||||| From: body_thetans_are_everywhere@freedom.net Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Heller v. Caberta: Minton Deposition April 10, 2001 Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:45:50 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Old-From: body_thetans_are_everywhere@freedom.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 1724 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!newspeer2.tds.net!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1289673 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION -------------------------------X HUBERT HELLER, an Individual, Plaintiff, Case No. Vs. 8:00 CV-1528-T-27C URSULA CABERTA, Defendant. ------------------------------- DEPOSITION of ROBERT MINTON, a witness called by and on behalf of the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Evelyn M. Slicius, Registered Professional Reporter, CSR No. 127193, and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Cooley Manion Jones, LLP, 21 Custom House Street, Boston, Massachusetts, on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, commencing at 10:25 a.m. K.L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES Registered Professional Reporters P.O. Box 6094 Boston, Massachusetts 02209 Tel (781) 598-6405 * Fax (781) 598-0815 APPEARANCES: Kendrick Moxon, Esq. MOXON & KOBRIN 11 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, Florida 33755 (727)443-5620 On behalf of the Plaintiff. and Michael Lee Hertzberg, Esq. 740 Broadway New York, New York 10003 (212) 982-9670 On behalf of the Plaintiff. Daniel A. Leipold, Esq. LEIPOLD, DONOHUE & SHIPE, LLP 960-A West Seventeenth Street Santa Ana, VA 02706 (714) 796-1555 On behalf of Robert Minton. Also Present: Ms. Sarah Heller VIDEO SERVICES: Mr. Craig Newman Valed Video Services One Union Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 282-2482 I N D E X Deposition of: Direct Cross ROBERT MINTON (By Mr. Moxon) 4 E X H I B I T S No. Description Page 1 Second Amended notice of Deposition of 7 Robert Minton 2 LMT Media - Ursula Caberta in Clearwater 29 3 Affidavit of Ursula Caberta 35 PROCEEDINGS MR. LEIPOLD: Prior to starting the deposition, I talked to Mr. Moxon on the fact that there is an injunction in effect in this matter. MR. MOXON: In this matter? MR. LEIPOLD: There is an injunction in effect that keeps my client from coming within ten feet from any of the people on the opposite end of the able to from me, including Mr. Moxon, Mr. Hertzberg, and including the other young lady that is a representative here. MR. MOXON: She is the plaintiff's daughter. MR. LEIPOLD: Thank you. And that there is an injunction in effect. Mr. Hertzberg handed me an order. I have since talked to Bruce Howie, who was present in the court when the judge was issuing that these rules, in fact, do apply during the deposition, and that he felt that they could be enforced during the deposition, and we intend not to break the injunction and -- MR. MOXON: Not to what? MR. LEIPOLD: We intend not to break the injunction and we have -- MR. MOXON: It's a little hard to hear in here, with the background noise. MR. LEIPOLD: Perhaps you ought to ask your client to turn off the air-conditioning then. MR. MOXON: Excuse me? MR. LEIPOLD: Perhaps you ought to talk to your co-counsel about turning off the air- conditioning. I'm talking in a normal speaking voice and I have a microphone on. I apologize if you can't hear me, but we aren't sitting that far apart. In any event, we would offer to get a room over at Hale and Dorr where we can comply with the ten-foot rule or, as an alternative, you can move to the other end of the table. MR. MOXON: So your position is that counsel in this case have to be ten feet from Mr. Minton or you're going to walk? MR. LEIPOLD: My position in this case is that your partner, Ms. Kobrin, has agreed to this previously, Counsel. I'm speaking -- I allowed you to speak. Your partner in this case has agreed that there was an injunction in place previously and has abided by the injunction. My position is that the injunction applies and that you have been advised that it applies and we are requesting that you comply with the injunction. And if you do not comply with the injunction, I'm not going to bring my client into this room and I am not going to have him deposed. As an alternative to this, we can call over to Hale and Dorr and we can get a deposition room there that is plenty big enough. MR. MOXON: I have given you the order that indicates that it doesn't apply to counsel. It is utterly ridiculous. But to humor you so you can't skate out of this deposition yet again, which has taken us so many months to get it set up, that we'll go ahead and move ten feet away. We'll put the witness in that chair? MR. LEIPOLD: Go ahead and do it. You go ahead and move. MR. MOXON: Let's mark this as the first exhibit. (Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) THE VIDEOTAPE IS NOW RECORDING THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date is April 10, 2001. The time is approximately 10:25 a.m. and the tape is rolling. In the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, this is being taken for Case No. 8:00CV-1528-T-27C. Hubert Heller, an individual, versus, Ursula Caberta, an individual. We are in Boston, Massachusetts, to take the deposition of Robert Minton in this matter. At this point, counsel will identified themselves. MR. MOXON: Kendrick Moxon for the plaintiff's. With me and of-counsel to my firm for this case is Mr. Hertzberg. And also with me is the plaintiff's daughter, Sarah Heller. MR. LEIPOLD: My name is Daniel Leipold and I represent Robert Minton, who is present in the room. * * * WHEREUPON, ROBERT MINTON, having duly affirmed that his testimony would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows in answer to direct interrogatories: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MOXON: Q. Mr. Minton, you are represented by Mr. Leipold here today? A. That's correct. Q. Do you have any other counsel in this case? A. I don't think so. Q. And you've been deposed several times before, correct? A. I have. Q. You are generally familiar with the procedure? A. Yes. Q. Just for the purposes of the record, if you have any questions during the deposition or if there is anything you don't fully understand, any question I've asked you, ask me to clarify it. All right? A. Okay. Q. I'll assume that any question that I have asked you that you've responded to that you've understood. Okay? A. That is fair. Q. Are you under the affect of any drugs or medication today? A. Painkillers. Q. What are they? A. I don't know what it is. Q. Is it a prescription? A. Yes. Q. What is the name of the drug? A. I don't know. Q. Do you have the prescription with you? A. No. Q. Who prescribed it for you? A. I don't remember his name. It was a dentist. Q. A dentist? A. Yes. Q. Have you had dental work recently? A. No. Q. When did you last take these painkillers? A. This morning. Q. Do you recall the dosage that you took? A. No. Just one of them. Q. It's a pill? A. It is, yes, a pill. Q. You don't know the name of the dentist? A. I don't. Q. Is it a local dentist here in Boston or New Hampshire? A. He is actually in Florida, I believe. Q. Do you know his address? A. Its somewhere in Tampa, I don't know the address. Q. Have you taken any other drugs or medication in the past 48 hours? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. Advil. Q. When did you take Advil? A. Last night. Q. Any other drugs or medication in the last 48 hours? A. Yes. Q. What? A. Claritin. It's an antihistamine as you may know. Q. Do you recall the dosage? A. Yes, 10 or 20, I don't know what it is. Q. Do you take that all the time? A. Frequently. Q. Does it have any effect on your ability to think? A. We'll find out. Q. The Claritin? A. I don't think it has any effect. Q. Have you taken any other drugs or medication in the last 48 hours? A. No. Q. Have you had any alcohol today? A. Not yet. Q. You are not on any psychotropic medication at the present time, correct? A. No. Q. Did you bring any documents with you today in response to your subpoena? A. No. MR. MOXON: For the record, the witness looked at Mr. Leipold, Mr. Leipold shook his head, and the witness answered "No." Q. Did you conduct any search for any records responsive to your subpoena? A. No. Q. Were you provided a copy of the revised document request which I sent to Mr. Leipold? A. Yes. Q. And you conducted no search for any of those records? A. I didn't need to. Q. Well, I've marked as Exhibit 1 -- marked as Exhibit 1 a Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Robert Minton which sets forth the documents I'm seeking in this case. This is a cut down version of what was in the subpoena, cut down after the magistrate's ruling limiting the scope of discovery at present. Let me go through this list with you. okay. Have you ever had -- document request No. 1 seeks "All the communications with Ursula Caberta, including all the letters, e-mails or documents of any type." MR. LEIPOLD: At this point, I want to go on the record and make a statement and that statement is I believe that this particular lawsuit and the way it is framed, has forced us into a situation in which I must advise my client to take the Fifth Amendment on a blanket basis due to the framing of this lawsuit, so as to potentially expose my client to criminal prosecution; and the fact that your offices had used deposition testimony already of Ursula Caberta to initiate a criminal prosecution in Germany. However, I'm not relying on that criminal prosecution in Germany. The allegations in your complaint are so vastly broad that they come within the potential for criminal prosecution of my client in this country, and so I'm going to instruct him not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. Q. Are you following that instruction, Mr. Minton? A. I am. MR. MOXON: Mr. Leipold, I'd like to get some clarification of what you're asserting with respect to the Fifth Amendment here. MR. LEIPOLD: I bet you would. You know what the Fifth Amendment is? I'm asserting it. That is the clarification. What else would you like? MR. MOXON: What alleged law is it -- well, let me ask the witness. Q. What alleged law is it, Mr. Minton, for which you are -- in violation of what alleged law are you asserting the Fifth Amendment for? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client not to answer. But I will respond to you that that is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The breadth of your complaint, and the fact that I had been advised that there is a criminal prosecution in Germany, which the real parties in interest, the Church of Scientology, has initiated against my client, leaves me no choice but to make sure that there is a blanket Fifth Amendment assertion here so that there is no waiver. Your co-counsel -- excuse me -- handed you a note. Would you like to read that into the record? MR. MOXON: Do you have any other comments with respect to the Fifth Amendment issue? MR. LEIPOLD: Pardon? MR. MOXON: I'm going to ask Mr. Minton some specific questions on these Fifth Amendment issues, and if he is going to assert the claim, fine. I don't know what you mean by a blanket claim as to everything. I don't think we can deal with a blanket claim as to all questions. MR. LEIPOLD: You are willing to ask any questions you want. Q. The first document request is, quote, "All communications with Ursula Caberta, including all letters, e-mails or documents of any type." MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to answer. MR. MOXON: Let me ask the question before you instruct him. MR. LEIPOLD: I'm sorry. I thought you were through, sir. Q. Mr. Minton, do you possess any documents so identified? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice in asserting the Fifth Amendment. Q. Did you conduct any search for any records responsive to request No. 1? A. I'm following my attorney's advice in asserting the Fifth Amendment. Q. Have you had any communications with Ursula Caberta that are clearly outside of the scope of any Fifth Amendment claim? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, I'm going to instruct my client not to answer both on the basis of the Fifth Amendment and on the basis that it asks for a legal conclusion of my client as to what is clearly outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment. Perhaps you can't -- perhaps you can phrase that question in a more lawyer-like manner. Q. Are you following that instruction? A. I'm following my attorney's instruction in asserting the Fifth Amendment. MR. MOXON: Let's take a break for a moment. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:35, going off the record. (Off the record.) MR. MOXON: Back on the record. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:42, back on the record. BY MR. MOXON: Q. Mr. Minton, what is the -- what basis are you asserting for making this Fifth Amendment assertion under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm not going to allow my client to answer a question that calls for a legal opinion. Further, I am instructing him not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. I've told you the exact basis that we are making the Fifth Amendment. MR. MOXON: There is no other basis than what you've stated? MR. LEIPOLD: No. We've compared the elements to what you've alleged in the complaint. Q. Do you believe, Mr. Minton, that you can be prosecuted in the United States based on facts in your possession? A. My counsel has advised me not to answer any questions. Q. Are you pleading the Fifth as to that question? A. I'm pleading the Fifth Amendment. Q. Not to answer any questions in the entirety of this deposition? A. That's correct. MR. LEIPOLD: No, that is not correct. He has already answered questions in this deposition, sir. We are just not going to answer questions that substantive to the allegations in the complaint. Q. Have you provided any money to Ursula Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice in not answering questions on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. Q. What has Ursula Caberta done for you in exchange for the money that you've given to her? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice in not answering based on the Fifth Amendment. Q. You are concerned that a response to that question could incriminate you? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, that is an improper question. I'm going to instruct my client not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. MR. MOXON: I want to make sure I know which part of the Fifth Amendment you are asserting, Mr. Leipold. The Fifth Amendment is broad. Q. Are you asserting that the response to the question could potentially incriminate you with respect to what Ursula Caberta has done for you in exchange for the money that you provided to her? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, I'm responding to you and I am telling you, that, given the history of your misuse of lawsuits, given the history of your clients, the real party in interest, outrageous misuse of lawsuits, given the history of false allegations you have made both here and in Germany, and given the exact pleadings which you put in the complaint, I am instructing my client that I am -- not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment, as I am not going to expose him to real or phony allegations that you may make based on his testimony here to initiate a criminal prosecution in this country. Q. Let me give that to you again, Mr. Minton. Are you asserting a Fifth Amendment claim with respect to self-incrimination as to what Ursula Caberta has given to you in exchange for monies that you provided to her? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer. I'll go through what I said before. He is not -- Q. Are you following the instruction? MR. LEIPOLD: He is not to respond to that question. Are you following that instruction? THE WITNESS: I AM following that instruction. MR. LEIPOLD: That implies that she has given him something and I'm instructing him not to answer. MR. MOXON: Do you have any factual basis for asserting that Mr. Minton could be prosecuted on the basis of answers he has given, Mr. Leipold? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm not being deposed here. Q. Okay. Mr. Minton, do you -- MR. LEIPOLD: What I will say to you, however, is that if you read the broad complaint that you filed in this matter and compare it to the elements of the Act that I gave to you, then look at the fact that you have already used the deposition Ursula Caberta to initiate a similar investigation, criminal investigation, in Germany, I am instructing my client not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. The facts are set out in the complaint. MR. MOXON: I didn't ask him yet. I asked you, Mr. Leipold. MR. LEIPOLD: The allegations are set out -- Q. I'll ask the witness: Do you have any factual basis that would support your assertion of the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Minton? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer on basis that it calls for a complete legal conclusion of my client and it also invades his Fifth Amendment privilege. I'm not going to have waive the Fifth Amendment, sir. Q. You had a meeting with Ursula Caberta in Germany, didn't you? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond to the question. A. I'm following my attorney's advice and taking the Fifth Amendment. MR. LEIPOLD: Based on the Fifth Amendment. Q. Have you provided any funds to Ursula Caberta's office in Germany or the group of Scientology? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. You created this situation, sir. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Have you had given any funds to any third-party who has provided them to Mrs. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond to that question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. MOXON: And the Fifth Amendment -- the aspect of the Fifth Amendment that you are asserting is self-incrimination, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm telling you that we are asserting the Fifth Amendment. We are is asserting it in the most blanket way we can possibly do it. And I'm instructing my client not to give you a legal opinion on that. MR. MOXON: So you are not asserting as to a self-incrimination? MR. LEIPOLD: No, sir. You apparently don't listen. I've responded to that question. Please -- if you want the court reporter to read it back so you can perhaps listen to it, that is fine. MR. MOXON: I don't. I want to clarify for the record. You are asserting the self-incrimination section of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Q. And you refuse to answer these questions, Mr. Minton? MR. LEIPOLD: I am asserting the Fifth Amendment in the broadest possible meaning, including, but not limited to that. And I am instructing my client not to respond. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. What form of payment did you use in giving money to Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you give Ms. Caberta cash in a duffel bag? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you give Ms. Caberta bills, United States treasury bills, that could not be traced? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client -- that is an old Scientology trick, isn't it? I'm instructing my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you wire any money into Ms. Caberta's account? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client not to response based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you have a written agreement with Ms. Caberta as to what she will give you in exchange for the money provided? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm instructing my client not to response based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you give any money to Ms. Caberta that you would not consider a loan? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. Also, it calls for a conclusion as to what she would consider. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Have you had any written communications with Ms. Caberta at all? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you give any money to a third-party to give to Ms. Caberta on your behalf? MR. LEIPOLD: Asked and answered. I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you know if any other person other than yourself has given any money to Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. You saw Ms. Caberta when she came to Florida, didn't you? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that question. Did you see her? A. Yes. Q. You talked to her when she came to Florida in the year 2000, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. MOXON: Mr. Leipold, he put on the video communications with Mr. Caberta; he put on the internet a video of his communications with Ms. Caberta. MR. LEIPOLD: That's fine. MR. MOXON: You are still instructing him? MR. LEIPOLD: Yes. Q. Do you know -- MR. LEIPOLD: Not that I necessarily believe what you're saying. MR. MOXON: Well, do you want to take a break and ask your client? MR. LEIPOLD: No, I don't. Q. Mr. Minton, the LMT, that is, the Lisa McPherson Trust, has a web page, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Yes. Q. And on that web page there are videos of Ms. Caberta's press conference, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. I'm not certain. Q. Well, there have been, correct? A. I'm not certain. I don't know. Q. Have you ever looked at the web page of the Lisa McPherson Trust? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. You can respond to that. A. I'm just trying to figure out my answer to that. I've by no means looked at all the pages on the web site; I have looked at some. Q. Who puts the material on LMT's web site? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that, if you know. A. I don't know. Q. One of the employees at LMT? A. I'm not sure how it works now. Q. You hired somebody to put up the web site at LMT, didn't you? A. I don't know. MR. LEIPOLD: Did he hire somebody? MR. MOXON: Yes. MR. LEIPOLD: Did you hire somebody? THE WITNESS: No, not that I know of. Q. You are the chairman of the board of LMT, correct? A. Right. Q. You incorporated it, correct? A. I did. Q. You incorporated it as a for-profit corporation, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You were the sole shareholder when it was incorporated, correct? A. I was, that's right. Q. Are you still of the sole shareholder? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, what is the relevance of this for establishing jurisdiction over Ursula Caberta? MR. MOXON: On the Fifth Amendment claim. I've got a copy of his web page here. MR. LEIPOLD: The question is: What is the relevance of that question? MR. MOXON: Mr. Leipold -- MR. LEIPOLD: What is the relevance of that question, Counsel? MR. MOXON: What is the point of asking me a question and interrupting me when I answer? MR. LEIPOLD: Because you are not responding to it. You're saying, "I have a copy of the web page." What is the relevance to that question, sir? MR. MOXON: If you don't want to hear my response, I'll just ask the questions. MR. LEIPOLD: Go ahead, give me your response, Counsel, tell me about the web page. MR. MOXON: I'm marking as Exhibit 2 -- Marked as Exhibit 2 are printoffs of some of the web pages that say, "LMT Media" the address is "www.lisatrust.net/media/ursula.htm." (Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) Q. Would you please take a look at that, Mr. Minton. MR. LEIPOLD: Do you have a copy for me, counsel? MR. MOXON: Why don't you look over his shoulder. MR. LEIPOLD: The problem is I can't object on the record because I don't have a microphone over here, Counsel. MR. MOXON: That's shorten the depo. Q. Do these look like printouts from your web page at LMT, Mr. Minton? MR. LEIPOLD: His web page? MR. MOXON: You've got to hear the whole question, Mr. Leipold, before you object. Q. Do these look like printouts from your web page at LMT, Mr. Minton? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going do object to the question as vague and objection as to what you mean by his web page at LMT. MR. MOXON: Fine. Q. Answer. MR. LEIPOLD: Bob, if you have a web page at LMT. A. I don't have a web page at LMT. Q. LMT has a web page, right? A. LMT does, yes. Q. We have established that you are the chairman of the board of LMT, right? A. That's correct. Q. When I refer to "your web page," I'm talking about the "LMT web page." A. Okay. Well, maybe you could keep making that clarification because this is a deposition of me. Q. Yes. Do these look like printoffs from your LMT web page? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, counsel, they are not his LMT web page. MR. MOXON: Thank you. Q. Answer. MR. LEIPOLD: So if they are not your LMT web page -- MR. MOXON: This actually is coaching, Mr. Leipold. You know that the local rules in this jurisdiction don't permit you to give these speaking objections. If you want to make an objection as to the form of the question, I'm certainly happy to hear it. MR. LEIPOLD: Thank you, counsel. MR. MOXON: But when you give an objection that coaches the witness how to answer the question, it's improper and sanctionable and I wish you would stop doing that. MR. LEIPOLD: Are you through, Counsel? Do you have a question? MR. MOXON: There's a question pending. MR. LEIPOLD: Could you read back the question, please. (Question read back by stenographer was: Do these look like printoffs from your LMT web page.) MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. Well, do they look like, is that the question? A. Yes and no. Q. What looks like your web page here? A. The formatting, the content, but these are not -- these are text printouts, it would appear, of a web page that looks substantially different than this. This is printed in black and white; obviously, the web pages are in color. Q. Okay. A. However, there are rather more sophisticated ways of reflecting the web page and its date than the method in which these have been -- these were just, obviously, printed out of the browser as opposed to being captured, time-dated, time-stamped with a program like Adobe Acrobat. Q. Okay. A. But by and large they look like the web page content. Q. You do have then a section on the LMT web page concerning Ursula Caberta's visit to Clearwater, correct? A. I'm seeing that there is by looking at these, yes. Q. Well, in fact, you were at the press conference in July of 2000, yourself, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Some of the time. Q. And you participated in the press conference and made some comments, didn't you? A. I don't know whether I did or not. I don't recall. Q. Do you know who paid for Ms. Caberta's flight to Florida to give that press conference? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you talk to Ms. Caberta before she came to Florida with respect to her participation in the press conference? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did any of the employees at LMT speak, to your knowledge, speak to Ms. Caberta before she came to Florida for the press conference? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you pay for Ms. Caberta's expenses when she was in Florida giving the press conference? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Had you met Ms. Caberta prior to her participation in the press conference in July of 2000? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's vice. Q. How many of Ursula Caberta's trips to the United States did you pay for? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Are you aware of a declaration that Ms. Caberta filed in which she indicated that you had given her a loan? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. No. MR. MOXON: I'm marking as Exhibit No. 3 the Affidavit of Ursula Caberta, undated. (Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.) Q. I'm representing that this was an affidavit which was filed in this case. It appears to be -- actually, it appears to be 9 October 2000 is the date on it. Would you please look at paragraph 6 of that affidavit. A. Just let me look at the whole thing to see if I've ever seen this. I've never seen it. Did you say look at paragraph six? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, I'm looking. Q. Paragraph 6 states, quote, "She is, as an individual, indebted to Robert S. Minton, as an individual, for a some of money loaned to her by Mr. Minton." Did I correctly read that? A. That's the first sentence, correct. Q. Is that correct, did you -- MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to -- MR. MOXON: Let me finish the sentence. Q. Did you, in fact, loan money to Ms. Caberta as an individual? MR. LEIPOLD: Just for the record, that is correct, it was a sentence, but I will instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. The next sentence states, "The loan proceeds were received by her in Germany, and were obtained in connection with a retirement of an earlier debt which was incurred and satisfied in Germany." A. That is the second sentence. Q. Do you have any knowledge with respect to that sentence? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Has Ms. Caberta given any money to you? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did Ms. Caberta pay back any of this alleged loan? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm sorry, who? Q. Did Ms. Caberta pay back any of this alleged loan? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you pay for any airfare of Ms. Caberta ever to come to the United States? MR. LEIPOLD: That's been asked and answered. I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Have you provided any funds to Ms. Caberta's counsel in this case, John Merrett? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. Also, it is over-broad as stated and goes outside of the scope of the judge's order. MR. MOXON: Let me clarify the question and eliminate -- I think, your objection is well taken. Q. Have you provided any funds to Mr. Merrett for the purpose of defending Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Have you provided any funds to Ms. Caberta for defense of anything? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. You recently traveled to Germany, correct, within the past month? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Within the past month? I'm trying to think when I was there. Yes. Yes. Q. Did you meet with Ursula Caberta when you traveled to Germany within the past month? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Last month when you saw Ursula Caberta in Germany, did you give her any more money? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you search for any documents at all responsive to any category in the subpoena that was served upon you? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based -- no, you can respond to that question. A. As I said earlier, I didn't need to search because I knew which documents I had. Q. Do you have any documents that would be responsive to category request No. 1? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you have any documents that would be responsive to category request No. 2, which I'll quote, "All records regarding the payment of monies or valuables to Ursula Caberta." MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you have any documents that would be responsive to document request No. 3, quote, "All records regarding the payment of funds, loans or credit to Ursula Caberta or for the benefit Ursula Caberta"? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you have any documents that would be responsive to category request No. 4, "All documents which reflect any expense, bill, receipt and/or payment concerning the press conference of Ursula Caberta at LMT, Inc., on July 25, 2000"? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Which of these categories of documents that I've requested from you do you have records which would be responsive? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. LMT has also posted information concerning the Alternate Charlemagne Award; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. And the Alternate Charlemagne Award was given to you in Leipzig by Ursula Caberta; isn't that right? A. No. Q. Was it handed to you by Ursula Caberta? A. Yes. Q. Did you pay for Ursula Caberta to come to Leipzig to give you that alleged award? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct him not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Is there any contract between you and Ursula Caberta with respect to setting up an LMT, Inc. office in Germany? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Did you pay any money to Ursula Caberta in advance of her setting up an LMT, Inc. office in Germany? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Have you ever spoken to Caberta on the phone? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. MOXON: Let's take another break for a moment. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 10 minutes after 11:00. Going off the record. (Off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:21, back on the record. BY MR. MOXON: Q. Do you know if Ms. Caberta ever placed any calls into Stacy Brooks' home in Florida? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that question, yes or no. A. Could you repeat it? Could you repeat that question for me? Q. I'll give it to you again. Do you know if any calls were placed by Ms. Caberta to Stacy Brooks' home in Florida? A. I'm not certain. Q. You are not certain? A. I'm not. Q. Do you know if Mr. Caberta was ever on a telephone speaking to anyone at Ms. Brooks' home in Florida? MR. LEIPOLD: Wait a minute. Can you clarify that question. Are you saying was Ms. Brooks -- I want to give a speaking objection. Please clarify it. MR. MOXON: I'll clarify it. Q. Do you know if anyone was ever speaking to Ms. Caberta while the person was at a telephone in Ms. Brooks' home? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that question. A. Yes. Q. Who? A. Stacy Brooks. Q. When? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. I don't have any recollection of a specific time. Q. You're saying you don't know whether Brooks called her or Caberta called Brooks? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. I wasn't saying anything about that. Q. Do you know who called who? A. I don't. Q. How many times did you see this happen? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. Q. That is, Brooks on the phone with Caberta from Ms. Brooks' home. A. Several. Q. Over what time period? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond. A. Over the last two years maybe. I think. I'm not sure about the time. Say, between -- roughly between February and March of 2000 to the present time, so that is only a year. Sorry. Q. And approximately how many times? A. Several I've observed. You know, whether that's -- Q. Six, seven times? A. It could be that many. It could be just three times. You know, somewhere in that kind of range. Q. Have you ever spoken to Ms. Caberta on Ms. Brooks' telephone? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. I may have. I don't have a specific recollection, but I might have. Q. So you recall that you've spoken to Caberta on the telephone? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, I'm going to object to the question, it misstates his testimony, counsel. Q. Okay. Have you spoken to Ms. Caberta on the telephone? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Yes. Q. From where? Where were you when you were having these phone calls with Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. At LMT, at Stacy Brooks' house, at my house in New Hampshire, from London, from Leipzig, I believe, from Paris, from Germany. I don't know of any others. I'm not saying there aren't others, I just don't know. Q. Did you place any of the calls to her? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Could you repeat it? Q. Did you place any calls to Caberta? A. Yes. Q. Did you place any calls to Caberta from your home in New Hampshire? A. Yes. Q. Did you place any calls to Caberta from LMT? A. I don't know. Q. Did Caberta place any calls to you in New Hampshire? A. Yes. Q. Did she ever call you at LMT? A. I don't think so. Q. Did she ever call you at Brooks' home? A. No. Q. Where do you live when you are in Florida, in Clearwater? A. A variety of places. Q. Where? A. Hotels, LMT, sometimes I hang out over at Stacy Brooks' house. Q. Did you search any of your phone records for phone calls made to Ursula Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. However, I would like to go back to the previous question. Q. Sure. You want to clarify the prior question as to where you stay when you are in Clearwater? A. I've stayed at Jesse Prince's house also. Q. Did you place any calls to Ms. Caberta's home, have you ever done that? A. I don't know. Q. Have you ever placed any calls to Ms. Caberta's office in Hamburg? A. Yes. Q. That is where you call her? A. I didn't say that. Q. When you call her in Germany, where do you call her? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, Counsel, that assumes there is one place. Q. Okay. Tell me all the places in Germany that you place calls to Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Her office, her cell phone -- "handy" as they call it, that is a what they call cell phones. I'm trying to think if I ever called her at a hotel. I believe I did call her at a hotel. Q. Do you have Ms. Caberta's office number with you? A. With me? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. How do you know what the number is? A. I look it up or is ask somebody at LMT. Q. Where do you have her number? A. Where do I have it? Q. Yes. Where is it written down or recorded? A. Well, the most reliable place to get it would be at Stacy Brooks. Q. You usually just ask her for the number, she gives it to you, and you dial the phone? A. Yes. I mean, I don't remember numbers very well. Q. Is that the way it works? A. The way what works? Q. Normally, when you call Caberta, you ask Brooks for the number and she gives you the number and then you call Caberta? A. I mean, I have it written down somewhere. Q. That is what I'm saying, where is it written down? A. I think I've got it in my Palm Pilot. Q. Do you have your Palm Pilot with you? A. No. Q. But typically you ask Brooks for the number and she gives it to you and then you dial Caberta's number, correct? A. Well, it depends on where my Palm Pilot is at the time, but that has frequently happened. And I think at one stage I had the wrong number in there. Q. How many calls have you made to Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. I think he has actually already responded to that, Counsel. A. Not really. MR. LEIPOLD: How many calls have you made; isn't that the question? MR. MOXON: That's correct. A. Maybe a dozen. Q. What is the phone number in New Hampshire from which you've called Ms. Caberta? A. I'm not going to answer that question. MR. LEIPOLD: What is the relevance, Counsel? MR. MOXON: We're going to seek and discover. We're already asked for all his phone records. We've asked for all records, it's already responsive to the request. MR. LEIPOLD: Well, you haven't asked for those, Counsel. Show me where you have asked for those? MR. MOXON: I've asked for all records concerning phone calls to Caberta. MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, here's what you've asked for when you define communications. You've asked for all communication -- Counsel, it's my turn -- you've asked for all communication between you and Ursula Caberta including phone notes. You would define communications as oral statement, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or correspondence or conversation, also means to transfer thoughts or ideas between persons by means of documents, includes any transfer of data from one location or person to another by an electronic or similar means. That does not include his Palm Pilot with phone numbers in it, Counsel. MR. MOXON: Well, we are going to subpoena the phone company. MR. LEIPOLD: Fine. And we'll respond to that, Counsel. Q. What phone number -- what phone have you utilized in New Hampshire to call Ms. Caberta? A. Let me just explain something for you, Mr. Moxon. Q. Just give me the answer would be the appropriate way. A. I'm going to give you the answer in the way I think you need it. I get on average about 60 hang-up calls a day from Scientology. I'm tired of your phone calls to my phone number. I'm not giving you a phone number, which you already have, that you guys call all the time, you know, as many as 60 times a day. So I'm not providing you with more information than you've already got. Q. Answer the question, please. A. I did. Q. What is the phone from which you call Ms. Caberta in New Hampshire? A. The one that I happen to have near me at the time. Q. What are those numbers? A. I'm not answering any questions about my phone numbers. MR. LEIPOLD: Let's take a break. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:34 -- MR. MOXON: Just a moment. Do you refuse to answer, utterly? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, I'm leaving the room. He has responded to the question. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:34, going of the record. (Off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:40, back on the record. BY MR. MOXON: Q. What are your home phone numbers from which you have called Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, this is beyond the scope of what the judge has ordered for discovery. He has ordered -- he has allowed discovery as to just jurisdictional issues, and I simply don't see how you establish jurisdictional issues by my client's phone numbers. He is a nonparty, by your choice, to this action, and this is an invasion of his rights to privacy and goes beyond the scope of -- I'm sorry, you laughed at what? My client having the right of privacy? You want to put that on the record? MR. MOXON: Yes. Your client has asserted that he gets 60 phone calls a day, which he claims is from me, which is stupid and it's ridiculous and of course has not happened. However, if he claims he gets 60 calls a day at a number which he claims I already have, obviously, there's not right to privacy. MR. LEIPOLD: Thank you, counsel. I would agree it is stupid if you call him 60 times a day. However, Counsel, that is not what he said. Regardless of that, this is beyond the scope of the discovery, and I'm instructing my client not to response to your question. Q. What phone number -- MR. LEIPOLD: This is harassing. Q. What phone number -- are you following that instruction? A. I am. Q. What phone numbers have you called Ms. Caberta from in Florida? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond to that question. This is pure harassment and it is beyond the scope of the discovery, regardless of what the phone numbers are that he has called from in Florida that doesn't lead to jurisdiction in this case, Counsel. Q. Are you following that instruction? A. I am following that instruction. Q. Have you called Ms. Caberta at her home? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that, if you know. A. I don't know. Q. You may have? A. I don't think so. Q. Do you have her home number? A. I don't know. Q. Does Ms. Brooks have her home number? MR. LEIPOLD: Calls for speculation. A. She probably does but I don't know. Q. Has Ms. Caberta assisted your business endeavors in any fashion? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Has Ms. Caberta directed any business towards you? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. At your request, has Ms. Caberta directed business away from anyone else? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you have any business? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct -- no. I'm sorry, Counsel, that is so broad. I'm going to object as vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of that question. MR. MOXON: That's one of the elements of your Fifth Amendment assertion. Q. Do you have any business, Mr. Minton? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. MR. MOXON: Whether or not he has a business? Okay. Q. Are you going to follow that instruction? A. I'm going to follow that instruction. Q. Do you own any interest in LMT, Inc.? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth -- no, you can respond to that. A. No. Q. You used to own all the shares of LMT, Inc., correct? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Yes. Q. Did you sell them? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, what is the relevance to jurisdiction, Counsel? MR. MOXON: It goes to your Fifth Amendment claim, Mr. Leipold. MR. LEIPOLD: What is the relevance as to jurisdiction? MR. MOXON: I'm not going to argue with you. MR. LEIPOLD: That's fine. I'm going to instruct him not to answer if you're not going to put on the record what the relevance is. This deposition is limited to jurisdiction. And whether he sold stocks in a corporation, has nothing to do with jurisdiction. MR. MOXON: Well, it does go to jurisdiction very clearly. MR. LEIPOLD: Explain it, Counsel. MR. MOXON: There is allegations in the complaint with respect to the business that he and Caberta were jointly engaged in which he is a co-conspirator and part of that is LMT. MR. LEIPOLD: That goes to my Fifth Amendment and I'm going instruct him not to respond. Thank you for pointing that out, Counsel. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. LEIPOLD: That was nice of you. Q. Did you transfer any interest in LMT to Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you know if Caberta ever met with Jesse Prince? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment, based largely on what the statement is that you just put on the record. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Do you know if there are any written communications between Ursula Caberta and Jesse Prince? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. No. Q. Do you know if there have been any written communications between Stacy Brooks and Ursula Caberta? A. No. Q. You don't know? A. That's right. Q. Have you ever had any e-mails with Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'll instruct -- A. No. Q. The answer is no? I'm sorry, Mr. Leipold's -- A. No. Q. You never had e-mails with Ursula Caberta? A. I think I sent one. Q. Have you received any e-mail communication from Ursula Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment -- no, you can respond to that. A. I'm not aware that I have. I don't recall any. Q. Does anyone send or receive e-mails for you or on your behalf? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, Counsel, this goes beyond the scope of the discovery order in this matter, and I'm going to instruct him not to answer. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Who called or who contacted Ursula Caberta to get her to come to the LMT press conference? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to go instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. When did you send that e-mail to Caberta that you just mentioned? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. Sometime this year. Q. From where? What computer? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, what is the relevance to what computer, as to the discovery order? Q. Answer, please. MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, what is the relevance? I'm asking you a question. MR. MOXON: Mr. Leipold, I don't want to argue with you. MR. LEIPOLD: Okay. I'm instructing my client based on the fact that you won't make an offer. Let the record reflect a consultation between Mr. Hertzberg and Mr. Moxon. Q. Where were you when you sent that e-mail communication to Ms. Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that physically, if you can recall. A. I don't know. When you are asking me this question, you mean what country was I in? What state? Q. Start with country. A. What address? Q. What country? A. The United States. Q. What address? A. 33 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Q. It was sent from a computer located at the LMT office? A. At that time it was. Q. Is the computer still there? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, this is so far beyond the scope of establishing jurisdiction. You can respond to that last one, if you know. A. I don't know whether it was from my laptop computer or from a fixed computer. It could have been -- they were both on -- I was at a desk where both of them were and I don't know which one I sent it on. Q. So you sent e-mails from both a fixed computer at LMT, Inc. and from your laptop, correct? MR. LEIPOLD: Well, it is beyond the scope. Q. Answer. MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, it is irrelevant how many computers he sends e-mails to for purposes of establishing jurisdiction in this matter. Q. Answer. MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, you are beyond the scope of discovery. I'm going to instruct him not to respond to that. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. What e-mail address do you communicate to Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond to that, it is beyond the scope of discovery. Also, since you have already said that you are going to attempt to get the records and subpoena them, it implicates his Fifth Amendment rights, and I'm going to instruct him not to answer on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice on all points. Q. Who introduced you to Caberta? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond to that. A. I just met her. Nobody introduced me. Q. You met her when she picked you up at the train station in Hamburg; is that right? A. How would you know whether she picked me up at a train station in Hamburg? MR. LEIPOLD: Sounds like surveillance here. Q. Answer. A. Wherever I arrived in Hamburg the first time, I don't think it was by train, is the time I met Caberta for the first time. Q. This is in April of 2000? A. Was that the first time I went there? Did you check? Q. Answer. A. I don't know. MR. LEIPOLD: Let me have the question back. Q. I'll give it to you again. You first met Caberta when you arrived in Hamburg in April of 2000? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, you are clearly attempting to gain information to initiate what I believe will be a phony, but real, criminal prosecution of my client. And I'm going to instruct him not to answer based on the Fifth Amendment, so that there will be no waiver of the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. How did Ms. Caberta know to pick you up at the train station in April of 2000? A. I believe that I made it clear to you that I don't believe that I arrived at the train station in April of 2000 for Mrs. Caberta to pick me up. Q. How did you arrive in Hamburg in April of 2000? MR. LEIPOLD: You can respond how you arrived in April of 2000, in Hamburg, if at all. A. I believe I came by airplane. Q. Did she pick you up at the airport? MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, you know, the entire complaint that you have filed in this matter, which you have chosen not to make my client a party to so he can defend himself in this matter -- MR. MOXON: Does this -- MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, I'm talking. -- contains an allegation of a broad-based Scientology conspiracy or conspiracy based on Scientology theories that calls into question potential criminal prosecution initiated by you, or the real parties in interest in this matter. And I am not going to allow him to answer any questions of substance based on these allegations that you have made. Q. Did Ms. Caberta tell you what financial problems she was having that were the impetus for her receiving a loan from you? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following that advice. Q. Did you give any money to Willi Beiss? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following that advice. Q. Did you give any value of any kind to Willi Beiss, Ms. Caberta's superior? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment A. I'm following my attorney's advice. Q. Any time you were in Germany, did you contact any realtors or, in any fashion, attempt to locate an office, to set up an office of the Lisa McPherson Trust in Germany? MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. MOXON: Ms. Brooks just wrote a note and left it in front of the witness. MS. BROOKS: Well, I'm sorry -- MR. HERTZBERG: That was very clear because I saw the entire thing. Ms. Brooks wrote a note on a white legal pad or similar size pad and then placed it halfway between herself and the witness, clearly indicating, in my view, or anyone who would observe that, that she wanted the witness to look at what she wrote. And the record should reflect, if the camera doesn't, that Ms. Brooks is -- MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel only one client can question at a time. MR. HERTZBERG: I'm not questioning anyone. MR. LEIPOLD: Well, they why are you putting this on the record? MR. HERTZBERG: Because Mr. Moxon may not have seen everything that I saw. And I think the record should reflect Ms. Brooks is sitting virtually next to and almost touching, abutting the witness, I'm not sure why, because she is not his counsel. And it is clearly improper if, in fact -- if, in fact, she was passing a note to the witness in the middle of his testimony, that would be totally improper. And I know that Ms. Brooks knows that it would be and I know Mr. Minton knows it would be. MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, could I see your association of attorney in this case, because I have never seen you appear on any pleadings in this case. Have you, in fact, appeared in this case? MR. HERTZBERG: Have I filed a formal appearance? MR. LEIPOLD: Yes. Counsel, have you made a formal appearance in this matter? Yes or no, sir? MR. HERTZBERG: No, I have not. MR. LEIPOLD: So you are here gratuitously making a statement on the record when Mr. Moxon is doing it and I would appreciate that if you wouldn't do that, sir. MR. HERTZBERG: I would appreciate if the witness did not receive notes in the middle of the -- MR. LEIPOLD: Counsel, you saw something that I didn't. MR. MOXON: Why don't we move on? MR. HERTZBERG: Let's mark the note. MR. LEIPOLD: Let me have the note, sir. MR. HERTZBERG: And if it wasn't, then it wasn't, and we'll move on. (Off the record.) MR. LEIPOLD: I think this is a note for me that she wrote and put on the table. I don't know that it's a note for Bob. I don't know that Bob could have read it. THE WITNESS: And I would like to add my two cents worth here. MR. MOXON: I know that you didn't have an opportunity to see it because I was watching you. THE WITNESS: Well, just so you know that without my glasses on, Ms. Brooks should know, if she is writing any notes, that I couldn't see it anyway. my glasses are in my pocket. MS. BROOKS: And I do know that and I am not writing him notes, Mr. Hertzberg. BY MR. MOXON: Q. Are you ready to continue? A. I'm ready. Q. Have you had any communication with Ms. Caberta about the use of the sect filter? S-e-c-t. MR. LEIPOLD: I'm going to instruct my client not to respond based on the Fifth Amendment, based on the allegations that you have made in the complaint. A. I'm following my attorney's advice. MR. MOXON: We are going to suspend the deposition at this point to make a motion to compel and, of course, we'll our costs and sanctions. MR. LEIPOLD: Thank you, Counsel. MR. MOXON: So we have a second deposition of LMT, it's scheduled for tomorrow morning. If either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton is the witness for that, we could do that one today also. MR. LEIPOLD: Okay. Why don't we break for lunch and we'll come back after lunch and we'll do that deposition. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 12:00. Going Off the record. (Whereupon, the deposition was suspended at 12:00 p.m.) CERTIFICATE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS I, Evelyn M. Slicius, Registered Professional Reporter, CSR No. 127193 and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify: That ROBERT MINTON, the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me, and that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties in this matter by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 11th day of April, 2001. _____________________ Evelyn M. Slicius Notary Public My commission expires: May 15, 2003 ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net