||||| Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Judge Schaeffer ruling on Omnibus Motion From: Webmaster Organization: Scientology Killed Lisa McPherson User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Lines: 13 Message-ID: <8hKU9.60664$Ik.2182675@typhoon.sonic.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:07:00 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.10.97.104 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1042510020 69.10.97.104 (Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:07:00 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:07:00 PST Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!c03.atl99!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!feed.news.sonic.net!typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1586799 Judge Schaeffer has issued her ruling in the Omnibus Motion that Scientology filed in the first half of 2002. The ruling, dated January 12, 2003, covers the two issues of Scientology's motion to dismiss the case, which were: Issue I: the sham pleading and Issue 2: the issue of perjury and subornation of perjury. Judge Schaeffer spends a lot of time on Robert S. Minton's testimony in her discussion of Issue 2. It is hoped that the readers of a.r.s will find this document informative. You can access the ruling from http://www.lisamcpherson.com Webmaster LisaMcPherson.com info@lisamcpherson.com ||||| Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:22:42 -0500 From: tikk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Judge Schaeffer ruling on Omnibus Motion References: <8hKU9.60664$Ik.2182675@typhoon.sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.108.65.140 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.108.65.140 Message-ID: <3e238294@news2.lightlink.com> X-Trace: 13 Jan 2003 22:23:00 -0500, 66.108.65.140 X-Original-Trace: 13 Jan 2003 22:23:00 -0500, 66.108.65.140 Organization: Lightlink Internet Lines: 3665 Path: news2.lightlink.com Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1586820 note: some OCR errors exist. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, Plaintiff Case No. 00-5682-11 vs. CHIURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JAN1S JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI, and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S. Defendants __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS OMNIBUS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND OTHER RELIEF This cause came on to be heard on Defendants' Omnibus Motion for=20 Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief, which was served on April 26,=20 2002. The motion requested the following relief, both cumulatively and=20 in the alternative: (1) striking of plaintiffs complaint; (2) an order=20 precluding plaintiff from answering the counterclaim, and defaulting=20 plaintiff on the counterclaim; (3) dismissal of plaintiffs claims with=20 prejudice; (4) disqualifying plaintiffs counsel from representing=20 plaintiff on any matter in these proceedings; and (5) awarding=20 sanctions, in an amount to be determined, against plaintiff and her=20 counsel. The Defendants' motion was 7 pages in length, and had=20 attachments including a 35-page hearing transcript of a continuation of=20 a Robert Minton (=93Minton=94) contempt hearing before The Honorable Doug= las=20 Baird on April 9, 2002, a 352-page transcript of a hearing conducted on=20 April 19, 2002 which was the beginning of a Motion to Disqualify=20 Plaintiffs Counsel, Kennan G. Dandar (=93Dandar=94) and law firm, Dandar = and=20 Dandar, P.A., on a related case pending in front of Judge Baird, Church=20 of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., Plaintiff vs. Dell=20 Liebreich, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of=20 Lisa McPherson, Robert Minton, and the Lisa McPherson Trust, Defendants, = Case No. 00-002750-20, the breach of contract and tortious interference=20 case, (=93breach=94 case) a one-page e-mail which had been introduced at = the=20 hearing on April 19, 2002, and the first recanting affidavit signed by=20 Robert Minton on April 17, 2002, which was used in both this case and=20 the breach case. This first affidavit was brief, recanting certain=20 limited testimony previously given. The Defendants' motion indicated=20 that they were working on a more complete Memorandum of Fact and Law,=20 which would be filed as soon as it was completed. On April 30, 2002, the Defendants served their Memorandum of Fact and=20 Law in Support of Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other=20 Relief. This memorandum was 55 pages and was accompanied by 72 exhibits, = contained in a notebook, approximately 4-inches thick. Two of the=20 Exhibits were the second recanting affidavit of Robert Minton, dated=20 April 24, 2002, and the second recanting affidavit of Stacy Brooks,=20 dated April 29, 2002. Ms. Brooks had also previously filed a brief first = affidavit recanting certain limited previous testimony on April 17, 2002.= On May 1, 2002, the Plaintiff filed her 5-page Response in Opposition to = Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief,=20 with 4 Exhibits, comprising 8 pages. On May 2, 2002, this court held a hearing wherein the motion was argued. = It was determined that a full hearing should be held in order to resolve = all the matters raised in Defendants' motion. On May 3, 2002, testimony on the Defendants' motion commenced. It ended=20 July 18, 2002. The hearing totaled 35 days. Several hundred exhibits=20 were introduced. The transcripts of the hearing comprise many thousands=20 of pages, and were provided to this court in six 4-inch binders of 4 to=20 a page transcripts. Throughout the hearing, various =93Supplemental Memorandum=94, =93Bench=20 Memorandum=94, =93Time Lines=94, and other materials were produced for th= e=20 court's assistance. Some of these were several 4-inch binders of material= s. Closing arguments were permitted to be submitted in writing. As the=20 Defendants bore the burden of proof on their motion, they were allowed=20 first and last closing argument. The Defendants=92first closing argument,= =20 dated August 9, 2002, was 137 pages, and was accompanied by four 4-inch=20 binders of 149 exhibits. There were also Appendices A-K attached. The=20 Plaintiffs closing argument was submitted August 19, 2002, and was 147=20 pages with 5 Exhibits. The Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Closing=20 Argument was submitted August 26, 2002, was 64 pages, and was=20 accompanied by 65 Exhibits, and an Appendix with 27 Exhibits. This court has now read all of the closing arguments, exhibits, and=20 appendices, has reviewed many portions of the transcripts of the 35-day=20 hearing, has reviewed some of the hundreds of exhibits introduced at the = hearing, and, most importantly, was present to see and hear all the=20 witnesses who testified during the 35-day hearing. Based on all of the=20 above, this Order follows. The Defendants (collectively for this order, the =93Church=94) accuse the= =20 Plaintiff (the =93Estate=94), and her counsel, Dandar, of =93manipulation= of=20 the judicial process through the filing of false and/or misleading=20 pleadings, affidavits, testimony, and obstruction of discovery by Dell=20 Liebreich, (=93Liebreich=94), her counsel, Ken Dandar, various members of= =20 the plaintiffs =91trial team', and Robert Minton.=94 Defendants' Motion, = p.=20 2. The Defendants then say that the =93pattern of misconduct=94 is eviden= ced=20 by the =93recent admissions of Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks=94. Motion,= p. 2. The main allegations which need to be discussed in this order are as=20 follows: (1) Is the 5th Amended Complaint=97the one at issue in this=20 motion (it has subsequently been amended by agreement of the parties and = the court) a =93sham=94 or =93mere pretense=94, one which =93perpetrated = a fraud=20 on the court which permeates the entire proceedings=94, Motion, p. 2, in = which case dismissal of the entire case may be proper. (=93Sham=20 Pleading=94). (2) Did Ms. Liebreich and/or her counsel, Kennan Dandar,=20 commit perjury, or suborn perjury, such that the case should be=20 dismissed or other relief requested should be granted?=20 (=93Perjury/Subornation of Perjury=94). (3) If counsel for the Plaintiff = committed perjury/subornation of perjury, should counsel be=20 disqualified? Even if Dandar did not commit perjury, or suborn perjury,=20 is the =93appearance of impropriety=94 of Dandar's conduct such that Dand= ar=20 should be removed as the Estate's chosen counsel to represent it at a=20 trial presently scheduled to begin January 21, 2003. (=93Disqualification= =20 of Counsel=94). ISSUE I SHAM PLEADING Lisa McPherson died on December 5, 1995. Until just before her death,=20 she had been present for 18 days at the Fort Harrison Hotel, which is=20 property owned by the Church, and where the Church is located in=20 Clearwater, Florida. During her 18-day stay at the Church's property,=20 Lisa was under the exclusive care, custody and control of the Church, by = and through Alain Kartuzinski, the acting senior case supervisor, and=20 thus, the head ecclesiastical leader of the Church. After her first day=20 at the Church, Lisa was psychotic, and unable to make important=20 decisions for herself, including medical decisions. Her death was=20 caused, depending on which set of experts is believed, the Plaintiffs=20 experts, who say Lisa died from severe dehydration, or a pulmonary=20 embolism brought on by severe dehydration, or the Defendants' experts,=20 who say Lisa died from a pulmonary embolism, brought on by a bruise from = a minor accident Lisa had the day she was brought to the Church. The=20 manner of death was either a homicide, according to the Plaintiffs=20 experts, or an accident/natural death, according to the Defendant's=20 experts. These facts lead to Plaintiffs two alternative theories in two=20 counts of the complaint: Count I, Wrongful Death, and Count V, Negligent = Survival. This court, in orders previously filed, has denied summary=20 judgment motions filed by the Defendants as to both of these counts. It=20 should be noted that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to=20 Count I of the 5th Amended Complaint, dated September 30, 2002, was=20 based on the complaint as it existed before the mutually agreed to=20 amendment of Count 1. In other words, the summary judgment motion as to=20 Count I was based on the same pleading that the Defendant now claims,=20 and claimed in its motion for summary judgment, is a sham pleading. The=20 summary judgment was denied. The =93sham=94 allegation was reserved to th= is=20 Order. See Order Denying Defendants? Motion for Summary Judgment on=20 Wrongful Death Claim (Count 1), signed September 30, 2002. Further, this court has denied the motion for summary judgment as to=20 Count II of the complaint, the Intentional and Reckless Infliction of=20 Emotional Distress count. There is evidence sufficient to go to the jury = that Lisa McPherson was fed on by insects while she was alive and=20 conscious, and there may be other allegations in that count of the=20 complaint that the jury may also be permitted to consider. What the=20 court will not permit to go to the jury=97at least without further proof = being adduced either before or during trial, is that there were=20 cockroaches at the Church property where Lisa was being attended, that=20 bit and fed on her. Even though the Plaintiff has an expert, with=20 appropriate credentials, who would testify that the insect bites are=20 =93consistent with=94 cockroach feedings, this court has ruled that there= =20 are no underlying facts to support the Plaintiffs expert's testimony.=20 This court has also ruled that even if there were facts, the probative=20 value of that opinion is outweighed by the prejudicial value of it. See=20 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Exclude = Expert Testimony (Insect Testimony/Cockroach Bites), signed June 3, 2002.= A summary judgment was granted as to Count III of the complaint, the=20 False Imprisonment count. The Honorable Frank Quesada entered his Order=20 on June 20, 2001, when he was in Division 11 where this case is=20 assigned, prior to the time the undersigned took over Division 11. Judge = Quesada's Order does not say Count III was a sham pleading. And while=20 this court has entered an Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Rescind=20 Order of Summary Judgment on Count III, False Imprisonment Claim, dated=20 June 3, 2002, refusing to reconsider Judge Quesada=92s order, it should b= e=20 obvious to anyone reading this court's order that she would probably not = have ruled the same as Judge Quesada, but would allow the jury to decide = Count III, the False Imprisonment claim. She refused to reconsider Judge = Quesada=92s Order because she was unable to say that Judge Quesada was=20 =93clearly ~ the standard she believed would be necessary to reconsider=20 Judge Quesada=92s Order. There is presently under consideration a Motion for Summary Judgment of=20 Count IV, the Battery count. This court has reviewed the motion and the=20 response thereto, and finds that the resolution of that motion will have = no bearing on this Order. It is noted, however, the Church does not=20 allege, in their Motion that Count IV is a =93sham pleading.=94 And this = court finds it is not. As previously noted, this court has previously=20 denied the Church=92s Motion for Summary Judgment of Count V. See this=20 court's Amended Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of = Negligence Survival Claim (Count V), dated September 30, 2002. The Church in its Omnibus Motion calls the Plaintiffs complaint a sham=20 pleading=94 and yet, most of it has survived requested summary judgments.= =20 So how can it be a sham pleading? The real graveman of the Defendants=92 = =93sham pleading=94 allegation is that the Plaintiff alleged in Count I, = 34=20 of Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Complaint that the =93Defendants..=20 =2Eintentionally.. .decided to let Lisa McPherson die (i.e. =91end cycle = in=20 Scientology terms), rather than save her life... .This decision made by=20 Scientology, through the Sea Org by David Miscavige, and carried out by=20 Kartuzinski, Johnson, and Houghton, was only due to their desire to=20 protect Scientology from bad public relations.=94 In the Order denying summary judgment on Count I, this court said there=20 was evidence from which the jury could decide that the Defendants=20 Kartuzinski and Johnson intentionally decided to let Lisa McPherson die, = or that they intentionally neglected to obtain medical care for Lisa=20 McPherson, a disabled adult. That analysis will not be repeated here,=20 but I refer the parties to that order for this court's entire analysis. In the order denying summary judgment on Count I, this court also held=20 that the Plaintiff did not have to prove motive, which is what that part = of 34 is that says that the decision =93was only due to their desire to=20 protect Scientology from bad public relations.=94 Order Denying=20 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Wrongful Death Claim (Count=20 I), pp. 3, 14. As to whether or not Count I is a sham pleading, however, = this needs to be addressed briefly. In summary, while this court has=20 often expressed her personal doubt as to this motive, there was=20 sufficient testimony presented by the Plaintiff at the Omnibus Hearing=20 that the Church's failure to seek necessary medical treatment for Lisa=20 McPherson was due to their desire to protect the Church from bad=20 publicity. If indeed this were their motive, it would seem that they=20 failed. While not required to prove any motive, the Plaintiff can=20 explore this at trial if they wish. This is not a sham allegation. That leaves us with that part of 34 that talks about David Miscavige=20 (=93Miscavige=94), the highest ecclesiastical leader of all of Scientolog= y.=20 Are there any facts=97proof=97that Mr. Miscavige decided to let Lisa=20 McPherson die? The answer in a word is =93NO.=94 There was evidence=20 presented at the Omnibus Hearing, beyond Jesse Prince=92s Affidavit and=20 testimony, that Miscavige would or should have known that Lisa McPherson = was at the Church, if she were undergoing an Introspection Rundown, and=20 that he would or should have been kept informed. See, for example,=20 testimony of William Franks: Q. (by the Court): Two things: One is, is it your opinion, based on = your knowledge of the Scientology=97what shall I say? Organization=97that= =20 this person, [Lisa McPherson] who was PTS III, in the introspection=20 rundown, that this would have been reported to the top; to Mr. Miscavige?= A: Without a doubt. Omnibus Hearing (=93O.H.=94), Franks, June 13, 2002, p. 150. Q. (by Dandar): Based upon what you know about David Miscavige when = you worked with him until 1981, and knowing that he=92s now chairman of=20 the board [of RTC], can you tell us, based upon your personal=20 experience, if he would have been involved from day one in knowing about = Lisa McPherson at the property of the Church of Scientology? A. He would have been all over this like white on rice. O.H., Franks, Id., pp. 190-191. There was testimony from witnesses other than Franks, which also=20 supports this. There is also evidence that the Senior Case Supervisor, mt., Mr. Ray=20 Mithoff, would or should have known, and been kept informed, and that=20 the head of the Office of Special Affairs, Int., Mr. Mike Rinder, would=20 or should have known, and been kept informed. If they were not advised=20 and kept informed, the reason could be because Mr. Kartuzinski or Debbie = Cook (the Commanding Officer at Flag during Lisa=92s 18-day stay) did not= =20 do what they were supposed to do, or that Lisa McPherson was not=20 undergoing an Introspection Rundown while at the Church, which is what=20 the Plaintiff has now decided (and is an issue still to be resolved as=20 to whether or not the pleadings are such that she can pursue this). But=20 regardless of whether Mr. Miscavige knew that Lisa McPherson was at the=20 Church, undergoing an Introspection Rundown (which he has said in a=20 brief affidavit prepared for another hearing, but also filed as an=20 Exhibit in the Omnibus Hearing, that he did not know), that is a far cry = from his having =93decided to let Lisa McPherson die=94 and instructing M= r.=20 Kartuzinski and Ms. Johnson to carry out his decision. How did this allegation get added to the Fifth Amended Complaint? It is=20 necessary to go back to Plaintiffs Motion to File Amended Complaint to=20 Allege Claims for Punitive Damages and Motion to Add Party Defendants,=20 which the Plaintiff served on September 7, 1999. In that Motion, the=20 Plaintiff sought to add as Defendants the =93Church of Scientology=20 International, Inc. (=93CSI=94), Religious Technology Center, Inc. (=93RT= C=94),=20 David Miscavige, Marty Rathbun and Ray Mithoff.=94 In the Complaint=20 attached to the Motion, this is the first time the =93end cycle=94=20 designation appeared, and the first time that the statement =93decided to= =20 let Lisa McPherson die=94 appeared. In this motion, the allegation read, = the decision was made by =93RTC, CSI, Miscavige, Mithoff, and Rathbun=94 = and=20 carried out by the other individual Defendants. This Motion to add=20 parties was denied in an Order by Judge Moody dated October 22, 1999,=20 finding that =93the Plaintiff has entered into a binding agreement that=20 prevents the addition of the corporate parties Plaintiff seeks to add by = this Motion.=94 The basis of the new information of =93end cycle,=94 and =93decided to le= t=20 Lisa McPherson die=94 was principally an affidavit signed by Jesse Prince= =20 (=93Prince=94) on August 20, 1999. I say principally, because there were = other affidavits attached to the motion to add parties, although they=20 were about the chain of command rather than the =93decision to let Lisa=20 McPherson die.=94 Stacy Brooks admitted at the Omnibus Hearing that she=20 encouraged Mr. Prince in his opinions, and even helped him to get him in = the =93proper frame of mind=94 for writing his affidavit. She now says th= e=20 information in Prince=92s affidavit about Miscavige, Rathbun and Mithoff = deciding to let McPherson die is false, but admitted at the hearing that = the idea came from her. Q. (By the Court): I=92m sorry? A. I said no, but the idea came from me. Q. What idea? A. The idea that they would have let her die to avoid = a PR flap. 0. H., Brooks, May 3, 2002, pp. 81-82. While there were other affidavits giving support to the fact that Mr.=20 Miscavige and others would have known about Lisa McPherson, and would=20 have been in charge of decisions regarding her, no other affidavit but=20 Mr. Prince's suggests that the decision they made and communicated =93dow= n=20 line=94 to Mr. Kartuzinski, was to let Lisa McPherson die. There was no=20 testimony at the hearing, except Mr. Prince~ s, which supported this=20 either. Ms. Brooks admits she told Mr. Dandar, when she was his=20 consultant that =93this could have happened.=94 O.H., Brooks, Id., pp.=20 88-89. She said at the hearing, however, that she no longer believes this= =2E When the attempt to add parties failed because of an agreement not to=20 add corporate parties, the Plaintiff filed another motion to add David=20 Miscavige as head of the Sea Org. an entity within Scientology, but not=20 one included in the agreement. This motion to amend was granted by Judge = Moody, after opposition by the Church, and Miscavige. Thus, we have the=20 Fifth Amended Complaint served December 21, 1999, which is the subject=20 of the Omnibus Motion. Now there is no mention of RTC, CSI, Mithoff and=20 Rathbun making this =93decision=94, but only Miscavige, as head of the Se= a Org. Soon after David Miscavige was added, a Motion to dismiss him for lack=20 of proper service was granted, and from that point on, he was and is no=20 longer a party to this lawsuit. Why the Church did not simply file a=20 motion to strike the offending language at that point in time, or some=20 later point in time, especially after Prince=92s deposition, when it must= =20 have been obvious that Mr. Prince had no facts upon which to base his=20 opinion, is unknown. Rather, they decide to attack the entire complaint, = and particularly Count I of the complaint, saying because there is no=20 proof that David Miscavige decided to let Lisa McPherson die, the entire = complaint, or Count I of the complaint, is a sham and should be=20 dismissed. I cannot agree that the entire complaint is a sham because=20 one allegation cannot be proved. I do agree with the Church that neither = Jesse Prince, nor any other witness for the Estate, has any admissible=20 proof that David Miscavige made any decision to let Lisa McPherson die. It is probable that the Plaintiff, Mr. Dandar, Jesse Prince, and perhaps = others, disagree with me that there is no admissible proof that=20 Miscavige decided to let Lisa McPherson die. The Plaintiff will say,=20 just as they did with the =93cockroach testimony=94, that if you have an = expert with an opinion, that is the proof. The problem with that is that = there has to be some facts to support the opinion before the opinion can = come into evidence. I find there are no facts to support Prince=92s=20 opinion, and thus, the opinion cannot come in before the jury, unless=20 facts are developed prior to the trial. It is the Plaintiffs prerogative = to disagree with this court's legal analysis that her expert's opinion=20 is admissible, just as it is the prerogative of the Church to disagree=20 with my legal determination that the inclusion of the offensive language = does not require an otherwise viable complaint to be dismissed. That is=20 why we have appellate courts. However, I find and conclude that this=20 allegation, no matter how offensive to the Church, its parishioners, and = Mr. Miscavige, which I have now found is without proof in the record,=20 included within an 18-page complaint does not make the 5th Amended=20 Complaint, or Count I, even before it was recently amended by agreement, = a =93sham,=94 a =93mere pretense,=94 or one which =93perpetrated a fraud = on the=20 court which permeates the entire proceedings.