Monique Yingling Transcripts // June 12 2002 - PM session
Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500
201
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
2
3
4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6
7 Plaintiff,
8 vs. VOLUME 3
9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13
14
15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
16
CONTENTS: Testimony of Monique Yingling.
17
DATE: June 12, 2002. Afternoon Session.
18
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19 St. Petersburg, Florida.
20 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
21
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22 Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
23
24
25
202
1 APPEARANCES:
2
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
3 DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
4 Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.
5
6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
9
MR. LEE FUGATE
10 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
11 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
12 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
13
14 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
15 740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
17
18 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
740 Broadway, Fifth Floor
19 New York, New York 10003
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
20 Organization.
21
22
23
24
25
203
1 THE COURT: Okay. You may continue.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q Ms. -- Mrs. Yingling, do you know whether or not
4 the 8.6-plus million dollars that the Church of Scientology
5 California deposited into the registry of the court in
6 California in the Wollersheim case was from -- in any part,
7 from Mr. Minton?
8 A I would say that my response to that would be
9 privileged, because the only way I know the source of the
10 funds came from my client.
11 Q Okay. Now, turn to Page 8 of your notes. In the
12 middle of the page -- well, maybe just below the middle --
13 it says, "Stacy away provision-church affiliates, PIs (don't
14 need to get into what they think is going on), etc. SB, BM,
15 JP, GW - accountants, doctors, lawyers."
16 What does that mean?
17 A Well, that is a typo, first of all. It wasn't
18 Stacy, actually, it should say "Stay away."
19 And that was one of the demands Mr. Jonas put on
20 the table, that Mr. Minton would be looking for some sort of
21 a stay-away provision, whereas in -- where the Church would
22 agree that it wouldn't have any involvement with the
23 individuals whose initials are there, or people that they --
24 different professionals that they dealt with.
25 And I think the parenthesis there was because
204
1 Mr. Jonas was reflecting that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks had
2 their own opinion of whether or not a stay-away provision
3 might be necessary, and that he would recognize that the
4 Church would have a difference of opinion.
5 Q Well, isn't it true that they said at this meeting
6 that one of the things that really bothered Mr. Minton was
7 the fact that somehow his and his wife's and/or his
8 daughters' psychological records were placed on the
9 Internet?
10 A No. He never said that at that meeting. And,
11 actually, we had a subsequent meeting where that was
12 discussed and Mr. Minton said that was not true, that his
13 psychological records were not put on the Internet.
14 Q Did he say what was put on the Internet?
15 A I don't know if he said specifically. But I do
16 remember that he said that that was not true.
17 Q Oh. So then did he tell you that he made up a
18 story about having to go see a mental health therapist in
19 August of 2001 so he could come up with an excuse not to
20 come down for the deposition court-ordered by Judge Baird?
21 A No, he did not. And I don't -- from my
22 recollection of the -- of the incident involving some
23 therapist, it had nothing to do with allegations that his
24 psychological records had been put on the Internet. So I
25 think those would be two separate incidents. They were
205
1 never discussed at the same time, and he never said he
2 testified falsely about that.
3 Q He did, or did not, testify falsely?
4 A He never -- that particular incident involving his
5 having seen a therapist because he didn't want to testify,
6 or whatever the reason, was never discussed.
7 Q So what does it mean by staying away, private
8 investigator staying away from Bob Minton's accountants,
9 doctors and lawyers?
10 A All I know is that that was something that Steve
11 Jonas indicated that they would like to see be part of any
12 overall resolution, that there would be an agreement on the
13 part of the Church that there wouldn't be any investigations
14 involving anything of this nature.
15 I think that -- as I have testified and I think
16 the judge pointed out -- there was a clear difference of
17 opinion on both sides as to what was going on. Mr. Minton
18 and Ms. Brooks apparently believed that they were being
19 harassed by the Church, and the Church believed very, very
20 strongly that they were being harassed by Mr. Minton and
21 Ms. Brooks, among other people.
22 Q Isn't it true that the Church was harassing
23 Mr. Minton?
24 A I don't know that to be true.
25 Q Now, at the bottom of Page 8 it says Jesse
206
1 Prince -- his initials, then it said "Bonuses." You say
2 that should say "houses"?
