: so this is not a demand for records but a notice of normal deposition. Mr Dandar: correct. The court: but surely you would have expected this bulk of records to contain those first three months. Mr Dandar: normally in such cases records arrive at deposition and the court reporter objectively marks what they are, so it can be authenticated how the records arrived... At(P138) they followed the procedure for a real deposition, then just cancelled the depo and took the records, which is why I object. The letter here from Mr McGowan, copied to you, says there is an agreement between the parties to cancel the deposition and hand the sealed phone records to special master Keane. At(P139) so this seems to say you agreed to canceling depo? Me Dandar: I'm not so sure of that. So where are the sealed records. The Court: I assume they were unsealed and categorised by Mr Keane per the agreed order; I don't read agreed orders in any detail, I expect parties will stick by what they agreed. It says Mr Keane is within five days to list the general nature of the records without publishing specific content. At(P140) counsel for Minton and LMT are to list what is discoverable, and all parties are to be noticed of their decision. So were you noticed? Mr Dandar: No. Never? No never, and my name does not appear as one of the stipulated parties. I don't want to debate this forever, but I do want to put my objection on record. Mr Fugate: if he wants to look at those records and re-visit this on Tuesday we are OK with that. The Court: you did get a copy of the letter? At(P141) I did, in which Mr McGowan negotiates with Mr Moxon and Mr Keane about disclosing records of Robert S Minton; but, since it did not talk about disclosing records of mine, I did not foresee and object to that. The Court: You didn't get a copy of the order? [see above and original: that is not his point]. Mr Dandar: I may have. Mr Moxon: he got a copy. The Court(to Moxon): I don't see certificate of service? No Why not? I don't know, Mr McGowan handled it. The Court: OK, Mr Dandar, you can check the records until Tuesday and make any objection of privilege then. At(P142), Mr Dandar: OK. The Court: now, do whatever with these papers about deposition, and let's move on. Resume direct examination of Robert Minton, BY MR FUGATE: earlier we spoke on a 26/aug meeting and 27/aug 1999 cheque? Yes. At(P143) can you say who and where? Ms Brooks and I met Mr Dandar in Philadelphia where he was doing some sort of deposition, on our way back to New Hampshire. Mr Dandar gave us a briefing on the case, and his purpose was to get more funding. Now it had been a subject of discussions between Ms Brooks, Mr Prince and myself... What had? At(P144) we had discussions about bringing more scientology into the case. Prior to this meeting? Yes. Which was on...? There may have been two meetings, the evening of the 25/aug then the morning of 26/aug, I'm not quite sure. You're going by the date of the cheque, which was dated a day after the meeting? Yes; we met and discussed this in my hotel room before dinner, then went out to dinner with others, then carried on talking in my hotel room after dinner. When was the cheque handed over? after dinner. Who was there? Ms Brooks and myself plus Mr Dandar. At(P145) How was it done? I wrote out a cheque and handed it to him. And how had the request for funding first been made? A few days earlier, by phone; we were traveling, probably in Colorado, so we arranged to meet Mr Dandar on the way back, in Philadelphia. Was there a discussion about whether to keep funding? Not directly but Jesse, Stacy and I talked about bringing in more Scientology, and adding parties, now that Dandar had Jesse's 20/aug 1999 affidavit. At(P146), we wanted this process speeded up. To be clear, was Jesse at the meetings with Dandar? No; so, we wanted it much more a case about Lisa dying on the Introspection Rundown. Mr Dandar's response was that this would be costly, and for the first time I paid him more than $100,000 at once i.e. I paid $250,000. At(P147) you have a copy of that cheque before you? Yes. What is the "for" line? It says "for MacPherson". You wrote that? Yes. Meaning what? Meaning it was for the MacPherson wrongful death case? Did Mr Dandar state any opposition to you proposals? Only that they would cost money. And you gave him a cheque? Yes. By this time in aug/1999 was Mr Prince working in Dandar's office? He was. Was he being paid by Mr Dandar then? I'm not sure of the timing, I thought of it as all one thing. At(P148) do you know what money was used by Mr Dandar to pay Mr Prince? The money I donated to the Estate. By this time in aug/1999 was Mr Brooks working in Dandar's office? Not full-time, no, but she would frequently go down there for up to a week at a time. Did you have a second meeting with Mr Dandar? Yes. When was it? some time in the late fall. Where was it? Dandar's new offices on West Kennedy. Mr Dandar had a previous office? At(P149) previously he had an office of Cypress Street but he had moved, permanently or prior to a third address, to large offices on West Kennedy where this meeting took place. Opposite the hotel? Yes; I think there was some sort of state police office in the same building. The Court: When was this again? In the late fall of 1999. BY MR FUGATE: What happened there? Present were Jesse, Stacy, and myself, with Mr Dandar and Dr Garko. Mr Dandar went through his reasoning about adding parties. At(P150): This had been tried before; this time the aim was to add Miscavige as leader of the Sea Org. Do you know why that was? It was clearly to focus strongly on Scientology practices and the Scientology organisation. Mr