=94 Motion, p. 3.=20 Accordingly, neither Count 1 nor the entire complaint will be dismissed. While I have ruled that neither the complaint nor Count I is a sham,=20 which should cause the entire complaint, or Count I to be dismissed,=20 this is not to suggest that I condone the Estate=92s amending their=20 complaint, without proof, to state that David Miscavige, the=20 ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology, decided to let Lisa=20 McPherson die and passed this information down line to subordinates who=20 let it happen. Mr. Prince should have been grilled by Mr. Dandar to make = sure his opinion was backed up with facts that could be proved before he = ever suggested to his client that the complaint should be amended to=20 include this allegation. If he had done that, perhaps he would have=20 concluded, as I have, that there are no underlying facts to support=20 Prince~ s opinion. Without facts, the opinion is inadmissible, as a=20 matter of law. Furthermore, in light of this Order, Mr. Dandar should=20 stop using or stating this allegation unless it is necessary to preserve = some appellate review. The complaint has now been amended by the=20 Plaintiff. It no longer includes any allegation that David Miscavige=20 decided to let Lisa McPherson die. This court has now stated in this=20 Order there are no facts to support this allegation. It's time for the=20 Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs counsel to stop saying this. At the time the complaint was amended, I find that Dandar not only had=20 the opinion of his consultant/expert, Jesse Prince, that Mr. Miscavige=20 and others may have decided to let Lisa die, but also the same opinion=20 of his consultant, Stacy Brooks, and to some extent, his consultant=20 Vaughn Young. Brooks changed her opinion at the Omnibus Hearing, and=20 Young's testimony at the Omnibus Hearing provided no facts to prove=20 this. Prince's testimony at the Omnibus Hearing is that he still=20 believes he has a good faith basis for his opinion. I disagree with Mr.=20 Prince, and have previously told all counsel that I would not allow=20 Jesse Prince to give this opinion at the wrongful death trial, as I do=20 not believe there are any admissible facts to support his opinion. Based = on this court's previous discussions with all counsel, the wrongful=20 death complaint has now been amended to omit this language. It could=20 have been done a lot sooner if a motion to strike had been filed by the=20 Church. But, nonetheless, Dandar relied on his experts/consultants, as=20 he had a right to do, in amending the complaint. No disqualification of=20 Dandar can come from this. The Church has filed a counterclaim for abuse of process, and at the=20 time of that trial, which has been severed from the wrongful death=20 trial, this entire issue can be explored by both sides, at which time=20 testimony will be allowed by Mr. Prince, Mr. Dandar, and others to=20 decide the Estate=92s motive as to why the complaint was amended to=20 include this allegation. At that time, a jury, not this court, will=20 decide whether there was an abuse of process, part of which will include = this issue, in the trial of the counterclaim. In summary, the cause and manner of the death of Lisa McPherson is=20 legitimately an issue that needs to be decided by a jury. There is=20 legitimate, admissible evidence that will be submitted to that jury=20 which could cause the jury to find for the Plaintiff, and they could=20 award both compensatory, and punitive damages to the Estate. There is=20 legitimate, admissible evidence that will be submitted to the jury,=20 which could cause the jury to find for the Defendants, and award no=20 damages to the Estate. If this were a sham pleading, there would be no=20 case to present to the jury, and as previously stated, this court has=20 previously denied a summary judgment as to Count I of the complaint,=20 before it was amended. The complaint is not a sham. Count I of the=20 complaint is not a sham. The inclusion of the offending language in=20 Count I may or may not constitute an abuse of process. If so, a jury=20 will award damages to the Church at the trial of the counterclaim. If=20 not, the jury will find for the Estate on this aspect of the counterclaim= =2E ISSUE II PERJURY/SUBORNATION OF PERJURY There are five allegations made in the Omnibus Motion by the Defendants=20 that I will address in this Order. (1) Did Mr. Minton or Mr. Dandar lie=20 about whether the money Dandar received from Minton was a donation/loan=20 to the Estate, to be used only for costs associated with this lawsuit,=20 or whether it was a personal loan/donation to Dandar to be used for any=20 purpose he chose, including, but not limited to costs associated with=20 this lawsuit? A related allegation which the Church tried to raise in=20 the Omnibus Hearing, and which was raised in the hearing before Judge=20 Baird, is if it was a donation/loan to the Estate, did Mr. Dandar=20 co-mingle the money with his own, rather than by putting it in his trust = account? (2) Did Mr. Minton lie in a deposition about how much money he=20 provided to Mr. Dandar, and if he did, did he do so because Mr. Dandar=20 told him to lie? (3) Was there an =93agreement=94 between the Estate and = Mr.=20 Minton that the Estate would give the =93bulk=94 of any proceeds it may=20 recover to an anti-cult organization controlled by Mr. Minton, and when=20 the Church made this an issue, did Mr. Minton, Ms. Liebreich, and Mr.=20 Dandar lie about it in depositions and affidavits? If Mr. Minton did=20 lie, was it because Mr. Dandar told him to lie? (4) Did Mr. Minton=20 control/interfere with the wrongful death case through his investment=94?= =20 If so, did Mr. Dandar tell Mr. Minton to lie about it? This allegation=20 includes the =93secret meeting=94 about adding Mr. Miscavige as a Defenda= nt=20 to the wrongful death case that Mr. Minton says he lied about at Mr.=20 Dandar=92s request. (5) Did Mr. Dandar have anything to do with the many = discovery violations of Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks and LMT, including the=20 destruction/removal of various records, computer hard drives,=20 videotapes, etc. that were ordered to be produced for the Church=92s use = in this case? THE LOANS/DONATIONS TO THE ESTATE/DANDAR As to the first issue=97the Minton money, and whether it was a loan, or a= =20 donation to the Estate, or to Dandar personally, this court would not=20 allow this issue to be completely explored at the Omnibus Hearing for=20 several reasons. The first and foremost one is that the Second District=20 Court of Appeal has ruled on three occasions that the Church is not=20 entitled to pursue the amount of money Dandar/the Estate has received or = has remaining from Minton or any one else as it is irrelevant to the=20 wrongful death case, and the breach of contract/tortious interference=20 action. Liebreich v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization,=20 mc, 813 So 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Liebreich v. Church of=20 Scientology Flag Service Organization Inc., 815 So 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA=20 2002); Liebreich v. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization,=20 Inc., 816 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The district court cautioned=20 that continuous inquiry by the Church into the amount of money=20 Dandar/the Estate had left to take this case to trial would lead them to = conclude that the Church was simply trying to find out how =93long the=20 Estate can last before it has to throw in the towel due to lack of=20 funds.=94 Liebreich, @ 1034; Liebreich, @ 679. The Second District said i= t=20 would cause irreparable harm to the Estate to permit this type of=20 discovery to go forward. If the monies received by either the Estate or Dandar from Minton are=20 irrelevant to the wrongful death case, as determined by the Second=20 District, there can be no perjury or subornation of perjury regarding=20 Dandar or Minton's testimony about their ownership or purpose. That is=20 so because perjury involves something =93material=94 to a case. While Jud= ge=20 Baird allowed this issue to be pursued in his hearing to disqualify=20 Dandar, as the opinion from the Second District regarding this issue in=20 his case had not been issued at the time of his hearing, this court felt = it would have been impossible to allow the Church to pursue this at the=20 Omnibus Hearing without allowing them to trace the money in and out of=20 Dandar=92s trust and personal accounts. If I had permitted that inquiry, = the Church would have found out how much money was left to pursue the=20 wrongful death trial. This is what the Second District said the Church=20 should not be permitted to do, as it would cause the Estate irreparable=20 injury. Therefore, while the inquiry as to whether this money belongs to the=20 Estate or to Dandar may be relevant to the breach of contract case,=20 where the Plaintiff is RTC, who has a judgment against the Estate, and=20 Dandar, or to the probate case, where the judge will have to determine=20 if the Estate has money to pay its creditors, this court agrees with the = Second District---the Minton money has absolutely no relevance to the=20 wrongful death trial. The only person who can get a judgment in the=20 wrongful death case is the Estate=97the Plaintiff The Defendant may be=20 able to get a judgment against the Estate in its counterclaim for abuse=20 of process, but this court has stayed the counterclaim indefinitely=20 until the wrongful death case is completed. Mr. Dandar is not a party to = the counterclaim. Thus, while it may be of interest to the Florida Bar, to Mr. Minton, to=20 RTC, or even to the personal representative of the Estate, as to how Mr. = Dandar handled and/or spent Minton's money it should not be of interest=20 to the Defendants in the wrongful death case. This court has cautioned=20 the Church not to violate the opinions of the Second District, and a=20 full hearing on this issue at the Omnibus Hearing would have caused both = this court and the Church to violate those opinions. For all of the above reasons, I did not permit the Defendants to pursue=20 this issue fully at the Omnibus Hearing. See, for example, O.H., Dandar, = June 4, 2002, pp. 345-346. Because I did not permit it to be fully=20 pursued, I make no findings regarding this issue, except to reiterate=20 what the Second District has said on more than one occasion -- that the=20 issue is irrelevant to the wrongful death case, and the Church should=20 stop any effort to pursue the amount of money the Estate/Dandar has to=20 take the wrongful death case to trial. THE $500,000 UBS CHECK As to the second issue, the $500,000 check, the same rationale as=20 discussed above is probably appropriate. Where the $500,000 came from,=20 whether it was from Mr. Minton or someone else, it is absolutely=20 irrelevant to any issue in the wrongful death case. The further issue as = to whether Mr. Dandar knew it came from Mr. Minton, and told him to lie=20 about it and not tell the Church about this particular $500,000 check,=20 is similarly irrelevant, and thus immaterial to any issues in the=20 wrongful death case. The jury in the wrongful death trial will not be=20 told who financed the Plaintiffs case, or how much that financing was.=20 Since this $500,000 check is not material to any issue to be tried in=20 the wrongful death case, Mr. Minton could not be charged with perjury=20 for his deposition testimony, and Mr. Dandar could not be charged with=20 suborning perjury regarding Minton's deposition testimony about this=20 check. Of course, lying or suborning lying would be a Code of=20 Professional Responsibility (the =93Code=94) violation whether it is perj= ury=20 or not. But, it is doubtful these Defendants have any standing to pursue = disqualification regarding this alleged Code violation, or standing to=20 pursue the appearance of impropriety to have Dandar removed regarding=20 this alleged violation. This will be more thoroughly discussed later=20 under Issue III of this order. Since the =93cat was out of the bag=94 since Mr. Minton had provided the = Church all information regarding his funding of this case, including=20 copies of all checks he provided, including the May 1, 2000 $500,000=20 check in question, and since it was pursued in the Omnibus hearing with=20 Dandar=92s agreement, this court will discuss it. Note that this court=20 will not discuss the March 7, 2002, $250,000 check much in this order.=20 The reason for this is because there is no allegation that Mr. Minton or = anyone else gave false testimony about this check prior to these=20 hearings in front of Judge Baird and me. Everyone admitted at the=20 Omnibus hearing that this check was only relevant to the credibility of=20 Minton and Dandar as to the $500,000 check given in May, 2000. Some things are not in dispute about the $500,000 check. Mr. Minton gave = it to Mr. Dandar soon after May 1, 2000, the date on the check, at the=20 Bombay Bicycle Club in Clearwater, Florida. This check was not written=20 on any account of Mr. Minton's and his name appeared nowhere on the=20 check to identify it as coming from him. It could not have been traced=20 to him, as the Union Bank of Switzerland, apparently as is the custom of = many Swiss banks, would not have identified the bank, which was the=20 source of the money. This court would have no jurisdiction over the=20 Union Bank of Switzerland, or any other Swiss bank, and could not have=20 compelled them to tell us the source of the money. The check was a bank=20 check from the Union Bank of Switzerland, (=93UBS=94 check), and was draw= n=20 on UBS=92 account at the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. The check was = payable to Ken Dandar. Here, the matters that are not in dispute end. According to Minton, he does not have an account at the Union Bank of=20 Switzerland, but has an account in another offshore bank, presumably in=20 Switzerland, which he refuses to identify. This unknown bank (Minton=20 claimed the Fifth Amendment every time he was asked to identify the=20 bank) transferred Minton's funds to the Union Bank of Switzerland, who=20 then transferred the funds to its bank in New York, Chase Manhattan=20 Bank, who then issued the bank check payable to Ken Dandar. Dandar says in the Estate=92s closing argument that since Minton refuses = to identify the bank, there is no proof that the money is actually from=20 Minton, and that further, since he claimed the Fifth Amendment, his=20 entire testimony should be stricken. Dandar may be right about striking=20 all of Minton=92s testimony, but since it doesn't prejudice the Estate, a= s=20 I am ruling for the Estate in this Order, I will continue and not strike = Minton's testimony. Perhaps my analysis will be of assistance to the=20 Florida Bar or the State Attorney. If this Order is appealed, a=20 reviewing court, should they feel this court erred in her findings=20 regarding this issue, should consider whether Minton's entire testimony=20 should be stricken. The real dispute is that Minton says he told Dandar at the Bombay=20 Bicycle Club that the money was from him, whereas Dandar says Minton=20 told him the money came from anonymous =93friends in Europe=94. Mr. Danda= r=20 says that he knew Minton had friends in Europe who were interested in=20 the case, and he assumed they wished to remain anonymous because they=20 were afraid of the Church and what they would do to him/her/them if the=20 Church found out that they were assisting the Estate. O.H., Dandar, May=20 30, 2002, pp.311,323. At his deposition on May 24, 2000, Minton was asked how much money he=20 had given Dandar to date, and he testified that he had given Dandar=20 $1,050,000 to date. If he in fact is the payor of the $500,000 to=20 Dandar, he had actually given $1,550,000 to Dandar. Dandar also=20 testified in his deposition on January 25, 2001 taken in the breach case = that Minton had given him $1,050,000. Minton now says he lied in his=20 deposition and Dandar lied also. Dandar says he did not. The reason=20 Minton says he lied is that Mr. Dandar told him to lie regarding both=20 his testimony at the deposition, and further told him not to produce=20 this check pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. Minton says Dandar told=20 him to =93concentrate on the checks you have written, you know personal=20 checks. You know, your name is not on this check, you know, don't even=20 mention it.=94 O.H., Minton, May 22, 2002, p. 708. When this court asked = Mr. Minton soon thereafter if I understood him correctly about why he=20 lied under oath at his deposition, he said, Q. And your testimony to this Court, I guess, if I understand you,=20 is that the only reason why you did this is---the only reason why you=20 lied here again under oath is because Mr. Dandar asked you to? A. That is correct, your Honor. O.H., Minton, Id., p.709. If Dandar is telling the truth that Minton told him the money was from=20 =93friends in Europe=94, then Dandar wouldn=92t have known that Minton li= ed at=20 his deposition, since he wouldn=92t have known the money came from Minton= =2E=20 If Minton told Dandar it was from anonymous friends in Europe, Minton's=20 deposition testimony that he had given him $1,050,000 simply confirmed=20 what Ivlinton had told him---Minton's personal checks totaling=20 $1,050,000 came from him, and the UBS check of $500,000 did not, but=20 rather came from sources in Europe who didn't want to be known. As to=20 Dandar's deposition, he would have been merely stating the amount of=20 money that he believed Minton had paid him to date. While Dandar may=20 have been na=EFve, that doesn't make him a liar. Why does Minton say he gave Dandar an unidentifiable UBS check instead=20 of a personal check, which would clearly show it was from Minton's=20 personal account? Mr. Dandar again. =93Well, Mr. Dandar said he wanted to= =20 be able to hide the amount of money he had from Scientology to take this = case to trial. And that was one of the reasons. The second reason was=20 that he wanted to cut back on. the payments that he was making to some=20 of his employees. And he mentioned Dr. Garko and Thom (sic) Haverty by=20 name.=94 O.H., Minton, May 22, p. 668. A third reason Minton finally=20 propounded at the very end of his testimony was that Dandar didn't want=20 the funds to be traced back to Minton. He says =93[A]nd that the funds=20 couldn't be traced back to me.. .for the purpose of, you know, appearing = to be=97me less involved, distant=97more distant from the case.=94 O.H., = Minton, May 30, 2002, p. 1866. It is true that Dandar stopped paying Dr. Garko, (it is unknown about=20 Haverty, since he was never called as a witness in front of Judge Baird=20 or in front of me) indicating he didn=92t have the money to do so, but he= =20 didn=92t stop his payments to Garko until September 2001. O.H., Garko,=20 August 29, 2002, pp. 100-101. This is some 16 months after the May, 2000 = payment. Further, when Garko and Dandar went to New Hampshire in=20 February, 2002 to try to get more money for the litigation, Minton told=20 both Dandar and Garko that he had no more money for the case but perhaps = he knew some =93people/friends in Europe=94 who could help out. O.H., Gar= ko,=20 August 29, 2002, p. 80; O.H., Dandar, June 4, 2002, p. 305. Note that=20 Dandar says that in addition to saying =93friends in Europe=94, he said, = =93we=92ll call him Fat Man=94. This is where the =93Fat Man=94 designation for the $250,000 keeps being = used, but it was proceeded by =93friends in Europe=94, according to Danda= r.=20 Dr. Garko remembers he said =93people in Europe=94 (p. 80), and when aske= d=20 about the =93Fat Man=94, said he remembers some =93statements about=20 alternative sources and some European source for money.=94 Q. O.K. And do you remember me asking Bob, =93Well who would that be= ?=94 A. I do recall that. Q. And do you remember Bob Minton saying, =93Well, let's call him th= e=20 =91Fat Man'?=94 A. Or some such name. O.H., Garko, June 11, 2002, pp. 112-113. Minton agrees that he used the term =93friends in Europe=94, in New=20 Hampshire, but says that the reason he talked like the money wasn=92t=20 coming from him at that meeting was once again because Dandar asked him=20 to=97not wanting Garko to know he would be the source of the money. That = explanation makes no sense, since as far as Garko was concerned, money=20 was money, and would have been available to pay him=97whether it came fro= m=20 Minton or =93people in Europe.=94 And, of course, if Dandar really didn=92= t=20 want Garko to know about any money he was receiving, regardless of the=20 source, Dandar wouldn=92t have asked Minton if he could bring Garko with = him, but would have left him in Tampa, and there would have been no=20 reason for the supposed =93charade=94 in which Minton says he engaged in = New=20 Hampshire, because Dandar wanted him to. Who is telling the truth here? The easy way out is to say you can=92t=20 tell, and the Church, therefore, fails in their burden of proof.=20 However, Minton has accused Dandar, a member of the Florida Bar, of=20 perjury and suborning perjury. It would seem to be my duty, both as a=20 trial judge in this case and as a proud member of the Florida Bar, to=20 decide who's telling the truth and who is not, if I can. Why would Dandar have wanted Minton to lie about the $500,000 UBS check=20 at his May 2000 deposition? Do Minton's reasons Dandar supposedly gave=20 make any sense? The third reason given was so Scientology couldn=92t trac= e=20 the funds back to Minton, so it would appear he was =93less involved.=94 = Minton testified in his May, 2000 deposition that he had given=20 $1,050,000 to Dandar for the case. Quite franldy, the difference in=20 Minton's telling the Church that he gave Dandar $1,050,000 and=20 $1,550,000 is fairly unimportant=97either is a huge sum of money, and=20 would certainly raise the eyebrows of the Church, which it did from the=20 deposition on. Both Dandar and Minton would have known this. This reason = makes no sense. What about Dandar committing perjury and suborning perjury to avoid his=20 employees knowing about the money? Please!! Supposedly, Dandar indicated = he needed this money to take the case through trial, which at that time=20 was set for June, 2000. He could have explained this to his employees.