3 A "House," I believe it probably said.
4 Q So Mr. Minton wanted the Church of Scientology to
5 purchase Mr. Prince's house in Clearwater?
6 A That seemed to be the indication that Mr. Jonas
7 put on the paper. Yes.
8 Q The top of Page 9 it says "MR" for Michael Rinder.
9 Next to his initials we have, "Listened. Glad some agreed
10 on some things."
11 What things were agreed on at this meeting on
12 March 28?
13 A Well, as I testified a little earlier, there
14 seemed to be an agreement on both sides of the table that
15 both sides wanted all of the litigation to go away and all
16 claims against each side to go away.
17 Q Now, in the middle of Page 9 it says Mr. Rinder
18 says he can't control -- or the Church can't control the
19 Nigerian government but he can control the flow of
20 information.
21 Is that information that the private investigators
22 for the Church of Scientology had on Mr. Minton, that is the
23 kind of information flow that the Church could control?
24 A Mr. Minton -- Mr. Rinder didn't say anything more
25 specific than that. And I am not aware of any information
207
1 that private investigators had on -- on Mr. Minton having to
2 do with the Nigerian government.
3 Q Now, when the Nigerian government was brought up
4 at the meeting, you thought that was kind of out there on
5 the fringes, so to speak, you laughed about that, that the
6 Church had some control over the Nigerian government?
7 A Yes. I personally laughed. And I think
8 Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen did, as well.
9 Q So you are not aware of a Scientologist, I
10 believe, by the name of Fashanu from Nigeria who published
11 an article -- or had an article published about the alleged
12 crimes of Mr. Minton and his dealings with the Nigerian
13 government?
14 A I'm aware of a former Nigerian soccer player that
15 had published some things that had to do with the
16 transactions that Mr. Minton was involved in in Nigeria
17 involving the buy-back of debt of the Nigerian government.
18 And I believe some of that might have been on the Internet.
19 I don't know if this is the fellow whose name you
20 mentioned, the soccer player, but I did not know he was a
21 Scientologist and I don't know if he is a Scientologist.
22 Q Are you aware that the -- one of the OPEC
23 ministers, it may even be the president, is from Nigeria and
24 he's a Scientologist?
25 A No. I'm not aware of that.
208
1 Q Are you aware the Church of Scientology has money
2 in banks inside of Nigeria?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Relevance, your
4 Honor. Objection. Beyond the scope.
5 A I think I can answer that question.
6 I know that statement is completely false.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q So you do know where all of the Church bank
9 accounts are then?
10 A I know there are no accounts in Nigeria.
11 Q Did Mr. Minton talk about his business partner, I
12 think his name is Jeff Schmitt, his office being broken into
13 in London and all his boxes of documents being turned in to
14 the Inland Revenue Service, the IRS equivalent in England?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. Is he
16 asking about the meeting on the 28th and 29th? Is
17 that what --
18 THE COURT: What meeting is this?
19 MR. DANDAR: It's not a meeting. I want to
20 know if she's aware --
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 MR. WEINBERG: Then I object to the question if
23 she's aware of it.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25
209
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Was this talked about at the meeting, Mr. Minton's
3 business partner?
4 A No. It was not discussed.
5 Q Did Mr. Minton bring up the fact that his
6 daughters had been followed by private investigators who he
7 claimed -- Mr. Minton thought and was convinced were
8 retained by the Church of Scientology?
9 A Not in this meeting on the 28th or 29th. I
10 believe that there may have been some discussion about that
11 with Mr. Rinder at some other point in time. And Mr. Minton
12 said that was not his belief, that he did not believe his
13 daughters had been followed.