Dandar was thrilled by the idea; I was suggesting ways to do what he had been proposing for a couple of years. It was the natural thing to try. At(P151) Judge Moody had opened a door for it, and this was our last chance to get it through. In aug/1999 were you aware of an agreement not to add parties? At that time the others were surprised I did not already know about it. The others there certainly knew it existed and, I subsequently learned, was the stumbling block for the attempt. At(P152) when did you learn that the agreement existed? When Mr Dandar sent me a large document in the second half of 1999. How big? (the witness gestures) About six inches thick? Yes. It was a motion and opposition for adding parties. I don't fully read documents that size. I finally read it all sometime around jan/2000. The first folder in it was the 1997 agreement, and that was when I read it in full. Do you recall what it was about? Well-- The Court: how is this relevant? At(P153) This agreement was the subject of the breach. Mr Minton, do you mean you paid the money at one meeting and found out the problems at the next? Found out about... The Court: he's saying he did not find out about the agreement until the fall meeting, and has said it several times. Mr Minton: the agreement was that the Estate would not add Scientology corporations or their senior officials in return for Scientology... The Court: given I'm not even sure this thing is relevant, now I have to hear him list the terms of an agreement to which he is not even a party; what I would like to know is whether he knew about it in the fall of 1999, not just early 2000. At(P154) BY MR FUGATE: Returning to the meeting in the fall...? OK. I think you said it discussed a way to get round Judge Moody's order? No, I said to get through a gap Judge Moody had opened up for us... OK. ...which was adding Miscavige as head of the Sea Org. We already knew what we couldn't do re corporates, that was a done deal. Dandar and Garko gave their views on the new strategy. At(P155) Mr Dandar was enthusiastic, he though it would make Scientology pay up and/or pay more. I thought Dr Garko then supported it, but Ms Brooks reminded me of things he then said which expressed reservation. Mr Prince was in favour. Ms Brooks was then very much in favour, since this had been her preferred strategy in several cases. I was against. Why? Simply because of the extra cost. But I didn't say that much. It was a long, hot meeting and I was at the far - street - end of the conference table, the opposite end to the air conditioner. At(P156): my only question was "what about Ray Mithoff?" Mithoff would have known a lot about the facts of Lisa's death, but they were concentration on "pressure points" i.e. the fastest way to winning. Although I did not agree with their line, I just said "talk it over with your client and, whatever the group decision it is, I will back it" [hardly case control!] At(P157) you meant financial support as well? Financial support was the ONLY kind I could give him. Was anything said about the meeting as you left it? In the elevator on the way down Mr Dandar said the meeting "had not happened" and should not be disclosed. How did you respond? I said "OK". Why did you think this was being said? Because I should not, strictly, have been involved in it. You say Mr Dandar had sent you six inch thick of case pleadings; had you been getting packages of pleadings even before then? Yes. At(P158) you continued to get them after that meeting? If anything more often once we were at LMT in Florida, either posted to us or Ms Brooks and Mr Prince would bring them over. Did Mr Dandar discuss with you things which were confidential in the case? Yes. This is exhibit 98...? The Court: as with Mr Lirot, you may bring matters into hearing if you have the documents on you to distribute. At(P159) can you identify this document? It is a posting I made to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. The Court: "Bob's barn" is also an email address of yours? Yes. So anything posted from Bob's Barn is yours? Yes. At(P160), also "RobertSMinton.org", the same with that? Yes. BY MR FUGATE: Do you see the highlighted part? Yes. First, may I move this into evidence as defense#98 if there is no objection...? There was not. What does that part say? 18 A "After the insulting settlement proposals and 19 multimedia cryathon presented to Lisa's family and 20 Mr. Dandar." Were you privy to any information about a settlement hearing? Yes, Mr Dandar told me what took place there in around july/1998. It was a mediation? It was described as a "settlement conference". At(P161) did you then know it to be confidential? I knew it was not something to be broadcast. But several moths later you did make a posting about it? Yes. To be clear, this was a settlement conference in the wrongful death case? Yes. And did you receive from Mr Dandar copies of depositions in the wrongful death case? Yes. Roughly when was this? At(P162) I can't refer to documents because the special master has them but there were one or two depositions on paper received at LMT, one or two at New Hampshire, and others by email from him. So, presumably, something he had received as floppy disk copy of the depo them emailed to you? Yes. Were you were told they were confidential? I don't think do originally but about the last few deposition emails he said they were "not from him" and should not be posted. Which depo was that? Of Theresa Summers. Did you then post it? No. At(P163) the Court: depositions on floppy disk? (the Court Reporter has typed it up on a word processor; when you buy a transcription, you get not just a print-out on