=20 Further, he paid Dr. Garko in full through September 2001, 16 months=20 after May 2000. In fact, Dr. Garko more or less confirms what Dandar=20 says which is that he doesn=92t generally discuss money matters with his = employees. When asked about the Minton checks Dandar had discussed with=20 him, Garko says he didn=92t tell him about any money he received from=20 Minton in 1998, he has no recollection of Dandar telling him anything=20 about Minton money in 1999, he says Dandar did tell him about getting=20 money from Minton in 2000 before the May, 2000 check which he did not=20 tell him about, but he really doesn=92t remember how many checks he told = him about in 2000. As to 2001, he says Dandar =93may have=94 told him abo= ut=20 checks he got from Minton in 2001, but doesn=92t really remember, and he = was not told about the $250,000 check in 2002, which came in March, and=20 which he learned about on April 9, 2002 when co-counsel for the Estate,=20 and counsel for Dandar, Luke Lirot, told him and Dandar about the=20 substance of Minton's April 9 testimony. Dandar and Garko were not at=20 this hearing as they were in a trial in Tampa on April 9, the date of=20 the first hearing where anything was mentioned about the $500,000 and=20 $250,000 checks. O.H., Garko, August 29, 2002, pp. 99, 115-117.=20 Certainly no attorney is under any obligation to tell his employees,=20 including trial consultants, about what money he/she is receiving from=20 any source. And whether or not Dandar had money to pay Garko after=20 September, 2001 and did not do so is not our business. That is between=20 Garko and Dandar. But certainly no attorney would tell someone to lie=20 under oath because he didn=92t want to have to pay an employee 16 months = after he allegedly suborned perjury. Surely a license to practice one=92s= =20 chosen profession, to say nothing of going to jail, is worth more than=20 committing perjury and suborning perjury to stiff an employee. And what about the first reason Minton gives that was Dandar=92s reason=20 for asking him to lie, that he didn=92t want Scientology to know he had=20 the money? When the court was permitting continued discovery regarding=20 his/the Estate=92s money, and Dandar thought the court was wrong, he knew= =20 what to do, he took certiorari to the Second District Court of Appeal=20 who said Dandar was right, and the Church didn=92t get to know any more=20 about Minton=92s money. He probably could have stopped them from asking=20 any questions about it if he had wanted to. He didn't need to suborn=20 perjury to keep Scientology from knowing about his/Estate's money. That=20 would be a ridiculous reason to suborn perjury. I have no doubt that=20 Dandar didn=92t want the Church to know how much money he had to conclude= =20 the case. But to commit perjury, suborn perjury, lose one=92s license to = practice law, to say nothing of going to jail, to keep the Church from=20 knowing how much money he had to pursue a case to trial is ludicrous.=20 Dandar handled this like a lawyer. He got the Second District to tell=20 the Church they were out of line in pursuing the Estate=92s/Dandar=92s fu= nds=20 for this case. Why would Mr. Minton want to tell Ken Dandar the $500,000 UBS check came = from =93friends in Europe=94, the =93Fat Man=94, or anyone other than him= self,=20 and lie about it when asked in deposition about monies he had given to=20 Dandar? The long answer as it developed in the Omnibus Hearing is=20 obvious: =93For the love of money is the root of all evil....=94 The Bibl= e,=20 Timothy 6:10. The short answer is =93Income Tax=94. Robert Minton, withou= t=20 doubt, will lie and cheat when it comes to his money. What is clear to=20 anyone who attended the Omnibus Hearing is that Minton has cheated the=20 United States government in the amount of income taxes he has paid them. = He claimed the Fifth Amendment over and over when it came to identifying = from where=97what bank=97this $500,000, and all other foreign moneyihe ha= d=20 brought into this country during the relevant time period, came. He=20 would not supply his tax returns, claiming the Fifth Amendment. When=20 asked whether he had checked =93yes=94 in the box on Schedule B of his=20 income tax returns which asks, =93At any time during (the taxable year), = did you have an interest in or a signature or other authority over a=20 financial account in a foreign country, such as a bank account,=20 securities account, or other financial account?=94 he claimed the Fifth=20 Amendment. When asked since he had foreign income, and a foreign bank=20 account(s), if he supplied the required form TD F 90-22.1 to the U.S.=20 Department of Treasury to show foreign bank accounts, amounts, and much=20 more, which form is mandatory, he claimed the Fifth Amendment. This form = says the =93principal purpose for collecting this information is to assur= e=20 maintenance of reports where such reports or records have a high degree=20 of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory investigations or=20 proceedings.=94 It also says, =93Disclosure of this information is=20 mandatory. Civil and criminal penalties, including in certain=20 circumstances a fine of not more than $500,000, and imprisonment of not=20 more than five years, are provided for failure to file a report, supply=20 information, and for filing a false or fraudulent report.=94 When asked i= f=20 he reported this $500,000, and other monies to be discussed, which he=20 brought into this country from foreign countries, on his income tax=20 return at any time, he claimed the Fifth Amendment. He claimed the Fifth = Amendment as to these same matters in at least two depositions, one on=20 September 18, 2001, and one on October 11 and 12, 2001. It doesn=92t take a genius to figure out what=92s going on here. Mr. Mint= on=20 was required to pay taxes on the millions (perhaps as much as a billion) = of dollars either when he made the money, or if he was able to legally=20 defer those taxes, when he brings the money into the United States.=20 Income tax evasion brings huge monetary penalties, to say nothing of=20 incarceration. Mr. Minton had some real reasons not to want to disclose=20 a foreign bank account to the Church, who he believed would stop at very = little to stop his financing of the Lisa McPherson case. The $500,000=20 UBS check was the first foreign check he had used to give to Mr. Dandar. = The Church was asking questions, and the court was requiring him to give = them answers. Mr. Dandar was not Minton's attorney. He could not=20 disclose to Dandar that this foreign money came from him or he would=20 have had to tell the Church about it. It was much better for him to tell = Dandar the money came from =93friends in Europe=94 and thus never disclos= e=20 this money as coming from him to the Church. This is a real reason for=20 Minton to lie about this $500,000 foreign check! Let=92s talk about foreign money that we know came into LMT from Bob=20 Minton. First, a $300,000 check from =93Operation Clambake=94 and second,= a=20 $500,000 wire transfer from Switzerland. Both the check and wire=20 transfer were from offshore banks. The money for the $300,000 was=20 another UBS check, and the $500,000 was a wire transfer from Dresdner=20 Bank New York by order of Dresdner Bank Switzerland. Dresdner Bank was=20 not the source of the funds either. In any event, both the check and=20 wire transfer were matters about which Mr. Minton lied in depositions,=20 including one taken on April 8, after he was supposed to =93set the recor= d=20 straight.=94 He didn=92t correct any testimony to reflect that he was the= =20 source of this money in front of Judge Baird, or on his first or second=20 recantation affidavits filed before me or Judge Baird, until he was=20 caught in the Omnibus Hearing in his lie. See O.H., Minton, May 21,=20 2002, pp. 444-446. In fact, he lied in front of Judge Baird when he said = his testimony in his April 8, 2002 deposition had been the truth. Minton = never tried to pretend that Dandar had anything to do with these lies of = his under oath. The reason he lied, however, is the same: Income Tax. Stacy Brooks was deposed for the second time by Mr. Moxin, who was=20 representing the Church, on August 15, 2001. In that deposition she=20 disclosed two things that, according to some, made Mr. Minton upset. She = told Mr. Moxin that LMT had received a check from =93Operation Clambake=94= =20 for $300,000 in April, 2001. Operation Clambake is an anti-Scientology=20 web site, run by Andreas Heldal-Lund from Norway. Regarding this check,=20 Ms. Brooks got an anonymous call from a man she didn=92t know who told he= r=20 this check was coming. She didn=92t know who had called (although she kne= w=20 Mr. Lund, so she knew it wasn=92t him). Mr. Minton allowed her to believe= =20 this money had come from Operation Clambake, although he knew that he=20 was the source of this money, and that it had been set up to come=20 through Operation Clambake through an elaborate ruse set up by John=20 Merrett, at the request of Mr. Minton. She also told Mr. Moxin about a=20 $500,000 wire transfer. The $500,000 wire transfer, according to Ms.=20 Brooks at her deposition, had shown up in the LMT account one day, and=20 had come from anonymous people in Europe. In fact, according to Ms.=20 Brooks, =93Mr. Minton spoke to some people in Europe and arranged for som= e=20 contributions.=94 Brooks deposition, August 15, 2001, p. 30, and the=20 reason he had arranged for these European people to make an anonymous=20 contribution was, because they were =93very afraid of Scientology finding= =20 out who they are. They are familiar with Scientology's harassment=20 policies and they didn=92t want to be known.=94 Brooks, Id., p. 30-3 1. W= hen=20 asked in the deposition about discussing these monies with Mr. Minton,=20 Ms. Brooks says about the $300,000, =93 Q. Did you ask Mr. Minton where this money came from? A. No. Q. Did you ask Mr. Minton why--- A. Mr. Minton didn=92t know anything about this. This didn=92t have = anything to do with him.=94 Q. The Operation Clambake check? A. Yeah. Brooks deposition, Id., pp. 39-40. When asked about the $500,000, she had this to say, Q. Did you ask Mr. Minton who had made these investments in the trus= t? A. Yes. Q. What did he tell you? A. He said that they had asked to remain anonymous and he had given = them his word. Brooks, Id., p. 42. It is of nominal interest that $650,000 of this money we now know came=20 from Mr. Minton was given to Minton by Ms. Brooks to repay a =93loan=94 h= e=20 had made to LMT=97no documents, of course, which is par for this case. Ms. Brooks was placed in charge of LMT by Minton and was Minton=92s=20 mistress, and yet he lied to her about money he was bringing into this=20 country from Europe. Why would he lie to her? Why did he continuously=20 lie about these monies in his own depositions? He doesn=92t even suggest = that Dandar told him to tell these lies. He tells us various things: 1. =93Well, the whole issue of getting money from other sources=20 besides me into the LMT was to try to get Scientology off on a wild=20 goose chase, basically thinking that it's either the German Government=20 or the French government who were supporting us. O.H., Minton, May 21, 2002, p.445. 2. =93[T]o keep Stacy Brooks out of the picture in terms of where an= y=20 monies were coming from other than what came in from me....=94 O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, p. 1052. This makes absolutely no sense. She was the supposed head-of the LMT,=20 and this check was from him, so he says. 3. =93Because we wanted to make sure that when she went into=20 depositions and had to answer any questions about this that she really=20 didn=92t know what the answers were other than what she was told.=94 O.H., Minton, Id., p. 1060. 4. Q. (by the Court) You lied to the woman that is your lover=97 A. Right. Q. =97 Your close=97the person that you=92re leaving your wife to be= with. A. You know, we did this to protect her. O.H., Minton, Id., p. 1062. He says he finally told Ms. Brooks that the $300,000 and the $500,000=20 was his money in late 2001 up in New Hampshire. O.H., Minton, Id., p.=20 1069. Of course, Ms. Brooks didn=92t correct her erroneous deposition=20 testimony in her recanting affidavit either, only at the Omnibus=20 Hearing. Perhaps she and Minton thought since this didn=92t involve Ken=20 Dandar, no one would ever ask, and Mr. Minton could continue to keep=20 this $800,000 of foreign money secret. Ms. Monique Yingling, the=20 Church=92s lawyer who specializes in tax and other matters, and who=20 represented the Church in the MintonlBrooks' negotiations, said, when=20 discussing why Mr. Minton told Ms. Yingling he didn=92t tell Stacy Brooks= =20 the truth that he was the source of these funds, =93[B]ecause they knew=20 that she would be asked about the source of the funds in the ongoing=20 discovery into the Lisa McPherson Trust, and so in order to protect her=20 and not put her in a position where she would have to lie or tell a=20 story that=97that they didn=92t want to become public, they--they did not= =20 tell her that.=94 O.H., Yingling, June 12, 2002, p. 110. This explanation= =20 makes sense. Minton didn=92t want the fact that the foreign money was fro= m=20 him known. He was willing to lie about it. And if Stacy knew, he would=20 have expected her to lie also. This is an interesting revelation. It=20 shows Minton has no regard for the truth and he assumes Brooks wouldn=92t= =20 either if he told her to lie. What did Mr. Minton tell his lawyer, Mr. John Merrett, who presumably=20 has an attorney client privilege not to have to reveal what Mr. Minton,=20 his client, tells him? Merrett was the attorney who represented Minton=20 at the May, 2000 deposition, and represented him at other depositions as = well where the Fifth Amendment was claimed. Minton says Mr. Merrett knew = all along that the $300,000 and $500,000 was from Mr. Minton, and agreed = with him that they should lie to Stacy about this. O.H., Minton, May 24, = 2000, pp. 1062-1066. He says Merrett lied in front of me when he said he = did not know this because he, too, like Mr. Dandar, knew Minton was=20 lying at his deposition, and that Stacy was telling things that were not = true at her deposition. O.H., Minton, Id., p. 1066. Is Mr. Merrett=20 another lawyer willing to lie, suborn perjury, and give up his license=20 to practice law for Mr. Minton? John Merrett testified at the Omnibus Hearing. He has been a lawyer in=20 good standing since 1988. He testified unequivocally that he never knew=20 that Minton was the source of the $300,000 or the $500,000 given to LMT, = and that Mr. Minton never told him anything about giving Dandar an extra = $500,000, but told him before his deposition in May, 2000, that he had=20 given Mr. Dandar $1,050,000 to date, which is exactly what Mr. Minton=20 testified to at his deposition. He says he has a policy that if a=20 deponent says something that is not true, he discusses it with him/her=20 at the first available time and gets them to correct the record. He says = he did not have to do this with Bob Minton at any deposition. (He says,=20 however, he did have to do this with Stacy Brooks at a deposition of=20 hers. Merrett, May 23, 2002, pp. 70, 72, 102). He says he did not have=20 to do this at Minton=92s deposition testimony because according to what=20 Mr. Minton had told him, Minton was telling the truth at his=20 depositions. We now know Minton was lying at his depositions, but=20 apparently this was unknown to his own lawyer. Merrett says he arranged with an anonymous source, who he called, and=20 who they arranged to identify as the =93Fat Man=94, to arrange for Mr. Lu= nd=20 to transfer money that he would receive via a transfer from friends of=20 Mr. Minton in Europe who wanted to contribute to LMT, but that for=20 =93obvious reasons=94 did not want Scientology to know who they were. Thi= s=20 same person=97Fat Man=97called Stacy Brooks to tell her the money was=20 coming. The plan went as expected and the money was delivered except it=20 was late, because Mr. Lund was suspicious (of Scientology) and checked=20 the money out with the police before he transferred it to LMT. He=20 believes that everyone, including Stacy Brooks, knew the money was not=20 from Operation Clambake, but was from supporters of the LMT in Europe.=20 (Perhaps this is what he told Ms. Brooks she was not telling the truth=20 about in her deposition=97Mr. Merrett could not remember what it was he=20 had to =93upbraid=94 her about, only that he had to do so at one=20 deposition.) Merrett said he definitely did not know the source of the=20 money was Mr. Minton's. In fact, it was Mr. Minton who specifically told = him that there were =93people in Europe who wished to contribute money bu= t=20 who wished to he insulated from LMT in order to protect them from=20 reprisals from Scientology.=94 He was not surprised that anyone wanting t= o=20 make a contribution to LMT would want to do it anonymously, =93whether it= =20 was $5 bucks or $500,000.=94 O.H., Merrett, May 23, 2002, pp. 48-64, 127,= =20 15 1-157. (While it may not be apparent to one unfamiliar with Operation = Clambake and Mr. Lund, the reason Mr. Lund would have been willing to do = this in Operation Clambake=92s name is because he is a known Scientology = critic. Operation Clambake is an Internet site devoted to=20 anti-Scientology information. Sending money to the LMT would bring no=20 additional reprisals from Scientology as far as he would be concerned.) Additionally, Mr. Merrett testified that when Mr. Minton testified that=20 he had given Mr. Dandar $1,050,000 at his May deposition, that this was=20 the same amount that Minton had told Merreft he had given Dandar prior=20 to the deposition when they prepared for it. Minton never told Merrett=20 about any $500,000 UBS check to Dandar in addition to the $1,050,000.=20 O.H., Merrett, Id., pp. 66-67. Minton says that he told Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks about giving=20 $500,000 to Ken Dandar the day he received it. He did this on the roof=20 of a parking garage across the street because he suspected Scientology=20 had bugged the LMT offices. O.H., Minton, May 24, 2000, p. 1069. Prince=20 says they did talk on the garage roof, but that Minton told him he had=20 goften the money from =93people in Europe.=94 O.H., Prince, July 8, 2002,= =20 367-368. He says when he visited Minton at the Adams Mark Hotel after=20 the Minton/Brooks change of heart that he reminded Minton and Brooks of=20 that conversation and =93they just looked at me like, =93Oh, yeah, we for= got=20 about that part.=94 O.H., Prince, July 8, 2002, pp. 446-447. Stacy Brooks= =20 says nothing about any meeting on a garage roof in her testimony, at=20 least none that I was able to find. Dr. Garko remembers a conversation in New Hampshire when the discussion=20 of money came up at dinner, and Mr. Minton was adamant that he had no=20 more money to fund the case. He says, =93Mr. Dandar=97despite Mr. Minton'= =92=20 assertion that he=92s no longer going to fund the case, Mr. Dandar still = wanted to know if there were other ways to fund the case. And they were=20 talking about that. No specific names were mentioned, no particular=20 individual that I could say, Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith or something like=20 that. It was generally perhaps people from Europe might be able to fund=20 the case... .O.H., Garko, June 11, 2002, pp. 35-36. Minton remembers=20 this same conversation and verifies that he said =93I don't think there i= s=20 anything I can do for you right now but, you know, maybe I have some=20 friends in Europe who could be of assistance.=94 O.H., Minton, May 24,=20 2002, p. 1106. Of course, Minton says =93the purpose of using that=20 charade, as I called it, was to keep Dr. Garko in the dark about me=20 providing the money.=94 O.H., Minton, Id., p. 1106-1107. As stated=20 previously, this makes no sense. -If Dandar didn=92t want Garko to know=20 about any money he might be receiving, he wouldn=92t want him to know=20 about money from either Minton or =93people in Europe.=94 Money is money,= =20 and spends the same, no matter the source. Were there other UBS checks? How were they handled? Yes there were.=20 There was at least one UBS check given to Gerry Armstrong to repay a=20 loan to Mr. Minton. Minton was the source of that money, although he=20 lied about it in deposition, even at his April 8, 2002 deposition when=20 he was to =93set the record straight=94 and didn=92t recant until he was = caught in that lie at the Omnibus Hearing. O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002,=20 pp. 1119-1124. Of course, there were also lies at the April 8, 2002=20 deposition about the $500,000 and the $300,000 paid to LMT. O.H.,=20 Minton, Id., p. 1121. These lies were not cleared up in any subsequent=20 deposition, or in any recanting affidavit until Minton got caught at the = Omnibus Hearing. He really has no explanation as to why he continued to=20 lie. But he says that although he admits he had an intense desire to=20 hide the UBS checks of $500,000, $300,000, and the UBS checks to Jerry=20 Armstrong from the Church, he did not have any such desire to hide the=20 money he paid to Dandar from the Church, and only lied about that=20 because Dandar told him to. O.H., Minton, Id., pp. 1129-1130. The=20 absurdity of that lie was made clear by the next question he was asked=20 by Mr. Dandar: Q. Mr. Minton, since=97for the years 97, 98, 99, 2000 to=20 2002, have you underreported your income to the Internal Revenue=20 Service? A. I=92m going to plead the Fifth Amendment on that question.=20 O.H., Minton, Id., pp. 1131-1132. There were other UBS checks in the total amount of $2,000,000 given to=20 Courage Productions, in which Mr. Minton was a one-half owner with Mr.=20 Peter Alexander, to partially finance the movie =93The Profit.=94 O.H.,=20 Minton, May 22, 2002, p. 714-715. The Church in their closing argument=20 suggests that Peter Alexander had to know that the money was from Mr.=20 Minton, and that Dandar failed to ask him about it when he testified.=20 This proves, they suggest, Minton didn't care about others knowing about = UBS checks. That, of course shows nothing about what Dandar believed or=20 was told about his check. The reasoning is faulty since Minton didn=92t=20 tell Brooks and Merrett about the foreign checks. What is relevant to=20 this case is that after Minton decided to recant, when asked from what=20 institution the money for all the check came, including the Courage=20 Production checks, he pled the Fifth Amendment. O.H., Minton, May 24,=20 2002, p. 1154. What we don=92t know, of course, is whether or not Mr.