14 Q Oh, did he give you someone else that was
15 following his two young daughters from --
16 A No, he did not.
17 Q Mike Rinder says on Page 9, according to your
18 notes, that Mr. Minton is, "The deep pocket and we want to
19 collect from you because you are inextricably linked to the
20 cases."
21 Is that a quote from Mr. Rinder?
22 A I don't know that it's an exact quote. But as I
23 testified yesterday, the expression "Deep pocket" did come
24 up at the meeting, and it was in the context of Mr. Minton
25 being the only one that was involved in -- in these cases
210
1 down here in Florida that had any funds that the Church
2 could look to, to collect its damage awards in the breach
3 case, and also any damages that it might be awarded in the
4 counterclaim.
5 Q The next line says "CT & DL." The "CT" stands for
6 what?
7 A That would -- that normally stands for "court."
8 Q Okay. "The court is saying that Minton has to
9 pay." Who said that?
10 A I'm not exactly sure who -- who said that.
11 Q Now, Mr. Rinder told Mr. Minton at this meeting on
12 March 28 that Mr. Minton had been "Screwed by people who
13 have taken his money and done things in -- in his best
14 interests."
15 THE COURT: Where are you reading? I'm sorry.
16 MR. DANDAR: Bottom of Page 9.
17 THE COURT: Could I ask who "DL" is?
18 THE WITNESS: That was -- I believe in that
19 reference it was Dell Liebreich. And I think there
20 was some reference to the fact that she had
21 testified in a deposition when she was asked who was
22 going to pay the damage award, then she thought it
23 would be Mr. Minton or something of that nature.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Did Mr. Minton -- did Mr. Rinder mention at this
211
1 meeting to Mr. Minton the identity of the people who had
2 screwed him, as you say in your note on Page 9?
3 A I'm not sure where that is.
4 Oh, first of all, there is a typo there because
5 the word "not" is missing. I think it should have said,
6 "being screwed by people who have taken his money and not
7 done things in his best interests."
8 And I don't know -- I don't recall whether there
9 were any -- any specific names -- any specific names
10 mentioned at that time.
11 Q The last line on Page 9 is Mr. Rinder saying,
12 "We," meaning the Church, "is not going to pay you," meaning
13 Mr. Minton, "money. Money will flow the other way."
14 So Mr. Rinder was pretty definite that the Church
15 of Scientology definitely was not going to pay any money to
16 Mr. Minton at this meeting?
17 A Well, I think this was in reference to the state
18 of the litigation at that point in time. The only parties
19 that had any damage awards were Churches of Scientology that
20 were awarded in the damage case and were looking to get
21 further damage awards. And I think that was reference to
22 that.
23 Q Turn to March 29, the next -- Page 13 --
24 THE COURT: What page?
25 MR. DANDAR: Page 13.
212
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Is it Mr. Jonas who was -- who was saying that
3 they -- Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks -- are willing to take
4 steps and are -- and are extraordinary, but to do that we
5 have to dismiss.
6 A What he said was that -- as he said above, they
7 were willing to take steps to see what they could do about
8 resolving the litigation in Florida. And he believed that
9 it was extraordinary that they were willing to take those
10 steps but in exchange they wanted something.
11 And what they wanted was that they would have to
12 dismiss the contempt matters that were pending against Bob
13 Minton, and we would have to postpone Stacy's pending
14 deposition regarding the bank records. We also would have
15 to either terminate or somehow continue indefinitely the
16 pending deposition of Bob Minton. And agree not to question
17 Dell, in her deposition, about any settlement discussions.
18 Q And Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton were extremely
19 concerned about the intended discovery -- additional
20 discovery of their banking records, weren't they, at this
21 meeting?
22 A That was never specifically said at that meeting.
23 They subsequently told us what their concerns were.
24 Stacy was particularly concerned about the -- the
25 discovery abuse that she believed she had engaged in.
213
1 And Mr. Minton was concerned about the perjury
2 that he had committed with respect to -- to different areas
3 of prior testimony.