paper but a copy on disk which can be emailed, searched, etc). I now come to the Brenda Hubert knowledge report... At(P164) this is exhibit 99, can you identify it? It is one of my postings on a.r.s. Did you receive a knowledge report of Brenda Hubert? Yes. How? From Mr Dandar or his office in 1999. Were you given any instructions about it? Don't say it was him and don't post it on the Net. Did you post it? Yes, about a year later. Were you asked where you got it? I was asked in deposition whether I had got it from Mr Dandar. And you said? No. How did you say you got it? Sent anonymously by post. At(P165) was this true? It was not, and I later recanted it. The Court: what is the document called? A knowledge report. Mr Dandar: you posted it on the Net about a year later? Yes. For what purpose? To put pressure on Brenda Hubert to come forward. In what way put pressure? To make her feel bad about what had happened to Lisa, to make her feel an obligation to come forward and tell the truth. The Court: what made you think she would have read it? The hope was that someone who knew her would read it and tell her, as Mr Dandar thought she definitely knew more than she had told so far, The Court: there was no targeted effort to get it direct to her? No. You knew that Brenda Hubert was a defense witness? Yes. At(P167) did you phone Brenda Hubert? I have some vaguer Recollection that yes, I did. For what purpose? To bring It directly to her attention. Apart from emailed depositions, did you receive other email from Mr Dandar during 1998, 1999. 2000 or 20001? Mr Dandar did not put much in writing about the case; the emails I got were mostly requests for funds. To which computer - home, LMT, or laptop? Potentially to all of them, because they would be on the server often until two downloads to maybe different computers. At(P168) it was sent to multiple addresses so you could get it wherever you were? No, though sometimes multiple addresses were used. [Note, misunderstands the answer: the address "is" Mr Minton and a password known to him, which he could use on any of his computers to access mail]. Which machine did you get them on? I could get them on all three computers; typically they would be addressed to both bob@minton.org or bobminton@lisatrust.net. Did you get phonecalls from Dandar discussing the case? Yes. At(P169) I'm going to resume this later, but for now I return to the phone-bills. Can I now go to defense exhibit#81, the list of LMT board members...? OK, I've found it. As part of your being "Scientology's public enemy number one", did you cause others to come to Florida and assist in the case? Yes. Who? Attorneys Dan Liepold and Ford Greene. At(P170) what, in the wrongful death case, did they do? I have testified in detail about my relationship with Mr Liepold, who was more experienced in litigating against Scientology than Mr Dandar. Dandar needed assistance in two areas. What were they? First, what issues are or are not religious, second what Scientology corporations are alter egos for each other in enforcing payment. Ford Greene knew most about religiosity. Dan Liepold was also keen to be involved. I wanted Mr Dandar to consult them, so I brought them down here and set up meetings. At(P171) had you received requests for assistance? Meaning what... Requests from Mr Dandar for assistance on these issues. No, I don't think so; but Mr Liepold knew the issues, was happy to be involved, perhaps hoped for good fees on the case. The real difficulty between Mr Dandar and those two was his reluctance to cede part of his contingency fee to them. Mr Liepold then said that he didn't work for free so, absent contingency fees, he needed to be paid hourly, and we arranged this. At(P172) did you in fact pay Mr Liepold for his assistance? It was part of the general donations I made to Dandar; they were paid. So they couldn't get a share of contingency... did they do any other work? Ford Greene did a whole brief on religiosity issues. Dan Liepold was involved supervising him, as Mr Dandar felt he needed supervision. Other difficulties arose between the three of them. Also, at(P173), if I could go back to early 1998, I was then represented by Steven Jonas of Hale & Dorr in Boston, and he said... MR HOWIE: OBJECTION, privilege. MR DANDAR: OBJECTION, hearsay and relevance. The Court: the privilege is Mr Minton's and his to waive; but sustained on hearsay. BY MR FUGATE: moving on, did you use in the wrongful death case a witness called Gerry Armstrong? Yes. At(P174) You also provided Mr Armstrong with funds? Yes. You also had Mr Armstrong on the LMT advisory board? Yes. And you brought him to Florida to participate in the wrongful death case? The money donated to Dandar did that. You had dealings with him prior to this case? Yes. And he was involved in criticism of Scientology? Very much so. Were there restrictions on his appearing as a witness? Yes. What were they? At(P175) Well, he entered into a settlement agreement. The Court: I know all about what he said in California, how he breached it, and how he left for Canada: all of which I am telling you is irrelevant to this hearing. MR FUGATE: OK; could Armstrong, to your knowledge, coma and be a witness? Mr Dandar: calls for a legal conclusion which the witness is not qualified to make. The Court: sustained. At(P176), did you arrange for Mr ward to come? Mr Dandar: OBJECTION, outside the scope of any motion Being considered by this hearing. The Court: unless you can somehow establish relevance...? Mr Fugate: Did you discuss with Mr Dandar the purpose of forming LMT? Yes. What was said? LMT was going to be the leading anti- Scientology group based in Clearwater itself.