=20 Minton paid taxes on any of this money when he transferred it from=20 Europe to this country. Minton was and still is trying to hide the=20 source of the UBS checks. He still has not provided the source of any of = those funds to this very day. Instead, he relies on his Fifth Amendment=20 privilege. Minton would never have dreamed that Scientology would have=20 obtained checks to Courage Productions=97a movie company=97as part of any= =20 Lisa McPherson discovery, a wrongful death case, so he had no reason to=20 fear exposure of this check, unless the IRS audited Courage Productions, = and found the UBS check. And it's obvious from reading Peter Alexander=92= s=20 testimony that he didn=92t pay any attention to the kind of checks he got= =2E=20 They were sent pursuant to a written agreement, and when he got a check, = he paid no attention to the payor, but simply took it to the bank. O.H., = Alexander, June 7, 2002, pp. 226-235. Alexander and Minton were partners in a profit-making venture. They were = friends. He had no reason to fear his partner would turn him in to the=20 IRS. In fact, Peter Alexander testified at the Omnibus Hearing that=20 Minton even told him he had tax problems on his foreign money. Q. All=20 right. And what was your conversation with Mr. Minton at the Hyatt. A.=20 We had just come from looking at the sound stage where we were building=20 the set. He didn=92t seem to be very interested in it. He seemed to be=20 agitated and upset and unhappy. So he ordered a drink. And I said,=20 =93What's up?=94 He said: =93These Scientologists are driving me crazy.=20 They=92re following me everywhere. They=92re harassing my daughters.=94 H= e=20 said, =93And I=92m very, very upset.=94 And he said, =93They=92re all ove= r me for=20 this Nigerian thing.=94 He made some business deal in Nigeria. And I said= ,=20 =93Well, so? What's up with that?=94 You know, =93they=92re not going to = get=20 anything on you.=94 And then Patricia was there for some of that=20 conversation. She left. And when she left and he was talking about that=20 Nigeria money, he broke down into tears and he said that he had tax=20 problems with respect to that money and that that was what was worrying=20 him. And so =97. Q. Did he say what kind of tax problems he had with that= =20 Nigerian money? A. Yes, said he hadn=92t paid taxes on that money. Q. And= =20 he was in tears? A. Yes. O.H., Alexander, June 7, 2002, pp. 184-190. It=20 should be noted that the =93Nigerian money=94 is the source of Minton=92s= =20 foreign money. Minton didn=92t fear Alexander knowing this. He did greatly fear the=20 Church coming into this information. And there was a chance as a=20 financier of the case, discovery into Minton's checks might be=20 permitted, as it was. That is why he couldn't tell Dandar. If he had=20 told him, or Merrett, he would have had to testify truthfully about it=20 if asked by the Church. If they didn=92t know, he could lie and the=20 Church, he hoped, would never find out about it. Why didn=92t Minton recant his previous lies about the $300,000 and=20 $500,000 he gave to LMT, or the $100,000 he gave to Jerry Armstrong to=20 repay his own loan when he was trying to =93set the record straight=94 in= =20 this case at the suggestion of Mike Rinder, representing the Church? He=20 had told the Church about these transactions and his lies. Ms. Yingling, = one of the Church=92s attorneys who was involved in the negotiations=20 between the Church and MintonlBrooks, and who Minton asked to take a=20 look at his second recanting affidavit before he put it in final form=20 and filed it testified, =93And I told him that I thought that was=20 something that he needed to clear up in his affidavit, because I was=20 aware it had not been addressed in the shorter affidavit that had been=20 filed. But I understand from having read the final affidavit, that that=20 suggestion was not taken.=94 O.H., Yingling, June 11, 2002, p. 105. The=20 Church thought he should recant. (Perhaps they should have reported it=20 to this court when Minton didn=92t recant.) The reason he tried to=20 continue his lie is simple: Minton will lie whenever he thinks he can=20 get away with it. He probably thought since the Omnibus Hearing was=20 about whether Dandar lied, and what his role in the McPherson case was=20 that this would never come up and in the event any IRS person got=20 involved, or saw any of this transcript, the only funds they would see=20 would be the $500,000 and $250,000 checks he sent to Dandar. As it turns = out, this record now shows over $3,000,000 of foreign money brought into = this country, and probably unreported. Tax fraud brings a 50% penalty,=20 plus interest. The taxes, interest, and penalties alone on this extra=20 money, should it be found out, was sufficient for Mr. Minton to continue = his lies. =93For the love of money....=94 Why would Mr. Minton want to bring his lies about the $500,000 UBS=20 checks to the attention of the Church on April 7, 2002? Above all else,=20 Mr. Minton needed for the Church not to find his foreign bank=20 account(s). Minton knew they were getting close to the UBS checks from=20 all the discovery which was being permitted by the courts into his and=20 LMT=92s finances. This court had ordered Minton to answer questions he ha= d=20 previously pled the Fifth Amendment to, ruling he had previously waived=20 the privilege as to many of the questions. It was only a matter of time=20 before the Church was going to find out about the UBS checks, which=20 might lead them to his Swiss account=97the one he was using to funnel=20 millions of dollars into this country. In fact, the Estate believes the=20 Church already had found out the name of Minton's Swiss account(s) and=20 was using that information to extort or blackmail Minton, although the=20 Church denies they knew of anything beyond that which they had received=20 in the permitted discovery, and say that they still don=92t know where hi= s=20 undisclosed Swiss account(s) is. In any event, the Church was getting=20 very close to the UBS checks. Minton was asked at his September 18, 2001 = deposition by Mr. Moxin, the Church=92s attorney, such questions as =93Do= =20 you have any bank accounts in Switzerland?=94 =93Have you transferred any= =20 money from any Swiss bank accounts to LMT?=94 Minton deposition, Septembe= r=20 18, 2002, pp. 55-56. =93What bank or financial institution in Germany hav= e=20 you gone to for the purpose of causing funds to be transferred to Lisa=20 McPherson Trust, Inc.?=94 =93What bank or financial institution in=20 Switzerland have you utilized for the purpose of causing funds to be=20 transferred to the Lisa McPherson Trust?=94 =93Have you gone to any banks= =20 =91or financial institutions outside of Switzerland, Germany, or the=20 United States for the purpose of acquiring funds to transfer to the Lisa = McPherson Trust=94 =93Do you have an account at the Discount Bank in=20 Switzerland?=94 (Note, this deposition taken of Mr. Minton by the Church = is the only time I heard this bank mentioned. Is this bank the source of = the funds? If so, the Church had either stumbled onto or knew about the=20 source of Mr. Minton's foreign money. Mr. Moxin refers to this bank on=20 pp. 90, 149, 232, 234, of the September 18, 2001, deposition. If I had=20 know this before the Omnibus Hearing, I would have asked Minton about it = to see if he claimed the Fifth Amendment.) =93Did you withdraw any funds = from the Discount Bank that was your own money to be transferred to the=20 Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. for payment back to you?=94 =93Did you transfe= r=20 any funds through the Lisa McPherson Trust from Europe, for the purpose=20 of avoiding the payment of taxes?=94 =93Did Ms. Brooks assist you to=20 transfer any funds from Europe to the Lisa McPherson Trust for the=20 purpose of evading taxes?=94 Minton deposition, Id. pp. 89-91. There were= =20 many more questions along this line. Mr. Minton pled the Fifth Amendment = to all of these questions and many, many more. I then entered an order=20 that he was to answer most of them, ruling that he had waived the=20 privilege previously. I allowed him to claim the privilege only about=20 his income tax matters, not the names of banks he had used for monies=20 for this case and for payment to LMT. It would be interesting to know if = the Church has taken Minton=92s deposition, as I permitted. If so, how di= d=20 Minton answer these questions? It was in this same deposition that Mr. Minton told many lies about the=20 $300,000 and $500,000 checks to LMT. He also lied about the Armstrong=20 money. See Minton deposition, Id., pp. 116-119; 125-141. He claimed the=20 Fifth Amendment on many, many other questions about these monies. See=20 entire September 18, 2001, deposition. He was asked many times about=20 evading income taxes. He was asked many times about money laundering. He = was asked about his employment of xxxxxxxxxx, a money-laundering=20 expert. He claimed the Fifth Amendment over and over on all of these and = similar questions. Mr. Minton claimed at his depositions he was claiming the Fifth=20 Amendment because he had knowledge of an =93enterprise=94 chart=97RICO=97= which=20 Scientology had prepared, and introduced into evidence in another case=20 in federal court, with Minton in the middle of the chart. He now says=20 that explanation for the Fifth Amendment was a ruse, that the real=20 reason he was claiming the Fifth Amendment was to cover up his perjury.=20 But it is obvious there were many other reasons Mr. Minton was claiming=20 the Fifth Amendment. I have no doubt that RICO and perjury were two=20 reasons. I have no doubt that another, more significant reason, was his=20 obvious income tax problems. Mr. Minton knew he had serious problems if=20 the Church---or anyone else---put its hands on his up-to-now-unknown=20 Swiss bank account. He thought the courts were out of hand in the=20 discovery they had permitted into his personal bank accounts, and who=20 knew how far they would go? Would the courts order him to reveal his=20 Swiss bank account(s)? Even if a Swiss bank would not honor a subpoena=20 from an American court, Minton knew he could be held in contempt if this = court or any other ordered him to produce bank records, and he refused.=20 And the contempt, and resulting jail, could be perpetual until he=20 complied. It would be civil contempt. He would =93hold the keys=94 to the= =20 cell door. He could get out merely by telling the name of his Swiss=20 bank(s). Mr. Minton had many competent attorneys. They would have known=20 this if he asked. Things got no better for Mr. Minton on October 11 and 12, 2001, when=20 Sandy Rosen took a 645-page deposition in the breach case, where the=20 same matters seemed to be covered and the Fifth Amendment was again=20 claimed many more times. And more lies about the LMT money. See Minton=20 deposition, October 11, 12, pp. 146-150. Mr. Rosen asks, Q: =93Do you hav= e=20 a bank account sir, or have you had bank accounts at any time since 1997 = as to which they have not been reported to the IRS?=94 =93Do you have ban= k=20 accounts=97have you had any bank accounts since 1997 in any foreign=20 jurisdiction?=94 =93Have you had any bank accounts in a jurisdiction=97 i= n a=20 bank located in what we would call a bank secrecy jurisdiction?=94 Have=20 you ever had any bank accounts at the United Bank of Switzerland?=94 Mr. = Minton claims the Fifth Amendment as to each of these questions. Minton=20 deposition, Id. p. 373. Mr. Minton is asked specifically about a deposit = slip, =93I notice that this is a deposit slip for Bank UBS. Do you have a= n=20 account at UBS?=94 =93Can you tell me whether UBS stands for the United B= ank=20 of Switzerland?=94 Minton claims the Fifth Amendment. Minton deposition, = Id. p. 425. Bingo!! There it is. The Church had found out or would find=20 out about the UBS checks, would learn the Bank was the Union Bank of=20 Switzerland, and that would lead to their request for the source of=20 those funds. The source of those funds would be devastating to Mr.=20 Minton. He knew the Church played =93hardball=94 in their litigation and = would not be the least bit shy to share the knowledge of his funds in=20 Europe with the IRS. 0. H., Minton, May 22, 2002, pp. 693-694, 717; May=20 24, 1012. In fact, both Minton and the Church were suspicious that the=20 other was causing information to be sent to the IRS already. Minton also = believed a Scientology =93operative=94 had =93definitely stirred up=94 th= e Swiss=20 government regarding criminal charges dealing with a $12 billion dollar=20 business deal regarding his assistance to a Nigerian dictator in=20 something having to do with retiring debt. Minton had made a lot of=20 money off this, and the Swiss government was or is looking into (1)=20 money-laundering, (2) forging of financial documents, and (3) fraud.=20 O.H., Minton,May 24, 2002, pp. 1133-1138. If Minton believed Scientology = could =93definitely stir up=94 the Swiss government, he had to really=20 believe they could stir up the IRS in America. According to Ms. Brooks=92 testimony at the Omnibus Hearing, around the=20 first of the year, 2002, Mr. Minton became increasingly upset about the=20 discovery that was taking place. She was worried about his mental=20 health. She asked his permission to contact Mr. Bruce Howie, a St.=20 Petersburg attorney, and have him call Wally Pope, a Church lawyer whom=20 Howie knew, to see if there could be a settlement where Minton could get = out of the =93mess he was in=94. Minton agreed and she called and Howie w= ho=20 contacted Pope early in February 2002. Minton apparently wanted to make=20 a partial settlement with the Church and get out of the discovery, but=20 the Church wanted a =93total disengagement.=94 The meeting in N.H. between Minton, Brooks, Dandar & Garko occurred in=20 late February 2002. On March 7, 2002, Minton sent Dandar another UBS=20 check for $250,000. Shortly thereafter, Minton called Dandar and wanted=20 him to immediately deposit the check. =93But what is interesting about all of this =97 and I still don't k= now=20 the answer to this =97 is that he was extremely concerned that I hurry up= =20 and deposit that check. I don't know =97 I took it to mean that, you know= ,=20 something was going on wherever this check came from, because we had a=20 couple of phone calls about that. Q. You and Mr. Minton had a couple phone calls about it? A. About something going on in Switzerland, and he was really,=20 really, really concerned about =97 Q. Did he say what he was concerned about? A. Well, it was after this check came, I deposited the check, he=20 calls me up and asks me, =93Did the court in Florida send something out t= o=20 the Swiss banks, like a letter interrogatory, a subpoena for documents?=94= A. I said, =93Not as far as I know.=94 I asked him, =93Why are you a= sking=20 me this question?=94 He said, =93Because something is happening in the Sw= iss=20 banks. And there is a new prosecutor in Switzerland; there is a new=20 judge. They had a hearing about me.=94 And he suspected Scientology was=20 behind all that because they were behind the false accusations in=20 Nigeria =97 at least he told me they were false. But he was extremely=20 concerned. And that is when he said I need to hurry up and deposit the=20 check, because somehow his friends and he were somehow implicated in=20 whatever was going on in the Swiss bank.=94 O.H., Dandar, June 4, 2002, pp. 313-314. On March 8, 2002, this court issued an order to show cause why Mr.=20 Minton should not be held in contempt of court. The hearing was set for=20 April 5, 2002. On March 16, 2002, Minton and Brooks contacted Rinder to=20 explore the possibility of a =93global settlement.=94 O.H., Pope, July 17= ,=20 2002, pp. 8-17. The meeting was arranged for March 28, 2002, in the New=20 York office of Mr. Sandy Rosen, another Church attorney. On March 28 and = 29, 2002, Minton, Brooks, and their attorney, Steve Jonas, met with Mike = Rinder, the Church=92s representative, the head of OSA, Int., and Monique= =20 Yingling and Sandy Rosen, attorneys for the Church. The point of these=20 talks was to attempt =93total disengagement,=94 a =93global settlement.=94= Both=20 sides now wanted this. This was not the first time that Minton and Brooks had met with Mr.=20 Rinder. Starting in May, 1998, there had been a series of three meetings = between Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rathbun, both Church executives, and Mr. Minton=20 and Ms. Brooks. The purpose at that time from the Church=92s prospective,= =20 at least, was to bring about a =93global settlement.=94 A document was=20 presented by the Church in one of those meetings where there could be a=20 =93global settlement=94 if Mr. Minton would, among other things, stop all= =20 funding of anti-Scientology litigation, including funding the Lisa=20 McPherson case. Mr. Minton felt like he would have been giving up =93free= =20 speech rights about any Scientology issues in the future. And, you know, = I just wasn=92t prepared to do that at that time.=94 What Mr. Minton coul= d=20 never explain in his testimony is what he was to get out of the=20 agreement. He said alternatively that he never read it, couldn=92t=20 remember, and finally, =93You know, it was really a completely one-sided = agreement.=94 Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks ultimately refused. Mr. Rinder=20 then wrote a letter to Mr. Minton's wife, who was vacationing in=20 England, discussing Mr. Minton's affair with Stacy Brooks. The letter=20 apparently had photographs, and included this language: =93While Bob=20 denies that this direct relationship exists, however, I have documentary = evidence that on July 24th and 25th 1998, Bob and Stacy are at your home = in New Hampshire together. Their affair is alive and well, and the=20 manipulation and deceit continues.=94 If the letter included a picture, i= t=20 was one that, according to Mr. Minton, Scientology acquired by=20 trespassing on his property to get. O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, pp.=20 960-978; Plaintiffs Exhibit 50. Mr. Minton was well aware that Mr.=20 Rinder played hardball in his negotiations! Many things were discussed on March 28th and 29th. One of the items=20 discussed which is particularly important to this Motion is that one of=20 the Church=92s requirements for =93total disengagement=94 or =93global=20 settlement=94 was that all litigation, including the Lisa McPherson case,= =20 would have to =93go away=94, or be =93dismissed=94, or be =93settled=94. = O.H.,=20 Yingling, June 12, 2002, pp. 157, 159-160; 164, 188-189. Another=20 relevant discussion was that the Church, through Sandy Rosen, presented=20 a list of cases/matters that Minton had cost the Church, listing dollar=20 damage amounts. The total amounted to $34,925,000. (One of those suits=20 has now been served on Mr. Minton, and the damages requested are=20 $10,000,000, and perhaps much more.) One of these matters of damage was=20 research the Church had conducted into a possible RICO suit against Mr.=20 Minton. Minton says at the Omnibus Hearing that the only person who ever = brought up RICO was him and that he had no concern about it, but that=20 testimony is contradicted by others at the meeting who say Mr. Rosen=20 brought up RICO as a damage amount the Church had already spent on=20 researching whether the Church had a valid RICO suit against Minton.=20 O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, pp. 1030-1035; Yingling, Id., pp. 63, 187,=20 217-219; Brooks, May 7, 2002, pp. 563; 558-560. Minton and Brooks called Dandar after the first and second day of=20 meetings. Minton said Dandar and Liebreich had to dismiss the McPherson=20 case. He was quite desperate. Minton was asked, Q. (by Mr. Lirot), Did=20 you ever tell Mr. Dandar that if he did not dismiss the wrongful death=20 case that he would, quote, Have the blood and death of you, your wife,=20 and your two daughters on his hands? A. I did say that in the same=20 conversation when I said we=92re both going to be destroyed if we keep on= =20 this same course. You know, I wasn=92t---I=92m not anxious to get destroy= ed=20 here. O.H., Minton, April 19, 2002, p. 153-154. Dandar says, Minton=20 said, =93I have just finished meeting with Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder in Ne= w=20 York City. And they got me. And you have to get Dell to dismiss the Lisa = McPherson case right now, Monday morning... .You have to dismiss the=20 case or the blood and death of my daughters, my wife and myself will be=20 on your hands.=94 Dandar asked Minton why the case had to be dismissed an= d=20 Minton said, =93Because they---they--- got me on---on what I=92ve been=20 trying to tell you and I---I just can=92t go on. I have got to get this=20 case dismissed now.=94 Dandar says he asked Minton if it had anything to = do with taxes and Minton said, =93Just get the case dismissed.=94 O.H.,=20 Dand=E0r, June 6, 2002, pp. 899-903. Mr. Steve Jonas, Minton's attorney, = confirmed in a phone call and in a letter that the Church wanted the=20 McPherson case =93dismissed.=94 O.H., Plaintiffs Exhibit 12. Dandar and=20 Liebreich refused to dismiss the case. Brooks and Minton also called attorney Dan Leipold and attempted to have = him withdraw two affidavits that were about to be filed in that case,=20 pursuant to requests by the Church at the meeting on March 28-29, that=20 Minton bring about dismissal of the Wollersheim case. When Leipold=20 refused, the Church moved to have Leipold disqualified, stating he was=20 using perjured affidavits. Minton tried other tactics with Wollersheim=20 to get him to dismiss the case. The Wollersheim case was over=20 20-years-old, and finally did settle in the middle of the Omnibus=20 Hearing for over $8 million dollars. The Church had been trying to=20 settle this case for years, but had been unable to do so. O.H., Minton,=20 May 24, 2002, pp. 1018-1024. The Church had refused Minton's request at the March 28-29 meeting to=20 stop the two contempt hearings, one pending in front of this court on=20 April 5, 2002, and one pending in front of Judge Baird on April 9, 2002. = Additionally, Minton=92s deposition was scheduled for April 8, 2002.=20 Minton and Brooks came to Florida and Minton eventually called Rinder to = resume their talks with the Church on April 6, 2002. Only now, no lawyer = for either Minton or Brooks was present. Ms. Yingling continued to be=20 present with Mr. Rinder for most of these discussions, but she was asked = to leave the room once, when the crucial =93perjury=94 was about to be=20 revealed, and Rinder and Minton met several times without Brooks or=20 Yingling or any attorney. At the time of the Omnibus Hearing, Mr. Minton = estimated the number of meetings he had had with Church officials was=20 20. At the time of his testimony in front of Judge Baird, he estimated=20 his contacts at 12. He admitted that he had continued to meet with them, = up to and including while Stacy Brooks was testifying in front of me at=20 the Omnibus Hearing. Minton says Mr. Shaw, the Defendant=92s corporate=20 representative in this case, was present for three of these discussions. = Why would Minton first admit perjury to Rinder, with no lawyer for=20 Minton, Brooks, or even Rinder present? No acceptable explanation was=20 ever presented to this court for this bizarre revelation. No acceptable=20 explanation can be imagined! Mr. Rinder had indicated in New York that if Minton and Brooks couldn=92t= =20 get Dandar to dismiss the Lisa McPherson case, he believed that if they=20 would =93set the record straight=94, the case would be ultimately dismiss= ed.=20 It didn=92t take a genius to know the issues the Church was most concerne= d=20 about. Their questions at every one of his depositions were relentless=20 on the =93agreement=94. They asked questions in his depositions about=20 Minton's role, if any, about adding Mr. Miscavige to the complaint;=20 thus, the =93secret meeting=94 at Dandar=92s office. And Minton knew he h= ad=20 lied about the amount he had paid to Ken Dandar, and that they may not=20 know about a $500,000 and $250,000 check he had written to Dandar from=20 his UBS account, which he knew they would find out about in short order=20 if he didn=92t tell them. Brooks and Minton knew Rinder had previously=20 asked Brooks and her husband to sign for money what Brooks termed a=20 =93false=94 affidavit to disqualify a lawyer from a case. How easy to say= =20 Dandar knew of Minton=92s perjury. These revelations would surely make=20 Dandar, if not the McPherson case =93go away=94, or at least get Dandar=20 disqualified from the case. This, Minton must have hoped, would be=20 enough to allow Minton and Brooks to have their =93total disengagement=94= =20 from Scientology, and would stop the damning discovery and the eventual=20 discovery of Minton's secret bank account(s). Mr. Minton was asked=20 several times in the Omnibus Hearing what was in this =93disengagement=94= =20 for him; he never could provide an acceptable explanation See, for=20 example, O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, pp.1024-1027. But, it is obvious to = this court. On April 6, 2002, without either Brooks or Minton having counsel=20 present, Minton, after purportedly =93gagging=94 or =93throwing up=94 in = the=20 bushes outside Wally Pope's office, told Mr. Rinder first, and then=20 repeated it to Ms. Yingling when she returned to the room that Minton=20 had lied about the $500,000 UBS check (and the $250,000 UBS check,=20 although he hadn=92t lied about it) he had given to Dandar, that he and=20 Ms. Brooks had lied about the agreement=94 regarding the =93bulk=94 of th= e=20 proceeds, and that Minton had lied about not having anything to do with=20 adding David Miscavige to the lawsuit. They each filed, presumably with=20 the assistance of counsel, a first recanting affidavit, and after more=20 private meetings and other meetings where the Church provided certain=20 highlighted documents to Minton and Brooks regarding their previous=20 testimony, both Minton and Brooks prepared, hopefully with their=20 attorney's assistance, (I know they talked to Ms. Yingling, the Church=92= s=20 Attorney, about them.) a second affidavit, more elaborate and with=20 additional information not included in their first affidavit. The=20 Omnibus Motion and the 35-day hearing followed. Minton filed at least=20 one other recanting affidavit during the course of the hearing,=20 recanting other lies he had told, which he had neglected to previously=20 correct, even though he was well aware of them. See Minton's fourth=20 affidavit, signed June 3, 2002. The Plaintiff suggests that the Church extorted and blackmailed Mr.=20 Minton and Stacy Brooks to say they had lied when they hadn=92t, or to sa= y=20 Dandar caused them to lie. It isn=92t necessary for this court to resolve= =20 this issue, since there has been no Motion filed against the Church to=20 dismiss or strike its answer or counterclaim, or any disqualification=20 motion to dismiss its attorneys. I hope there will be none. However, to=20 assist the state attorney, who will receive a copy of this Order, the=20 main witness the state may have to rely on to prove extortion/blackmail=20 is Jesse Prince. His extreme bias against the Church has been discussed=20 by this court on numerous occasions. I find his credibility, based on=20 his previous testimony, and the testimony before me at the Omnibus=20 Hearing, to be suspect. Based on being an admitted perjurer, and the=20 testimony presented before me at the Omnibus Hearing, the credibility of = Ms. Brooks is flawed. Mr. Minton has very little credibility based on=20 his testimony before me, especially if he needs to lie for his own good, = or his money. Ms. Monique Yingling, the only other witness who testified = before me, and who might know the truth about any blackmail and=20 extortion is a noted member of both the California and D.C. Bar. I found = her testimony to be quite credible, and do not believe for a moment she=20 would jeopardize her license to practice law by lying, committing=20 extortion, blackmail, or allowing anyone in her presence to do so.=20 Neither, Mr. Rosen, nor Mr. Rinder testified before me, so I have no=20 basis to judge their credibility. However, if Mr. Rinder has done what=20 has been attributed to him, including offering money for perjured=20 affidavits, his credibility is certainly suspect. Perhaps after I have=20 had the opportunity to work with Mr. Rosen, who has recently become the=20 Church's chief trial counsel, I will have an opportunity to personally=20 assess his credibility. I will note, however, that when I inquired,=20 pursuant to his Motion to be admitted pro hac vice in the wrongful death = case, I heard nothing from other judges who had worked with him on cases = before them which would suggest that he would be involved in such=20 scurrilous activity. This is all I intend to say in this Order about=20 extortion or blackmail. With all of the above being considered, and having seen and heard all of = the witnesses at the Omnibus Hearing, who do I believe was lying at the=20 Omnibus Hearing regarding the $500,000 UBS check issued to Mr. Dandar in = May 2000? The answer is Robert Minton. I find that he lied about the=20 $500,000 check not only at his May, 2000 deposition, which he admits,=20 but at the Omnibus Hearing as well. I find that he did not tell Ken=20 Dandar, a member in good standing with the Florida Bar that he was the=20 source of the $500,000 UBS check, any more than he told Stacy Brooks,=20 his mistress, or John Merrett, his attorney, and member in good standing = of the Florida Bar, that he was the source of the $300,000, $500,000, or = $100,000 checks to LMT. Whether or not this constitutes perjury at the=20 deposition is doubtful, since it was not =93material=94 to any issue in t= he=20 wrongful death case. It may be material to the breach case, but that is=20 not my case. However his testimony at the Omnibus Hearing was critical=20 to the issues to be decided, and thus, his false testimony therein could = be considered perjury. As to Minton's many other lies about the=20 $300,000, and $500,000 checks paid to LMT, his lies about two $100,000=20 checks paid to Gerry Armstrong, his lies about checks paid to his=20 attorney, John Merrett, his revelation that he had permitted Dandar to=20 use $60,000 he says he loaned to the Estate, to pay himself attorney's=20 fees, the credibility of which is suspect, all of which he failed to=20 correct in his first two recanting affidavits, and most of which he lied = about in multiple depositions, including one on April 8, 2002, where he=20 was supposed to be =93setting the record straight,=94 they may well=20 constitute perjury as well. See Minton's several depositions, and his=20 fourth affidavit, dated June 8, 2002. Whether or not he should be=20 prosecuted for perjury is not a decision of mine. A copy of this order=20 will be delivered to the state attorney for any action he may deem=20 appropriate. I specifically find that Ken Dandar did not lie regarding the $500,000=20 check at his deposition or at the Omnibus Hearing. I find that Mr.=20 Minton did not tell him that he was the person who caused this check to=20 be issued, but rather told him, just as he told Stacy Brooks and John=20 Merrett, that it was from =93friends,=94 or =93people=94 from Europe, who= had an=20 interest in the Lisa McPherson case or the LMT, but wished to remain=20 anonymous due to their fear of Scientology. Minton's motive for all his=20 lies regarding all these checks can be summed up in two words =97 income = taxes. As I said previously in this Order, =93For the love of money is th= e=20 root of all evil THE =93AGREEMENT=94 Was there an agreement between the Estate and Bob Minton, or between the = Estate and the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. (=93LMT=94) that the =93bulk,=94= or=20 =93substantial amount,=94 of the proceeds obtained from the wrongful deat= h=20 case would be given to him, an anti-cult organization controlled by him, = or to the LMT? In a word, the answer is =93NO.=94 This court has read every deposition of Robert Minton, Stacy Brooks,=20 Dell Liebreich, the sisters and brother of Fannie McPherson, who, along=20 with Dell Liebreich are the potential beneficiaries of any money=20 received by the Estate from this case. I had made copious notes of the=20 testimony given in those depositions regarding this issue. I have not=20 only reviewed those notes, but went back and re-read some of the same=20 depositions a second and third time. I have now had the opportunity to=20 read the Omnibus Hearing transcripts of every witness mentioned above,=20 as well as the transcripts of those same witnesses if they testified at=20 the hearing held in front of Judge Baird on April 9, 19, May 29 and 30.=20 I have read the testimony of Ken Dandar at both the hearings held before = Judge Baird and me. I have read the testimony of Dr. Garko before me and = Judge Baird. I have read the Omnibus Hearing testimony of other=20 witnesses who have any information about this claim, including, but not=20 limited to, John Merrett, Jesse Prince, and Brian Haney. I have read=20 every affidavit regarding this issue by Robert Minton, Stacy Brooks,=20 Dell Liebreich, Ken Dandar, and others. This court sat through EVERY day = of the 35-day hearing and had the opportunity to see and hear the=20 testimony offered on this issue by the witnesses who testified regarding = it in front of me. I have read every word of the closing arguments and=20 reply argument as well as the lengthy attachments provided by counsel=20 for both sides. I have actually read these briefs/closing arguments more = than once. The amount of time spent by this court on this Motion has=20 been tremendous, and the simple, one word answer of this court above,=20 and the brief explanation below, should not be taken by anyone as=20 evidence of the lack of interest or sincerity of this court to come to=20 the right answer on this issue which is important to both sides. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to go through the=20 testimony, depositions, affidavits, with the depth I did in this Order=20 as to the $500,000 check issued by Minton to Dandar, to explain the=20 conclusion I draw in this Order, although I reserve the right to do so,=20 should time permit, in my otherwise full docket in Civil Division 11.=20 Suffice it to say that I am confident in my decision, and will assume=20 that any reviewing court will read the same materials I have read in=20 reviewing my conclusion. It is impossible to read the briefs and attachments of the opposing=20 lawyers in this case and get the total testimony, regarding this or any=20 other issue involved in this hearing. The lawyers involved in this case=20 are advocates,, and as such, point out the testimony, etc. that furthers = their position. They=97neither side, includes all the testimony necessary= =20 to resolve this very controverted issue. Suffice it to say; just as I=20 pointed out several times at the Omnibus hearing, what a witness says on = one page of a deposition, in response to a question by a lawyer, may be=20 completely different a few pages later. I have read and heard all of it. = There was no agreement between the Estate and anyone else Whether or not = they had an agreement among themselves is doubtful, but irrelevant. The Lisa McPherson case was originally filed in February, 1997. Robert=20 Minton met Ken Dandar, the attorney for the Estate in March, 1997. Mr.=20 Minton, who called himself, and believed he was Scientology=92s =93public= =20 enemy #1=94, O.H., Minton, May 17, 2002, p. 85, considered the Lisa=20 McPherson case the =93banner of the whole anti-Scientology=94 movement.=94= =20 O.H., Minton, Id., p. 69. As the financier of many anti-Scientology=20 critics and cases, he wanted to assist Dandar and the Estate in the=20 McPherson =93banner case=94, and so in October, 1997, he sent a personal = check to Dandar and Dandar in the amount of $100,000. By March, 2002, he = had given Ken Dandar $2,050,000. The Church suggests that the Minton money was an investment=94 for him,=20 but listen to Mr. Minton: =93[here was a chance to really nail=20 Scientology.... [I]t looked like this was an open and shut case, you=20 know, it wasn=92t going to take forever to deal with it. And, you know,=20 the absolute maximum amount of negative publicity (about Scientology)=20 that could possibly be had anywhere would be through this case.=94 O.H., = Minton, Id. 70. Q. (By Mr. Fugate) Did you=97did you consider---how did you consider= =20 your money that you were putting into the case from your perspective, sir= ? Well, you know, I---I looked at it as---as a way to further the=20 entire antiScientology activities that I was involved in.=94 Q. And did you look at it as an opportunity to get a return on your = investment? THE COURT. You really do have to be careful about leading here. You = asked him what he thought of it and he told us. Your next question needs = to be =91anything else=92? Don=92t be suggesting things to this witness. Q. (By Mr. Fugate) Really, what did you expect to get with regard=20 to your funding? A. Well, as I mentioned=97you know, there were several things. But a= s=20 I mentioned, you know the first thing is that this was the sort of=20 flagship case to be used to illustrate how terrible Scientology was. And = certainly, anyone who was anywhere near this case or ever read about it=20 expected that this would be a huge black eye for Scientology... .O.h.,=20 Minton, Id., p.76-77. At this point, Mr. Minton begins to discuss his first discussion=20 with Ken Dandar about the agreement=94. It is only the next time Minton=20 discusses the =93agreement=94, in testimony on May 21, 2002, four days=20 later, that he provides the testimony Mr. Fugate apparently expected: Q (by Mr. Fugate) =93Let me ask you this, did you have any belief as= =20 to what your funding was doing with Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson=20 wrongful death case? A. Yes I did. Q. And what was that? A. Well, it was a means to secure a long-term funding source to go=20 after Scientology. O.H., Minton, May 21, 2002, pp. 380-381. It is obvious what his reason was for funding the Lisa McPherson case.=20 The idea that it was an =93investment=94 was a secondary =93hope=94 of hi= s,=20 nothing more. Minton says that shortly after he had given his first check for $100,000 = in October, 1997, he believes it was in December, 1997, (he later says=20 December 1, 1997), when everyone was down here for the =93annual picket=94= ,=20 he had lunch with Dandar. He says that at that time, =93Scientology was=20 making a lot of statements that, you know, that Ken Dandar was an=20 ambulance-chasing attorney, and Dell Liebreich was a money-grubbing old=20 woman that had no connections to Lisa McPherson, yet they were, you=20 know, trying for this=97you know, the big bucks in this case. (At that=20 time Dandar had told Minton that he thought the case was worth between=20 $80-$100 million.) And I said, well, you know, it would make sense to=20 diffuse that type of rhetoric that was coming out of Scientology for the = estate to agree to give the bulk of the money they got, or substantial=20 part I think is what we talked about at that time, a substantial part of = that money to an anti-cult group, especially one that was focused on=20 Scientology.=94 O.H., Minton, May 17, 2002, pp. 77-78. Minton says the organization he had in mind at that time was FACTNet,=20 where he had been elected to the Board of Directors, effective December=20 15, 1997, after the discussion. =93And you know, clearly in my own mind, = that was=97that was the target of the estate=92s future largesse with=20 respect to the proceeds of this case.=94 0 .H., Minton, Id., p.78. Later,= =20 when this issue was brought up again, he says he suggested three=20 organizations, American Family Foundation, FACTNet, and one =93which I=20 can=92t remember right now=94, but that =93obviously I was keener for him= to=20 make sure that this happened with FACTNet as opposed to the other two.=94= =20 O.H., Minton, May 21, 2002, pp. 374-375. Dandar said, =93this was an idea he already had had and that, you know, h= e=20 was going to discuss this with the family and, you know, he said he=20 would get back to me on that.=94 O.H., Minton, May 17, 2002, p 78. According to Mr. Minton' s testimony, on December 5, 1997 he was in Mr.=20 Dandar's office and, =93Mr. Dandar told me that he had discussed the=20 matter with the family---he didn=92t say with just Dell Liebreich; he sai= d=20 the family---concerning this concept of donating the bulk of the=20 proceeds or a substantial part of the proceeds to an anticult=20 organization. And that the family had agreed that that is what they=20 should do.=94 O.H., Minton, May 21, 2002, p. 374. Based on this=97all according to the best testimony Mr. Minton has to=20 offer at the Omnibus Hearing, Mr. Minton goes on a radio show on=20 December 9, 1997, and says =93The family of Lisa McPherson has agreed and= =20 I have announced this to the New York Times yesterday, that the bulk of=20 funds they get out of this wrongful death suit will be donated to a cult = awareness group so that there won=92t be any more Lisa McPherson's.=94 O.= H.,=20 Minton, Id., pp. 379-380. Mr. Fugate then asks Minton if he gave a deposition shortly after that=20 meeting in Boston, and implies that he gave testimony that he had an=20 agreement with Mr. Dandar. I wouldn=92t let Mr. Fugate refer to the=20 deposition, sustaining objections. See O.H., Minton, Id., pp. 375-376,=20 but all the depositions of Minton are included in the record of this=20 hearing, so let's look at that testimony. Q. (By Mr. Weinberg): =93Is there any agreement whatsoever that you = have with Mr. Dandar and/or the family of Lisa McPherson as to how the=20 funds would be used from any judgment that they might get in this case?=94= A. =93None whatsoever.=94 And after discussing much of the same thing about his discussions=20 with Mr. Dandar at the restaurant, he says, of Dandar, =93Well, he says, = I've already had that idea but I haven't discussed it with Dell=20 Liebreich yet. Q. Has he since told you that he discussed it with Ms. Liebreich? A. Yes. Q What did she say? A. He said she agreed to do just that. The =93that=94 in this=20 deposition was stated, =93she ought to just agree to donate the bulk of=20 any money that she gets out of this case to a cult awareness type=20 organization to keep other Lisa McPherson's from happening. That=92s it=94= =2E Minton deposition, January 13. 1998, pp. 64-65. As to the cult awareness group, Mr. Minton says, =93No specific groups were discussed. The only one that was discusse= d=20 was one that Mr. Lottick is involved in and I--- Q. What=92s the name of that? A. I don=92t know what the name of that is.=94 And as to the amount:= Q. Did Mr. Dandar say what percentage would be donated to a cult=20 awareness group? A. The bulk, whatever that means. Q. I=92m asking you. Did you have any understanding as to what =93bu= lk=94=20 mean? A. Did I ask him does that mean above 85%? Q. Yes. A. No. Minton deposition, Id., pp. 65-66. From this the =93agreement=94 between the Estate and either some unknown= =20 anti-cult group that Minton controlled, or better yet, between the=20 Estate and the Lisa McPherson Trust to contribute the =93bulk=94 of the=20 proceeds to the =93Lisa McPherson Trust=94 was born. Please!! The Lisa=20 McPherson Trust didn=92t even exist until October, 1999! Try to sell any = court anywhere that there is an agreement between Bob Minton and the=20 Estate to donate the =93bulk=94 of any proceeds they receive to the Lisa = McPherson Trust. Mr. Dandar agrees with most of what Mr. Minton says occurred in=20 December, 1997. The only difference is that he says he checked with Dell = Liebreich, not the family, who said it was a good idea. O.H., Dandar,=20 April 30, 2002, pp. 150-151. Actually, Minton says Dandar discussed it=20 with Dell Liebreich at the Baird Hearing. B. H., Minton, April 19, 2002, = pp. 64-65. There is not any big difference whether Dandar talked with=20 Dell Liebreich alone or the family, but it probably was with Ms.=20 Liebreich, since all the siblings seem to say they discussed it the=20 night before their May, 1999 depositions. When the family got together=20 for their depositions, they discussed, among themselves that it would be = a good idea, and something Fannie McPherson would have wanted, if some=20 anti-cult organization, like a Lisa McPherson =93Memorial=94 or=20 =93Foundation=94, could be set up to help other people, to donate the=20 =93bulk,=94 =93vast amount,=94 =93substantial amount,=94 majority=94 of a= ny proceeds=20 they received to such an organization. I use these various terms,=20 because they have all been used at various times to describe the amount=20 that might be given, if the proceeds from the lawsuit were sufficient. The key to this issue is that these family members discussed among=20 themselves that they might give proceeds from any judgment they would=20 receive to a non-profit organization, named after Lisa McPherson, and=20 set up to assist victims of cults. There never was an agreement between=20 Minton and the Estate, or between the Lisa McPherson Trust and the=20 Estate, or between the family and Minton, or between the family and the=20 Lisa McPherson Trust. That is the agreement that the Church wants to=20 suggest exists and it simply never did. There are many reasons why there is no =93agreement.=94 with Bob Minton o= r=20 the Lisa McPherson Trust: (1) Legally, there is nothing that could be=20 called an =93agreement,=94 binding or non-binding between anyone=97no tax= =20 exempt =93cult-awareness group=94 can come forward to claim any proceeds = from this family should they get any, and the LMT doesn=92t even exist an= y=20 more, so they certainly were never and cannot be the beneficiary. (2)=20 The Lisa McPherson Trust was set up in October, 1999, and began=20 operations on November 1, 1999. It closed its operations September 7,=20 2001. The discussions between Minton and Dandar, which supposedly=20 constitute the agreement occurred in December, 1997, almost 2 years=20 before LMT ever came into existence. (3) When the family got together=20 before their depositions and decided among themselves that they would=20 contribute a sum of money to an organization=97a memorial or foundation=20 named after Lisa McPherson, this was in May 1999, 18 months after Dandar = and Minton spoke. There was no Lisa McPherson Trust, so they couldn=92t=20 have been speaking of it as the beneficiary of these proceeds. (And I=20 feel compelled to point out one thing here: The Church tries to use the=20 July 20, 2000 deposition of Ann Carlson, an 83 year old woman, who fell=20 during her first deposition in May, 1999, and had it continued to July=20 20, 2000, where she again became tired as 83 year old persons are apt to = do, for the proposition that the family wanted these proceeds to go to=20 the Lisa McPherson Trust. In that deposition, she was asked the following= : Q. Now, do you recall testifying at your last deposition (May 25,=20 1999) that you and your sisters had a discussion about how monies that=20 might be obtained ~either in settlement or from a judgment in this case=20 would be contributed to a foundation for Lisa McPherson to prevent=20 things like this happening to anyone else? Do you remember testifying to = that under oath? A. Yes. Q. Is this trust, the Lisa McPherson Trust, is that the foundation=20 that you were referring to when you gave that testimony? A. Yes. Carlson deposition, July 27, 2000, p 225. Please!! At the time of the =93last deposition=94 of Ms. Carlson, May 25,= =20 1999, the LMT did not even exist!! It's one thing to confuse an 83 year=20 old woman; it's quite another to use what cannot be to try to persuade a = court.) (4) The family at all times insisted that any foundation that=20 received proceeds would be tax exempt. The Lisa McPherson Trust was a=20 for profit, taxable entity. Mr. Minton acknowledges this, but says LMTs=20 tax status would have been changed once they were about to get the=20 money. O.H., Minton, May 21, 2002, pp. 448-455. We all know, especially=20 the Church, how hard tax-exempt status is to come by. And of course,=20 there could have been no =93agreement=94 between the Estate and Bob Minto= n,=20 because, as an individual, he can never be tax exempt. (5) Minton says=20 Dell Liebreich confirmed the =93agreement=94 after an LMT Board Meeting o= n=20 December 1, 2000. when he thanked her for the Estate having agreed to=20 support the =93Lisa McPherson Foundation.=94 She said, =93[T]his is what = Fannie would have wanted. This is what Lisa would have wanted.=94 O.H.,=20 Minton, April 19, 2002, p. 71. There was no amount discussed, and the=20 name used by Mr. Minton shows what the family wanted=97to have a Lisa=20 McPherson tax-exempt Foundation. If anything, this conversation he=20 remembers shows Minton was quite aware of what the family hoped to set=20 up for some of the proceeds, and his taxable Lisa McPherson Trust wasn=92= t it. I could go on and on, and quote at length from the depositions, the=20 Omnibus Hearing about how there is no agreement, but I am going to stop. = There simply is no agreement=97not even one between the family members. I= f=20 one or more of the beneficiaries decides that he/she doesn=92t want to se= t=20 up a Lisa McPherson Foundation, but instead wants to keep any proceeds=20 he/she may receive, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop=20 that. The family has no =93agreement=94 even among themselves. And withou= t=20 question, neither Bob Minton nor the now defunct LMT has an =93agreement=94= =20 with them. Leibreich, as PR, planned to do what her family decided to=20 do, after they conferred. If they change their mind, so will she. The=20 Estate, therefore, has no agreement with Minton or anyone else. And, of=20 course, Dandar could not bind either the Estate or the family. Mr. Minton says that Ken Dandar became concerned about Minton's=20 discussion of the agreement, and came by his office, in May or June,=20 2000 with Dr. Garko, Dandar's trial consultant, to tell him he would=20 have to =93backtrack bigtime=94 about the agreement. Dandar said it was=20 causing problems for the Estate. O.H., Minton May 22, 2002, pp. 630,=20 666-667. Dr. Garko, who was called by the Church as a witness, and who,=20 having had a disagreement with Dandar over his unpaid salary, has since=20 resigned as Dandar's trial consultant, not only doesn=92t confirm this=20 =93backtrack big time=94 conversation, but also says there was no =93agre= ement.=94 Q. (by Ken Dandar): Dr. Garko, are you aware of any agreement=20 between me or the estate and Mr. Minton or LMT or Stacy Brooks or=20 anybody where the bulk of the proceeds, if that ever comes about in this = case, would ever be given to them? A. I=92m not aware of any such agreement. Q. How about just a little bit? A. No. O.H., Garko, June 11, 2002, p. 100. Bob Minton says that Ken Dandar sent him an affidavit to sign indicating = there was no agreement, which he signed on December 13, 2000. He now=20 says that affidavit was a lie. Nevertheless, he signed this perjurious=20 affidavit because Dandar said he needed to for the =93good of the case.=94= =20 O.H., Minton, May 22, 2002, p. 637. In fact, the affidavit he signed=20 confirmed what he had been saying, (except on the radio, and in other=20 public appearances where, according to his attorney, he liked to say=20 things to needle Scientology,=94 O.H., Merreft, May 23, 2002, p. 25.) tha= t=20 there was no agreement.=94 He now says the affidavit was a lie, and all=20 his deposition testimony, both before the affidavit and after it, where=20 he said there was =93no agreement=94 was a lie=97that he =93backtracked=94= for Mr.=20 Dandar. Mr. Minton=92s testimony at the Omnibus Hearing and his recanting=20 affidavit is false for several reasons. First, there was no agreement.=20 Minton testified in many depositions that there was no agreement.=20 Merrett says Minton testified truthfully in his depositions. Second,=20 both Mr. Dandar and Mr. Merrett testified that Dandar never prepared or=20 sent this affidavit for Minton to sign. Mr. Merrett, his attorney, did. Q. (by Mr. Dandar): Now let's go back to the secret agreement. Do=20 you recall preparing affidavits for your clients to file in the Lisa=20 McPherson wrongful death case concerning the absence of a secret agreemen= t? A. Yes. I say that. I recall that my clients did, and I believe I=20 drafted them. Q. All right. Turn to the next Robert Minton affidavit. This is one = for him personally, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this one, was this prepared by you? A. Yes. Mr. Merrett goes on to explain how he does things like put=20 the caption on the. right, and how he does his jurats, etc. O.H., Merrett, Id., pp. 31-40. Frankly, all one needs to do is look at the affidavit signed by Ms.=20 Liebreich, O.H., Defendants' Exhibit # 112, and the affidavit signed by=20 Mr. Minton, O.H., Defendants=92 Exhibit #111, and it is obvious that thes= e=20 affidavits were prepared by different attorneys. Mr. Merrett says he=20 sent two affidavits, one to Mr. Minton, and one to Stacy Brooks, and=20 after he received them back, both he and Ken Dandar used them in various = filings. He believes that he used them in a Motion for Protective Order=20 to preclude additional discovery into his client's records. He would=20 have delivered them or had them delivered to Ken Dandar for his use as=20 well. Dandar also used Minton=92s affidavit. Regardless of who used them,= =20 they were prepared by Mr. Merrett, Minton=92s attorney, not Mr. Dandar.=20 Dandar prepared his client's similar affidavit. She signed it. It is the = truth. Mr. Merrett says this about the =93agreement,=94 Q. (by Mr. Dandar): Did you hear while you were representing the=20 LMT, Minton, or Brooks, about the so-called secret agreement? (Note that = by now at the Omnibus Hearing, we are using the term =93secret agreement=94= =20 occasionally, to delineate between the =93agreement=94 regarding the loan= s!=20 donations, and =93secret agreement=94 regarding the proceeds from the=20 judgment/settlement.) A. I only heard that there was not one. Q. When did you hear that? A. At the times that the issue was being raised by Scientology in=20 connection with the wrongful death case, and I assume during deposition=20 prep. But as it cropped up in the course of the litigation, as it was=20 brought to the surface of the wrongful death litigation, is when the=20 subject came up.=94 O.H., Merrett, May 23, 2002, p. 19. When asked about the speeches and Internet postings where Minton would=20 brag about having an agreement, Merrett said Minton liked to =93needle=20 Scientology, sometimes, I had the impression, creating disturbance or=20 distraction for Scientology's Office of Special Affairs and those folks. Q. So radio, newspapers, speeches out in public, Internet postings, = he said and did things to rile up Scientology? A. Correct. THE COURT: Some of which were not exactly true? A. According to my understanding at the time, yes. For example, the = radio statement was not consistent with what I believed, from preparing=20 him for deposition and from sitting through his deposition. Q. The radio statement was untrue, it was false? A. Correct. That was my understanding. O.H., Merrett, Id., pp. 25-26. Q. THE COURT: And however it was referred to on the radio, in any=20 of these depositions, anything you have seen, did you ever hear anybody=20 talk about any type of what you might or I might perceive of as an=20 agreement? A. Not as being one that existed. As I say, I heard that radio=20 talk---i heard the allegations made by the defendant and I heard the=20 statements from Mr. Minton that there was not an agreement. Q. So when your clients said in deposition that there was never any = agreement, that did not surprise you? A. No ma=92am. Q. That was consistent with what he (Minton) had told= =20 you? A. Yes ma=92am. O.H., Merrett, Id., pp. 24 1-243. What this court thinks was going on is the same thing Mr. Minton=92s=20 attorney thought was going on=97Mr. Minton knew there was no real=20 agreement. =93I think Mr. Minton, being in business, knows the difference= =20 between an agreement and---Hey, when I hit the lottery, you are fixed,=20 judge. That is not quite the same thing as when we have an agreement=20 where you will kick in for lottery tickets and split the proceeds.=94=20 O.H., Merrett, Id., p. 251. Mr. Minton knew there was no agreement.=20 However, I do believe that Mr. Minton was hoping that if there was a=20 large judgment, or settlement and if he set up the Lisa McPherson Trust=20 for the basic purpose the family members hoped to achieve in their=20 Foundation, and if the Trust could be made a non-profit foundation, that = the family of Lisa McPherson would appreciate the financial contribution = he had made in helping with the costs of the litigation, and reward LMT=20 as the anti-cult foundation they might choose to endow with whatever sum = they chose. Stacy Brooks joins Mr. Minton by stating that she lied in a deposition=20 when she said there was no agreement, when there was. The truth is that=20 Stacy Brooks has absolutely no idea whether there was an agreement or=20 not. Even in her first affidavit, signed April 17, 2002, she says =93A) t= o=20 the best of my knowledge and belief, there was an agreement among Dell=20 Liebreich, Robert Minton and Kennan Danidar, Esq....=94 She knows what an= =20 affidavit (declaration) is. She uses the language I underlined nowhere=20 else in her affidavit. The only thing Stacy knows is that she was=20 present at some dinner where she says there was a brief discussion of=20 LMT and financial support, by Dell Liebreich, but this occurred long=20 after the =93agreement=94 was supposedly made. And others at the same din= ner=20 differ over the discussion. Minton, in an effort to explain his=20 inconsistent deposition testimony that he never spoke to Liebreich about = the agreement said at the Omnibus Hearing that he had forgotten about=20 the discussion at the dinner meeting until Stacy reminded him about it.=20 Of course, his deposition testimony was only a few months. after the=20 discussion supposedly occurred. This dinner chat, if it ever occurred,=20 adds nothing to an agreement that never was. See also the testimony of=20 Teresa Summers, a former executive of LMT, =93Well, I spoke with Stacy=20 about that (the agreement between the Estate and the Trust or Minton)=20 because I=97the allegations were being made, I believe in depositions,=20 that that was the case. And, Mmm, and I did ask Stacy. And she said,=20 =93No, you know, certainly that is not true. It is just what the Church i= s=20 trying to drum up to create problems.=94 O.H., Summers, June 6, 2002,=20 p.99. Stacy Brooks had some recanting to do about lies she had told in=20 her depositions about LMT discovery violations, but she. knew nothing=20 about any agreement. Stacy is simply trying to help her financier, and=20 the man she loves, any way she can. Why did Mr. Minton lie about this =93agreement=94 in his recanting=20 affidavit, and in his Omnibus Hearing testimony? For the same reasons I=20 have previously discussed that he lied about the $500,000. Without=20 question, Minton knew how important the =93agreement=94 was to Scientolog= y.=20 The many depositions of Minton, Liebreich, and family members were=20 filled with questions about this agreement, or lack thereof. The=20 =93agreement=94 is one of the central themes in the Church's counterclaim= =20 for abuse of process. Both the Church and Minton knew that if the court=20 believed both Dandar and Liebreich were lying about this agreement, the=20 case might be dismissed, just like Rinder told Minton he needed to do,=20 and he would have Scientology out of his life---total =93disengagement.=94= =20 His Swiss bank accounts would be secure and the source of his money=20 would remain secret. I find that Mr. Minton lied in his recanting affidavit and at the=20 Omnibus Hearing about the agreement. I find that neither Mr. Dandar nor=20 Ms. Liebreich did. Stacy Brooks' testimony as to this issue is too=20 insignificant to make any findings. MINTON=92S CONTROL AND THE SECRET MEETING Who was in control of this case, was it Bob Minton, or Dell Liebreich,=20 as assisted by her attorney, Ken Dandar? According to Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, Brooks and Prince did not think=20 Dandar was focusing on the =93Scientology aspects=94 of the case. Q. (By Mr. Dandar): When did you come to think that I was now=20 focusing on Scientology aspects of the case. A. Well, when---when David Miscavige was added as a party, when=20 Jesse and Stacy were going to these depositions with you. You know, that = is the general time frame, there was obviously a clear focus on it. O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, p. 1011. The reason Brooks and Prince thought they should be in the depositions=20 of other Scientologists is because there were =93Scientology methods=94 o= f=20 taking depositions that could get more out of a witness, especially a=20 member or past member of the Church who was accustomed to auditing.=20 Dandar didn=92t understand this, but Stacy and Jesse did. If they could=20 attend the depositions, they could help Dandar with the =93Scientology=20 methods.=94 O.H., Minton, May 2, 2002, pp.1012-1013. The discussion in question where Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar he needed to = stress the Scientology aspects of the case more occurred in Philadelphia = in August, 1999. Mr. Dandar was there taking a deposition of a doctor in = another case. He, Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, Rod Keller, Charlotte Kates,=20 and perhaps others had dinner together. According to the testimony of=20 Minton, before dinner, the three of them met, and Minton, or Brooks in=20 Minton's presence, said he needed to emphasize the Scientology aspects=20 of the case more than he had been. Minton is asked, by Mr. Dandar, Q. And did I listen to that suggestion that you made? A. I believe you did. Q. How? A. Well, I mean, you subsequently added parties. You=20 subsequently started using Stacy and Jesse more for these depositions. Q. Mr. Minton, isn=92t it true that before that dinner in August of = =9199 in Philadelphia, I had already been meeting with Jesse Prince and=20 Jesse Prince=92s affidavit on the culpability of David Miscavige in the=20 death of Lisa McPherson was already done, typed up, signed and sealed? A. Seven---six days before, in fact. Q. Right, so you certainly didn=92t have any input on that, did you?= A. Well, not on that affidavit. I mean, Stacy had input on that=20 affidavit. 0.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, p. 1090. Ms. Brooks says she had input getting Mr. Prince in the right frame of=20 mind to write the affidavit. There is no question that Prince wrote his=20 affidavit at Dandar=92s office and that it took him several days to do it= =2E=20 Since Prince=92s affidavit was written, and it was---as the Church likes = to say, the sole basis Dandar had to add Miscavige, it stands to reason=20 that the Philadelphia discussion was not about adding Miscavige. That=20 decision had already been made. The Philadelphia meeting was brought on=20 by Stacy and Jesse=92s complaints that Dandar wasn=92t using them at the = depositions, and Mr. Dandar did use them more, at least temporarily,=20 after this meeting. So to the extent that Minton caused Brooks and=20 Prince, Dandar=92s consultants, to appear at more depositions, he may hav= e=20 =93interfered=94 with the case. This is very insignificant, and certainly= no=20 violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any thought that Mr. Minton=92s Philadelphia discussion or check after=20 dinner was any impetus for adding Miscavige is totally destroyed by Mr.=20 Minton=92s Omnibus Hearing testimony when he makes it crystal clear that = he did NOT want Mr. Miscavige added as a party as it would cost him more = money. Brooks confirms this and it is not in dispute. Additionally, if=20 anything else needs to be said about whether Mr. Minton controlled Mr.=20 Dandar=92s thought processes, Mr. Dandar wrote a letter to his consultant= ,=20 Vaughn Young, in May, 1997, before he ever met Mr. Minton, and says, =93I= =20 am also enclosing a copy of the proposed amended complaint. I intend to=20 sue David Miscavige as managing agent. (Emphasis mine.) Would Mr.=20 Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their=20 condition? O.H., Defendants' Exhibit # 73, emphasis mine. The=20 Philadelphia meeting was not about adding Miscavige, which Mr. Minton=20 did not want to do, but about using Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince more at=20 depositions. Also, see discussion below about the =93secret meeting=94,=20 which now appears to be the centerpiece for the supposed Minton control=20 about Mr. Miscavige being added. As to the allegation that Mr. Minton's first $100,000 was the impetus=20 for Dandar to allege intentional murder, even Minton doesn=92t really=20 support that. Q. (by Mr. Dandar): Now, Mr. Minton, you have also alleged that=20 because of your infusion of the check for $100,000 in October of =9197, I= =20 completely changed the allegations of the complaint and made it into a=20 murder---a murder wrongful death count. Is that your---? A. I didn=92t say you completely changed the allegations. I said you= =20 included the word =93murder.=94 You clearly made it---you had already=20 indicated your willingness to make it an intentional death case. O.H., Minton, May 24, 2002, p. 1094. Intentional death equals murder. This allegation did not come until the=20 5th Amended Complaint, as the Church has stated many times. If one reads = the first complaint, and the first amended complaint, it is clear that=20 the general allegations regarding the death of Lisa McPherson did not=20 change. The word =93murder=94 is mentioned in the general allegations of = the=20 First Amended Complaint, discussing the Introspection Rundown, along=20 with =93suicide=94 and insanity=94. What really changed is that the First= =20 Amended Complaint is greatly expanded from a one count complaint to a 14 = count complaint, alleging everything imaginable, and filed one day=20 before the statute of limitations ran out on the wrongful death count.=20 There was much more included about the Church and its alleged operations = and practices. According to Mr. Dandar, and confirmed by Mr. Young and=20 Ms. Brooks, Mr. Young had been working with Mr. Dandar to assist him in=20 understanding the operations of the Church, as he knew nothing or very=20 little about the Church when he took the case or drafted the initial=20 complaint. Mr. Minton=92s $100,000 didn=92t change the original complaint= =2E=20 Mr. Dandar=92s =93knowledge=94 about Scientology, gleaned from Vaughn You= ng=20 and Stacy Brooks did. I put =93knowledge=94 in quotes because I do not ha= ve=20 enough =93knowledge=94 about Scientology's operations or practices to kno= w=20 whether Mr. Dandar=92s general allegations in the First Amended Complaint= ,=20 or the Fifth Amended Complaint, for that matter, are correct, and I am=20 sure the Church takes exception to many of them, including the one=20 mentioned about the Introspection Rundown. The intentional murder allegation didn=92t come until the Fifth Amended=20 Complaint. This is the same complaint where efforts were made originally = to add various corporations, and individuals, and when that failed, to=20 only add one individual, David Miscavige, as head of the Sea Org,=20 instead of David Miscavige, as COB of RTC. It was this addition of=20 Miscavige and the intentional murder allegation that has caused the=20 =93sham pleading=94 allegations. Minton tried to help the Church by stati= ng=20 in his first recanting affidavit that he was at a meeting in July or=20 August where a decision to try to add all the parties had been made.=20 This turned out to be false. So, let's discuss =93the secret meeting.=94 The first pleading to attempt to add Mr. Miscavige was served on=20 September 7, 1999. Although this was the first attempt in court, the=20 decision had been made to do so either before the writing, during the=20 writing, or when Jesse Prince completed his affidavit, which was on=20 August 20, 1999. In his affidavit, he mentions all the corporations,=20 (RTC, and CSI), and individuals (Miscavige, Rathbun, and Mithoff), who=20 Prince said would have known about Lisa McPherson's case. See Prince=20 Affidavit, August 20, 1999, 39-44. It iswithin these same paragraphs=20 that the intentional homicide is purportedly supported. Prince, Id.=20 43-44. Mr. Minton had been asked in his deposition whether he had=20 anything to do with, or whether he had had any discussion with Mr.=20 Dandar regarding adding David Miscavige (or any of the other defendants) = to the Fifth Amended complaint, and he said, =93no.=94 See, for example, = Minton deposition, October 11, 12, 2001, pp. 393, 629. He now says that=20 testimony was a lie. He now says he was at a meeting where this was=20 discussed=97the =93secret meeting.=94 To show the extent to which Mr. Minton will lie to help get this case=20 dismissed so he can have =93total disengagement=94 from Scientology, the = recanting affidavits and testimony in front of Judge Baird must be=20 explored. Mr. Minton must have been shown or told that the Motion to=20 Amend to add Miscavige and others was filed September 7, 1999, and that=20 the key fact in the breach case was a motion to amend to add 5 parties,=20 one of which was David Miscavige. If he had not been previously told, he = certainly was told in the April 9, 2002 hearing in front of Judge Baird, = when questioned about it by Mr. Rosen. Mr. Rosen asks him the following: Q. Let me address one other issue with you. Sir you=92re aware that = the key issue in this case (breach case)---I shouldn=92t say issue, the=20 !=E7cy fact in this case is a motion to amend the wrongful death case to = add five certain parties that was filed by Mr. Dandar on September 7.=20 1999. Are you aware of that, that that=92s what this case is about? A. Yes. I am. After asking Minton if he hadn=92t testified before that he had=20 nothing to do with this and eliciting Minton's response, he asks: Q, Would you now---are you now prepared to purge yourself of that=20 contempt and to recant that testimony, sir? A. Yes, I am.... Q. I=92m only asking you to tell us what you have personal knowledge= =20 of, sir. A. Sometime in July or August of---what year was it? Q. The motion to amend was added September 7th, 1999. A. July or August of 1999 I flew into town to Tampa Airport for the = purpose of having a meeting at Ken Dandar's office, an important=20 meeting.... At that time, present at that meeting were myself, Stacy=20 Brooks, Jesse Prince, Michael Garko and Ken Dandar. And this meeting=20 went on for two or three hours and the sole purpose of the meeting was=20 to discuss adding these additional parties to the wrongful death case. O.H., Minton, April 9, 2002, pp. 11, 16-18. This is all false, which will be seen. Other testimony he gives at this hearing which turns out to be false is=20 that he says he lied in his deposition when he said he said he was not=20 in favor of this, and lied when he said he had told Ms. Brooks that it=20 would complicate the case and cost money. O.H., Id., pp. 13, 13-14. He=20 says it was at this meeting that he first learned of Dandar=92s intention= s=20 to add Miscavige. O.H., p. 17-18. All four of the people, Dandar, Garko, = Prince, and Brooks were =93strongly in favor=94 of adding Miscavige. O.H.= ,=20 Minton, Id., p. 18. Dandar discussed his strategy as to why he wanted to = add these additional defendants. O.H., Minton, Id., p. 18. Almost all of = this is also untrue, and Minton later admits most of it is untrue. The one thing he said at the O.H., that should have made it apparent the = date was inaccurate was that Dandar followed him, Brooks and Prince=20 =93down in the elevator=94 and told them that =93we should never discuss = that=20 this meeting ever occurred in any way.=94 O.H., Minton, Id., p. 19. The=20 key word here is =93elevator=94. Ken Dandar moved his office and moved in= to=20 a building that had an elevator on November 1, 1999, two months after=20 the September 7 Motion to Add Parties about which Mr. Rosen was=20 questioning Minton. In his first recanting affidavit, signed April 17, 2002, Minton says,=20 =9312. I have previously made the statement under oath in this cause (the= =20 wrongful death case) that I did not discuss adding parties as defendants = in this cause with Kennan Dandar. This statement was false. In truth, I=20 did have a discussion with Kennan Dandar in or about July or August,=20 1999 about adding defendants in this cause, although I was opposed to=20 the idea and was not aware at that time of the written agreement between = the Plaintiff and the Defendant CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY not to add certain = defendants.=94 Emphasis mine; all caps in original. Notice that he has=20 corrected the fact that he was in favor of this from his April 9~=20 testimony, but still has the wrong, but important to the Church, date.=20 He still has his false statement that they talked about adding parties=20 as defendants. Although Mr. Minton talked to Dr, Garko on April 14, 2002 prior to first = affidavit and his testimony in front of Judge Baird on April 19, 2002,=20 and thus, had to know that his testimony on April 9, 2002 was=20 inaccurate, he did not correct his many inaccuracies from the April 9,=20 2002, hearing in front of Judge Baird when he again testified on April=20 19, 2002. In his second affidavit, signed April 24, 2002, he now says=20 this meeting occurred in the =93fall of 1999.=94 There is no suggestion o= f=20 adding multiple Defendants, only David Miscavige. He now says that he=20 was =93opposed=94 to adding Miscavige. Thus, he corrects at least some of= =20 the inaccuracies at his April 9 testimony in front of Judge Baird in his = second affidavit. It is unknown if this second affidavit was ever given=20 to Judge Baird. In fact, one of the few things that is clear about this =93meeting=94 is = that it did not occur before the Plaintiff attempted to add Miscavige=20 and others in September, 1999. Judge Moody denied the Motion as to=20 corporate defendants on October 22, 1999. Ken Dandar moved into his new=20 office, where everyone agrees this =93meeting=94 was held, on November 1,= =20 1999. On December 21, 1999, the Fifth Amended Complaint was filed,=20 adding David Miscavige as head of the Sea Org, thus avoiding the=20 agreement not to add corporate defendants. The motion that was filed to=20 do so was heard in early December. Thus, this =93meeting=94 happened betw= een=20 November 1, 1999 and early December, 1999, if there ever was a =93meeting= =2E=94 What does everyone now say about this =93meeting=94? Minton says before m= e=20 that everyone gave his or her views: Dandar was =93extremely favorable.=94= =20 He says Dandar said it would cause good publicity and cause a better=20 settlement. His recollection was that Dr. Garko, was in favor of it, but = Brooks and Garko reminded him of something Garko had said, and now he=20 says Garko was not in favor of adding Miscavige. Prince was in favor of=20 it. Brooks was the =93most enthusiastic about it because, you know, this = has been a drum she has been beating for a long time.=94 Minton now says,= =20 consistent with his deposition testimony, but contrary to his testimony=20 in front of Judge Baird, that he wasn=92t in favor of it for one reason, = =93because of how much more money this was going to cost.=94 He says he=20 asked one question at the meeting, =93What about Ray Mithoff, and was=20 told,=94that is not a pressure point.=94 At the end of the meeting, he to= ld=20 Dandar, =93Look, whatever we decide to do on this thing, I will support=20 you 100%. You know, you need to talk about this with Dell. And whatever=20 we decide, I=92ll support you.=94 Notice the attempt to be helpful to the= =20 Church by saying =93we=94. There is no suggestion he was ever consulted=20 about the final decision by any witness, not even himself. When they=20 left, Dandar went down on the elevator with Brooks, him and Prince and=20 said, =93look, this meeting never happened and we can=92t talk about it.=94= =20 Minton typically said about lying, =93O.K.=94 And because of Dandar, agai= n,=20 he lied about this when asked in his deposition if he had been involved=20 in any way in the decision to add Miscavige. O.H., Minton, May 17, 2002, = pp. 148-157. Stacy Brooks says the same 5 people were there.. Dandar said, =93Listen, = I=20 want to get some feedback from you guys about whether or not I ought to=20 add=97-whether or not I---try again to add Miscavige.=94 Ms Brooks says t= his=20 was her =93pet strategy=94, so she said =93yes.=94 Minton didn=92t say mu= ch until=20 the end of the meeting where he said, =93Actually, I=92m afraid that this= is=20 going to add an enormous amount of cost to the case. So to that degree,=20 I don=92t think it=92s a good idea.=94 Notice that there is nothing even = from=20 Stacy about =93whatever we decide=94. Dr. Garko objected =93strenuously.=94= =20 Apparently Prince was in favor of it, although she doesn=92t really say=20 so. Dandar doesn=92t talk until the end of the meeting, where he says,=20 =9311mm, well, I=92ll think it all over. Thanks for your input.=94 Notice= =20 there is nothing about Dandar discussing the reasons Minton says he=20 discussed. O.H., Brooks, May 3, 2002, pp. 109-111. Later in that day of=20 the Omnibus Hearing, she is asked about her affidavit, and she only then = remembers the elevator. She says everybody went down in an elevator and=20 there was a comment made by Mr. Dandar, =93By the way, this meeting never= =20 happened.=94 She thought he meant that Minton shouldn=92t have been in on= a=20 strategy session. O.H., Brooks, Id., p.131-132. When asked if Minton=20 flew to Tampa to have a secret meeting to add Miscavige, as suggested by = Minton in his affidavit, Ms. Brooks say, =93[H]e didn=92t fly there for t= hat=20 reason. O.H., Brooks, May 14, 2002, p. 1248. She was also asked about=20 Garko=92s recollection, Q. Okay. And did you discuss with Dr. Garko his recollection of=20 whether or not Robert Minton ever participated in any meeting with=20 my=97with trial consultants and myself to add on David Miscavige=20 individually to the wrongful death case? A. Yes. Q. And did---isn=92t it true that Dr. Garko told you Robert Minton=20 was not part of that meeting? A. Yes. O.H., Brooks, Id., p. 1250. The Dr. Garko situation is an interesting one. Dr. Garko was Dandar=92s=20 trial consultant in the Lisa McPherson case. He appeared with him in=20 court, at depositions, was his chief trial consultant. He would have=20 assisted him at trial in picking the jury and done other important=20 things. Apparently, he had a financial arrangement with Dandar that=20 included a monthly retainer against which he worked on an hourly rate.=20 At some point in time, around September 2001, Dandar told him he=20 couldn=92t pay him his retainer because he had no money and he had to use= =20 his retirement funds to finance this case. When Dandar went to New=20 Hampshire to try, to get money from Minton, Garko went with him. When=20 Dandar received the $250,000 check from Minton in March, 2002, he=20 apparently did nothing to pay Garko his back pay. When Garko heard about = the $250,000 from Luke Lirot on April 9th, after the first Judge Baird=20 hearing, he and Dandar had a severe argument about his not being paid. At the conclusion of the April 9, 2002 hearing, Mr. Rosen indicated to=20 Judge Baird that based on Mr. Minton=92s false testimony that Garko wante= d=20 to add Miscavige to the 5th Amended Complaint, that the Church was going = to file an amended complaint, seeking punitive damages, and also adding=20 Garko as a Defendant. After their argument on April 9, 2002, Dandar and=20 Garko never spoke again until Dr. Garko was called as a witness before=20 me on June 11, 2002, by the Church. On April 14, 2002, Dr. Garko paid a visit to Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks.=20 They discussed Mr. Minton=92s funding, and Garko complained about not=20 being paid. They talked about the =93meeting,=94 with Garko and Minton=20 disagreeing about it, Garko saying there never was a =93meeting=94, but=20 merely a drop in by Minton and Brooks where it was briefly discussed.=20 They also disagreed about other aspects of Minton's recanting affidavits.= On June 10, 2002, Mr. Weinberg asked to be excused from the afternoon=20 session, indicating he needed to go back to his office. O.H., June 10,=20 2002, p. 84. He was excused. What Mr. Weinberg did was go to the office=20 of Garko=92s attorney, Lansing Scriven, and meet with Garko, after Garko = was served with a subpoena to be the Church=92s next witness. Garko had=20 also been given a letter from Mr. Weinberg in which Weinberg represented = that the Church was going to withdraw its motion to add him as a=20 defendant in the breach case. Additionally, at the meeting, in Garko=92s = attorney=92s office, he was provided with a release and covenant not to=20 sue which was executed by the Church as to Garko and his company as it=20 related to any participation by him or involvement concerning the Church = of Scientology. On June 12, 2002, the day after Dr. Garko testified for the Church in=20 the hearing before me, he resigned as Dandar's trial consultant. Does=20 Dr. Garko help the Church in his testimony? Not really. Dr. Garko says in his testimony at the Omnibus Hearing there never was a = meeting. He says Mr. Minton and Ms Brooks stopped by Dandar's new office = as they did from time to time. They just showed up. He says they sat=20 down in the conference room to talk casually, and that the subject of=20 adding Miscavige as a defendant came up. He says he was against it and=20 explained why: (1) There was no direct evidence that Miscavige ordered=20 that Lisa McPherson be allowed to die, (2) there was an improbability of = serving him, and (3) that he thought the agreement might still be a=20 problem. He knows the meeting was not before the first time they tried=20 to add Miscavige and the others. It was either before Miscavige was=20 added the second time or after he had already been added to the 5th=20 Amended complaint. He says Brooks said, after he had his say, =93And why = did you add him, Ken?=94 This took him aback and it is the reason he=20 remembers the occasion. He thought, =93What the hell is she doing?=94=20 Because it was Ms. Brooks' idea to add Miscavige. (If this comment by=20 Brooks was made, it would seem this discussion occurred after the motion = to add Miscavige as head of the Sea Org was made.) He says Minton didn=92= t=20 say too much, in his =93very typical fashion. He was quiet, somewhat=20 aloof, and lust sort of sat there=94. Mr. Prince was not there. He does=20 not remember Mr. Dandar going to the elevator with Minton and Brooks=20 when they left. He knows. he did not Jesse Prince says Minton was never=20 at a meeting where adding Miscavige was discussed. There were several=20 meetings he attended where Dandar and his consultants attended, but not=20 Minton. He did not want to add Miscavige, as he thought it would make=20 the case cumbersome. Brooks was the one who really wanted to add him.=20 Dr. Garko was hesitant about adding him. I didn=92t see where he discusse= d=20 Dandar's view in any meeting, although his testimony was lengthy and I=20 could have missed it. O.H., Prince, July 9, 2002, pp. 566-579. Mr. Dandar says that Minton attended none of his meetings regarding=20 adding Miscavige. He says he remembers a meeting where Brooks, Prince,=20 Garko and he discussed it. He remembers Brooks being a big proponent of=20 adding Miscavige as head of the Sea Org. He listened to his=20 experts/consultants, but nothing was decided until he talked to Ms.=20 Liebreich about it. He knows he never took any elevator ride to have any = conversation with anyone about not talking about it. He says he would=20 never need to say that to Brooks/Prince, his experts/consultants=97it=20 would go without saying. And Minton was never there for any such=20 meeting. O.H., Dandar, June 4, 2002, pp. 274-279. This issue can never be resolved. It isn=92t a matter of resolving a=20 difference between two people. No one remembers this encounter the same. = However, one or two things are certain. Assuming Minton had an opinion,=20 it was don=92t add Miscavige. He was added. That shows Minton=92s measure= of=20 control!! No one remembers a meeting where Minton was present where it=20 was a planned strategy meeting, except Minton. He is obviously wrong.=20 Even Stacy Brooks knows they came down to Florida for something else.=20 Assuming this encounter occurred, it was not a strategy meeting, but an=20 encounter, where the subject of adding Miscavige came up during casual=20 conversation. There is insufficient proof that Mr. Dandar asked Mr.=20 Minton not to say anything about the discussion. If Minton lied at his=20 depositions, which is doubtful, he did it on his own. Frankly, even if=20 Minton were there, the only thing wrong with it would be that it might=20 allow discovery into the meeting. If Ms. Liebreich had no objection, Mr. = Dandar could casually discuss this subject in front of Mr. Minton or=20 anyone else. Minton obviously was not in control of the decision making=20 process. It was ultimately decided to add Miscavige, contrary to=20 Minton's wishes. The decision to add Miscavige was made by Ms.=20 Liebreich, after discussion with her lawyer. Minton tried at the Omnibus Hearing, contrary to his deposition=20 testimony, to suggest he had control of the McPherson case. He really=20 didn=92t. Some examples: He thought it would be a good idea if Dandar got= =20 a large law firm to participate with him. It didn=92t happen. Minton=20 thought Attorney Dan Leipold, an attorney who has litigated against=20 Scientology in the past; should be brought into the case. It didn't=20 happen. Several times, Minton wanted to get the case dismissed or=20 settled. It hasn't happened. Brooks, trying to help Minton to get the=20 case dismissed, wanted to fly to Texas to see Dell Leibreich to try to=20 get her to have the case dismissed. Dandar said no. It didn=92t happen.=20 Minton wanted Scientology as a valid religion to be challenged. It=20 hasn=92t happened. Minton didn=92t want Mr. Miscavige added; it would cos= t=20 too much money. Miscavige was added. The Church suggests in its closing argument, since the Omnibus Hearing=20 made it obvious Minton didn=92t control the case, that it is not necessar= y=20 that Minton have control, but that he =93interfere=94 with the case. Mint= on=20 didn=92t even do that. As Dr. Garko has said, Q. (by Mr. Dandar) Does he (Minton) have anything to do with=20 running the case? A. Do you mean day-to-day decision-making? Q. Day-to-day decision-making? A. No. No. Q. How would you describe Mr. Minton=92s association with the=20 day-today operation of the case, strategizing, decision-making, etc. A. I can only speak from my experience and what I observed of Mr.=20 Minton' s behavior. I would describe it as hands-off, laissez-faire, aloo= f. Q. Would you agree or disagree that to try to talk to Bob Minton=20 over the two-plus years about the case was like pulling teeth? I would=20 agree with that. O.H., Garko, June 11, 2002, pp. 96-97. Dandar agrees with Garko. He says Minton neither controlled, nor=20 interfered with the McPherson case. It was like =93pulling teeth=94 to ev= en=20 get Invlinton to discuss the McPherson case. Dandar relied on his consultants and experts and their opinions in=20 making his assessments, which he then relayed to Ms. Liebreich. What he=20 didn=92t know was that some of these anti-Scientology critics that he use= d=20 as consultants/experts couldn=92t be trusted. Stacy Brooks, based on her = testimony at the Omnibus Hearing about how she prepared=20 affidavits/declarations, is a prime example. Based on her testimony, it=20 would seem that every affidavit/declaration she has eyer filed in any=20 case is suspect. O.H., Brooks, May 3, 2002, pp. 33-37. Regardless, armed = with the opinions of his consultants and experts, Ms. Liebreich, with=20 the advice of Mr. Dandar, made the decisions and controlled this case. DESTRUCTION/REMOVAL OF LMT RECORDS If this claim had been made against Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks, or their = attorney, John Merrett, I would be happy to write about it. It would not = be pretty. However, there is no proof that either Ms. Liebreich, or Mr.=20 Dandar had anything to do with the removal or destruction of items=20 ordered in discovery by numerous judges. An order to show cause was=20 already filed against Mr. Minton regarding this. A technicality=20 prevented this court from adjudicating the contempt and he was,=20 accordingly, found not guilty. Ms. Brooks may face an order to show=20 cause from this court regarding her role in this case, which includes=20 lying about destruction/removal/tampering with records, hard drives,=20 videos, computer records and the like. The Florida Bar will be receiving = a copy of this order and if they are inclined, they can determine if Mr. = Merrett=92s removal of the various videotapes from the premises of the=20 Lisa McPherson Trust was in violation of court orders. If they were, the = Bar may wish to pursue disciplinary action. Merrett is no longer counsel = of record for anyone involved in this case, so I will not address his=20 involvement further. As to Bob Minton, double jeopardy probably=20 prohibits his being ordered to show cause why he should not be held in=20 contempt for his discovery abuse, including his destruction, removal,=20 and tampering of his personal records, as well as records, hard drives,=20 videos, computer records and the like, of LMT. But there is no double=20 jeopardy for Minton=92s perjury. Since Bernie McCabe, the State Attorney,= =20 will receive a copy of this Order, I will not do an order to show cause=20 until he has had the opportunity to examine this record. In the event he = declines to prosecute, this court will do an order to show cause. If he=20 does decide to prosecute, this court will not interfere with the=20 jurisdiction of the state attorney, since my doing so could cause him=20 double jeopardy problems. ISSUE III DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL =93It is well settled that disqualification of a party's chosen counsel i= s=20 (1) a harsh and drastic remedy, (2) should be resorted to sparingly, and = (3) must find its basis in counsel=92s violation of some rule of law or=20 breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility resulting in an unfair = advantage.=94 Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So. 2d 1035, 1040 (Fla. 4~h DCA 1994)= =2E=20 Stevenson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, emphasis mine. This court has now determined that Mr. Dandar has not committed perjury, = nor has he suborned perjury. He has not violated this and other court=92s= =20 discovery orders such that would disqualify Plaintiffs chosen counsel=20 from finishing this case that he started when the first complaint was=20 filed in 1997---5 years ago. He did not permit Minton to =93control=94 or= =20 =93interfere=94 with this case such that the Code was violated. He did no= t=20 file a =93sham=94 pleading. Suffice it to say that this has been one of the most hotly contested=20 cases that this court has seen in her 20 years on the circuit bench. To=20 suggest that recently retained co-counsel could try this case without=20 Dandar=92s necessary =93history=94 that is required in every hearing, and= that=20 may be vital to the trial of this case, is absurd. This was obvious=20 during the Omnibus Hearing, when Dandar tried to let co-counsel, Luke=20 Lirot, handle that hearing. It became necessary for Dandar to get up and = down from counsel table constantly to hand notes to Mr. Lirot, which=20 became distracting to both the witnesses and this court. This court=20 finally suggested that Dandar had not been disqualified and could handle = this hearing himself. When Dandar took over questioning of the=20 witnesses, during the cross examination of the Church's first witness,=20 Stacy Brooks, all that distraction stopped, as Mr. Dandar had the=20 requisite =93history=94 to conduct the examination without assistance. The Church has been fortunate to have no fewer than seven counsel=20 representing it throughout these proceedings=97Mr. Weinberg, Mr. Fugate, = Mr. Moxin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Hertzberg, and recently, Mr. Rosen and Mr. = Drescher. Five of these lawyers have been representing various Church of = Scientology entities for many years. They were well aware of the=20 =93history=94 of previous litigation, which seems to inundate this=20 proceeding (usually without much relevance, I might add). They are well=20 aware of the policies and teachings of the Church. As Mr. Dandar has testified, when he first got involved in this case, he = knew little about the Church, and when he filed his first complaint, it=20 was a one count complaint, limited in general allegations, because of=20 that lack of knowledge. Over the years, he has come to be more astute on = such things as prior litigation, Church policies, teachings, etc. which=20 may or may not be relevant to the trial, but are extremely relevant to=20 litigate many of the complex issues raised by the parties. Thus, to=20 remove Mr. Dandar one week before the scheduled trial would cause=20 tremendous prejudice to the Plaintiff. Even if this trial date is=20 continued, neither Lirot, nor any other counsel, could obtain the=20 knowledge of the Church of Scientology aspects of this litigation like=20 Dandar has. It is true that the Church recently substituted Mr. Sandy=20 Rosen for Mr. Sandy Weinberg as lead trial counsel for the Church.=20 However, he was lead counsel in the related breach case, and co-counsel=20 in the probate case, and has been a lawyer for the Church for many=20 years. His coming on the case for trial cannot be in any way compared to = substituting trial counsel for Ken Dandar. There is no need to cite more case law for the generally known, and=20 obvious law, that disqualification of a party=92s chosen attorney is an=20 extreme remedy that should be employed sparingly. The reasons for this=20 are obvious, and need not be recited here. What this motion is NOT is an = allegation of a conflict of interest such that brings into play an=20 irrefutable presumption that mandates disqualification whether there has = been a violation of the Code or not, such as discussed in State Farm=20 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. KA. W, 575 So 2d 630 (Fla. 1991). The = real graveman of that case, and others like it, is as the Church=20 suggests in its moving papers, the =93fair administration of justice=94, = what I call a level playing field. The Court states it as follows: =93Our= =20 legal system cannot function fairly or effectively if an attorney has an = informational advantage in the form of confidences gained during a=20 former representation of his client's current opponent.=94 State Farm, @ = 632, emphasis mine. A conflict of interest is what brings the vast=20 majority of disqualification of counsel cases. It happens, for example,=20 when an attorney leaves one firm and joins another and there is a case=20 going on at his new firm that was going on when he was an attorney at=20 his old firm. These cases involve the question, do the circumstances=20 present afford =93one party an unfair advantage over the other.=94 State = Farm, @ 632. This case, and all like it, suggest that in conflict=20 interest cases, such as the one in State Farm, the appearance of=20 impropriety is such as to require an irrefutable presumption that=20 confidences were disclosed if the =93matter in which the law firm=20 subsequently represented the interest adverse to the former client was=20 the same or substantially related to the matter in which it represented=20 the former client.=94 State Farm @ 633, emphasis mine. This issue is not = present in this motion. What about cases such as Henriquez v. Temple, 668 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d=20 DCA 1996)? The Third District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court=92s= =20 power to punish an attorney by disqualification if counsel defied a=20 court=92s order. The lawyer=92s behavior offended both the trial court=92= s and=20 the Third District Court of Appeal=92s sense of =93fair administration of= =20 justice.=94 Underlying that case, however, was still an unfair advantage,= =20 an uneven playing field. In that case, the judge ruled the attorney=20 could not have something, and the lawyer proceeded to get it anyway,=20 despite the judge=92s order. We must assume anytime a judge rules an=20 attorney should not have something, if he obtains it, he has gained some = advantage he shouldn=92t have had. In fact, the trial judge in Henriquez = ruled, in disqualifying the attorney, that he was to remove the=20 ill-gotten document from his file before he turned it over to the next=20 lawyer, and he was to have no discussion with the succeeding lawyer=20 about the document. In any event, this is not a case where this court=20 has held that Dandar violated court's orders. Minton, Brooks, and LMT=92s= =20 attorney, John Merrett, may have defied court orders, but this is not=20 about disqualification of John Merrett. Even if Dandar had defied this=20 and other court=92s discovery orders, there still may have been no=20 prejudice in the wrongful death case. I need not address that in light=20 of my rulings in this Order, but suggest that none of the alleged=20 discovery abuse, and later acquired discovery, will be admissible in the = wrongful death trial=97 only in the abuse of process trial, the countercl= aim. This case does not involve the attorney as a witness case. It may be if=20 the Church=92s counterclaim is ever tried, Dandar may not be able to=20 continue as Plaintiffs attorney in that trial. I have put Dandar, thus=20 presumably Plaintiff, on notice that since Dandar would seem to be an=20 essential witness for the Estate in the abuse of process counterclaim=20 trial, he may not be permitted to be Plaintiffs chosen counsel. But that = is a question for another day. This court has stayed the counterclaim=20 until the conclusion of the wrongful death trial. That eventual decision = should not impact the wrongful death case. It is doubtful that the Church has standing to raise actual impropriety, = or even the appearance of impropriety in some of its allegations in the=20 Omnibus Motion. Imagine if trial courts had to deal with=20 disqualification of counsel every time an opponent learned that an=20 adversary may have put cost money from a case into the wrong account, or = improperly co-mingled those same funds. Reported disciplinary cases are=20 replete with these sorts of cases---Florida Bar matters. There is no=20 disqualification of counsel case that I have uncovered that deals with=20 this issue. The reason for this is obvious. There can be no prejudice to = an opponent, and thus no thought that the trial court should have to=20 hold mini disciplinary trials in the form of disqualification motions.=20 These matters should be left exclusively to the Bar. This is especially=20 true unless a party could somehow show an unfair advantage, an unlevel=20 playing field, has been obtained by the opposing party as a result of=20 the lawyer=92s actions. This could not be shown here. No matter what the = outcome of Judge Baird=92s decision regarding this issue in his Motion to= =20 Disqualify Mr. Dandar, or Judge Greer=92s, if he should have to resolve=20 this same issue in his case, both cases where this issue may have some=20 relevance to his case, it has none in mine. No =93unfair advantage=94 can= =20 possibly be claimed due to this allegation in the wrongful death case.=20 Since I did not allow a complete hearing on this alleged Code violation, = due to the holdings of the Second District Court of Appeal, I will not=20 address this issue further in this Order. Whether an attorney has disclosed monies he has received from a=20 supporter in a case to his employees, or to the opposition, cannot=20 afford disqualification relief because the opposition is not supposed to = learn how much money the attorney has to take a case to trial. That is=20 none of the opposition=92s business, as the Second District has pointed=20 out in this and the breach case three times. How could the Church even=20 have standing to address this? In the disqualification case that was=20 presented by the Church, this court has ruled that Minton, not Dandar,=20 lied about the money. How unseemly it would be for Ken Dandar to be=20 disqualified based on the prejurous testimony of Robert Minton. Think of = the =93public suspician=94 if that occurred. What would the public think = of=20 the =93fair administration of justice=94, if Minton' s perjury caused=20 Dandar=92s disqualification? What about whether or not there was an =93agreement=94 to give the bulk o= f=20 the proceeds from any recovery to a Lisa McPherson Foundation? If there=20 had been, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with this! Ms.=20 Liebreich, as PR, or these beneficiaries of the Estate are still free to = do anything they might want to do with proceeds, if any, they receive=20 from this case. Defendants are not permitted to tell juries what a=20 Plaintiff might have in mind to do with the proceeds a jury might award. = Neither can a Plaintiff interject this into a trial. In fact, the=20 Plaintiff in this case might wish to tell the jury what the=20 beneficiaries have in mind for any proceeds, if they still wish to set=20 up a Lisa McPherson Foundation to help victims of cults if the jury=20 awards the Estate substantial damages. Is the Church going to stand for=20 this? I doubt it! I would require the Plaintiff to show me some case law = that says this is relevant before I would permit them to do so. What=20 possible unlevel playing field in the wrongful death case could the=20 Defendants suffer because of this possible interest by the beneficiaries = or the PR? Even if there had been an =93agreement=94, which I have ruled = there was not, I can=92t imagine this would be an issue in the wrongful=20 death case. Imagine the public's perception of the =93fair administration= =20 of justice=94 if I disqualified Dandar because of an agreement that never= was! As to the discovery violations, these are Minton and Brooks, and=20 Merrett=92s. The Church cannot move to disqualify the Plaintiffs lawyer i= n=20 the wrongful death case, because another lawyer or his clients who are=20 non parties to the wrongful death case, caused them problems in pursuing = their discovery of their counterclaim, the discovery of which is mostly, = if not entirely, irrelevant to the Plaintiffs wrongful death claim. As to the =93control=94 of Minton, there was none. As to his interference= =20 with the wrongful death case, this court has ruled he did not. He=20 pretends he had something to do with David Miscavige being added to the=20 wrongful death case. But in the final analysis, he testifies that he=20 never wanted that to happen. Even if Minton interfered, it would be=20 insufficient to cause Dandar's disqualification. There is no appearance=20 of impropriety that offends the =93fair administration of justice.=94 I have ruled that the Fifth Amended Complaint and Count 1 is not a sham, = even before it was amended by agreement of the parties. Ms. Brooks=20 wanted Miscavige to be added, but she was the Plaintiffs consultant, and = admitted at the hearing that while she may have slanted the truth, or=20 even downright lied about certain things she stated in previous=20 affidavits, she never told Dandar there was not a basis for the Fifth=20 Amended Complaint, including her assessment that Miscavige would have=20 been in control of Lisa McPherson=92s stay at the Church during her 18=20 days, and may have ordered her death. Jesse Prince still feels he has a=20 basis to opine that David Miscavige ordered the death of Lisa McPherson. = While this court has stated Prince has no underlying facts that will=20 permit him to opine this to a jury if this wrongful death case goes to=20 trial, and thus the complaint was amended to eliminate these=20 allegations, this court did not find the pleading which included these=20 allegations to be a sham. There is no doubt that Plaintiffs counsel should have grilled his=20 consultants better before he made these allegations, and should have=20 been more astute about Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks=92 bias than he was.= =20 I hope he has learned his lesson and does a better job in the future,=20 but the Defendants cannot remove a Plaintiffs counsel every time=20 something is raised in a complaint that can=92t be proved, no matter how = offensive. If that were the case, I would have to hear a=20 disqualification of counsel motion every time a summary judgment was=20 granted in one count of a multi-count complaint, or every time a motion=20 to strike was granted. Motions to disqualify counsel should be sparingly = used. The Church needs to remember this. I have seen far too many cases=20 in which they have been involved where this motion was filed. Mr. Shaw,=20 the Church Corporate Defendant's representative, assured me when he=20 testified at the Omnibus Hearing that this case was an aberration, and=20 that since the Church is in this community, and as any corporation, may=20 be subject to litigation, neither I nor other judges in this Circuit=20 should expect to see a motion such as the Omnibus Motion filed in every=20 case. I trust his assertion is true as the Church will be using the=20 courts in Pinellas County as Plaintiffs and will be sued in the courts=20 in Pinellas County as Defendants. I have enjoyed participating in this=20 case tremendously, and it has been a great learning experience for me=20 personally, but I couldn=92t handle a motion to disqualify, or Omnibus=20 Motion for Terminating Sanctions on a regular basis. Regarding the allegations of perjury/subornation of perjury, I have=20 found that neither the Plaintiff nor the Plaintiffs chosen counsel is=20 guilty of any perjury or subornation of perjury. What about the=20 appearance of impropriety being such that Plaintiffs counsel should be=20 removed? As the Defendants have shown in their attachment to their=20 Supplemental Memorandum Addressing the Appearance of Impropriety, I was=20 hard on Plaintiffs counsel when he testified. I expressed disbelief at=20 some of his answers. I was likewise hard on Mr. Minton when he=20 testified. I likewise expressed disbelief at some. of his answers.=20 Allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury, extortion, and blackmail = cannot be taken lightly. I was looking for the =93smoking gun.=94 I hoped= =20 that one or the other of these men would wither under hard questions=20 from counsel and this court and give me the easy answer to who was=20 lying. Neither did. This court had to decide who was committing perjury=20 before her very eyes. However, this harsh questioning of Plaintiffs=20 counsel, who testified for days, should not cause Plaintiffs chosen=20 counsel to be removed. What if I had taken the way of many jurists and=20 sat through the hearing, saying nothing, simply allowing the lawyers to=20 handle the motion? I am an activist judge in motions that require=20 resolution by me alone. I will most likely continue to be. If any lawyer = is ever called again to testify in front of me and I ask searching=20 questions, or show incredulity in some of his or her answers, I don=92t=20 expect that to cause a motion to disqualify that attorney. If that=20 happens, I will have to rethink my activism. (Counsel should take some=20 measure of relief to know that I do not take an active role when a jury=20 is involved, except as to legal matters, and the control of my courtroom.= ) Mr. Dandar=92s acceptance of what I consider to be large sums of money=20 from =93friends=94, =93people=94, =93anonymous source=94, =93Fat Man,=94 = =93Fred,=94 or any=20 other person from =93Europe=94 without searing, searching questioning in = the=20 future will not be tolerated by me. I will assume he really knew the=20 source of the money and chose to close his eyes to it if it ever happens = in the future, and he has not asked the searching questions I think he=20 should ask. But because of the unusual nature of this case and the=20 alleged =93fear=94 people had regarding the Church and donating to the Li= sa=20 McPherson case or Lisa McPherson Trust cause, I can understand and=20 excuse his na=EFve belief of Minton's lies when he told him the unusual=20 source of the money, just like I can understand and excuse Stacy Brooks, = Minton=92s lover, and John Merrett, Minton=92s attorney, for believing hi= m=20 when he told them similar lies regarding sources of large sums of money. = But, as to disqualification of Dandar, can I allow Minton=92s lies to=20 cause Ms. Liebreich to lose her chosen counsel for the wrongful death=20 case? I think not. =93The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is not to determine whether ther= e=20 has been a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which=20 the attorney may be disciplined but to determine whether, because of=20 such breach, one party has an unfair advantage over the other which can=20 only be eliminated by removing the attorney. Dawson v. Brown, 491 So. 2d = 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We have now conducted a 35-day=20 evidentiary hearing. First, I find that no breach of the Code has been=20 proved. Second, if there had been, no =93unfair advantage=94 was obtained= by=20 the Estate over the Church that would require the removal of Dandar,=20 Plaintiffs chosen counsel. Although I do not find an appearance of impropriety in this case, I=20 remind the parties of the balancing test that I would have had to employ = If I had found an appearance of impropriety: =93[I]n every case where a=20 specifically identifiable appearance of impropriety exists the court=20 must weigh the likelihood of public suspicion against the social=20 interests in obtaining counsel of one=92s choice. Moreover,=20 disqualification of a party=92s chosen counsel is a harsh sanction and an= =20 extraordinary remedy which should be resorted to sparingly.=94 Lee v.=20 Gadasa Corporation, 714 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 1St DCA 1998), internal=20 cites and quotes omitted. Emphasis mine. If I had found an appearance of impropriety, which I have not because=20 the facts don=92t warrant a finding of the appearance of impropriety unde= r=20 the unique circumstances of this case, I would have had to find two=20 things: (1) the Plaintiff got an unfair advantage, an unlevel playing=20 field, over the Defendant and (2) the public suspicion outweighs the=20 societal interest of one having his or her chosen counsel beside them at = counsel table. I find neither. In fact, were I to remove Mr. Dandar as=20 Plaintiffs counsel, I believe that would cause public suspicion in this=20 case, a high profile case one week from being tried, that has been=20 continued far too many times already. I am confident the =93fair=20 administration of justice=94 requires that Mr. Dandar remain as Plaintiff= s=20 chosen counsel. CONCLUSION The fact that all of the matters raised in the Defendant's Omnibus=20 Motion and many other supplemental pleadings filed by Defendants have=20 not been addressed in this written Order is not to be taken as this=20 court=92s not having determined all of the issues raised by the Church. I= =20 simply chose the ones that I wished to address in this written Order. I=20 have now determined all of the issues raised in the Defendants=92 Omnibus= =20 Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief, Defendants=92=20 Memorandum of Facts and Law in Support of Omnibus Motion for Terminating = Sanctions and Other Relief, all supplemental pleadings and briefs filed=20 both before and since the Omnibus Hearing began, and all of the matters=20 that were raised in the hearing itself and in Plaintiffs and Defendants=92= =20 Closing Arguments and Reply. The length of this Order, addressing only=20 some of the issues, the length of the written closing arguments, and=20 reply makes it obvious why this court could not address each and every=20 issue raised in her written Order. For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Omnibus Motion for Terminating = Sanctions, and all of the relief requested therein, including (1)=20 striking of plaintiffs complaint; (2) precluding plaintiff from=20 answering the counterclaim and defaulting plaintiff on the counterclaim; = (3) dismissal of plaintiffs claims with prejudice; (4) disqualifying=20 plaintiffs counsel from representing plaintiff on any matter in these=20 proceedings; and (5) awarding sanctions, in an amount to be determined=20 against plaintiff and her counsel is denied. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs suggestion in her closing argument=20 that sanctions should be awarded to her is denied. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that no Motion for Reconsideration will be entertain= ed. DONE AND ORDERED in St. Petersburg, Pinellas this 12th day of January, 20= 03. ___________________________ Susan F.Schaeffer, Circuit Judge Copies to: All counsel of record for the Plaintiff All counsel of record for the Defendant All counsel of record for Robert Minton Thomas McGowan, Esq., Counsel for Stacy Brooks Michael Keene, Esq., Special Master Bernie McCabe, Esq., State Attorney Susan Bloemendaal, Esq., Florida Bar, Tampa Branch ||||| From: ptsc Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Judge Schaeffer ruling on Omnibus Motion Organization: Busts Your Rips! Message-ID: References: <8hKU9.60664$Ik.2182675@typhoon.sonic.net> <3e238294@news2.lightlink.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 43 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:33:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.33.64.22 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1042515184 4.33.64.22 (Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:33:04 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:33:04 EST Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!c03.atl99!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!dfaeb1b4!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1586829 On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:22:42 -0500, tikk wrote: This is all very good. What I imagine makes Mr. Minton's blood run cold is this wonderful Cc: list at the end. >All counsel of record for the Plaintiff >All counsel of record for the Defendant >All counsel of record for Robert Minton >Thomas McGowan, Esq., Counsel for Stacy Brooks >Michael Keene, Esq., Special Master >Bernie McCabe, Esq., State Attorney >Susan Bloemendaal, Esq., Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Bernie McCabe is the state attorney, who would be in charge of perjury prosecutions. Schaeffer stated during the course of the proceedings that one individual she would be turning over all her findings to would be McCabe. The IRS is another likely recipient. This paragraph is the core of her expression of the evidentiary value of Minton's testimony: "Dandar says in the Estate’s closing argument that since Minton refuses to identify the bank, there is no proof that the money is actually from Minton, and that further, since he claimed the Fifth Amendment, his entire testimony should be stricken. Dandar may be right about striking all of Minton’s testimony, but since it doesn't prejudice the Estate, as I am ruling for the Estate in this Order, I will continue and not strike Minton's testimony. Perhaps my analysis will be of assistance to the Florida Bar or the State Attorney. If this Order is appealed, a reviewing court, should they feel this court erred in her findings regarding this issue, should consider whether Minton's entire testimony should be stricken." Note particularly the comment about "assistance to the Florida Bar or the State Attorney." ptsc -- Liberty is better served by presenting a clear target to one's opponents than by joining with them in an insincere and useless brotherliness. -Benedetto Croce