4 Q And you agree that in all of your 14 pages of
5 notes for these two days of meetings, the word "perjury"
6 doesn't come up anywhere?
7 A No, it did not come up. No, at that point
8 Mr. Minton wasn't saying that he had perjured himself, no.
9 Q Okay.
10 A Uh-uh.
11 Q Mr. Rosen, however, says, on Page 13, that
12 "Mr. Minton is wrong if he thinks that the deposition is
13 just to find out about Mr. Minton's involvement in the
14 breach of contract case. The deposition is going to go into
15 all financial information."
16 Did that -- is that what Mr. Rosen said?
17 A Right, because Mr. Minton did not say that he was
18 worried about the deposition going into financial
19 information.
20 What Mr. Minton -- Mr. Jonas actually spoke at
21 this time. And what he said on behalf of Mr. Minton was
22 that the deposition should go away because the questions had
23 already been answered and that the Church was aware of what
24 Mr. Minton's involvement was -- or already knew what their
25 position was about his involvement in the breach.
214
1 And Mr. Rosen made it clear that that was not all
2 that the deposition was about, that the deposition was
3 looking to go into all of his financial information. But
4 the concern about -- I'm not saying he did not have a
5 concern. But he did not express to us that that was his
6 concern, that the -- that the deposition was going to go
7 into his financial information, and neither did Stacy
8 Brooks.
9 Q What was meant by Mr. Rosen when he said, "They
10 need to know settlement will not be on best efforts,
11 specific issues."
12 A Well, Mr. Jonas seemed to be saying that because
13 they indicated at the outset of this meeting on March 29
14 that they were willing to make efforts to do certain things,
15 that, in exchange, the Church had to give them something.
16 And what Mr. Rosen was saying is the fact that you
17 are willing to give your best efforts isn't enough, we -- we
18 need something concrete on specific issues or the Church is
19 not willing to postpone any of the -- any of the ongoing
20 discovery.
21 Q So -- so the statements made to Mr. Minton was he
22 had to get the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case dismissed
23 by April 5th, isn't that true?
24 A No. What was -- the reference to that was that if
25 somehow Mr. Minton, or Mr. Jonas on behalf of Mr. Minton,
215
1 wanted this discovery to go away, well, then there would
2 have to be some resolution of the case before the
3 discovery -- the next discovery date, whenever that was, if
4 it was April 5 or whenever.
5 Q That is what it says -- you have on Page 14
6 Mr. Rosen speaking that the settlement has to be by April 5
7 to have it go away. "It go away" are the -- what cases, all
8 of the cases?
9 A No. "It go away" would have been the discovery,
10 whatever discovery was scheduled, for December -- or, excuse
11 me, April 5. That the Church was not willing to postpone
12 any of the ongoing discovery.
13 The Church believed that it was on the brink of
14 finally getting the information that would establish what
15 they had thought was going on in these cases all along, that
16 being discovery abuse, abuse of process and so on. And that
17 they were not willing to postpone any of that discovery so
18 long as the litigation was going on.
19 So essentially what Mr. Rosen said, if you don't
20 want any more discovery, then the case needs to go away.
21 Q What is the specific discovery abuse of Mr. Minton
22 and Ms. Brooks that your client was so concerned about?
23 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Are you talking
24 about as expressed at the meeting?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
216
1 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Yes, April 28 --
2 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what line are you
3 looking at, Mr. Dandar?
4 MR. DANDAR: I'm just following up what the
5 witness said.
6 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
7 A It was not specifically stated at that meeting.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q The last line on -- the last page, Page 14, it
10 says, "Bob Minton disagreed with what happened before in
11 reference to teleconference with Mr. Howie."
12 What was that about?
13 A Mmm, apparently there had been some telephone
14 conferences between Mr. Howie and, I believe, Mr. Wally Pope
15 about the possibility of having settlement discussions
16 beginning sometime back in February of -- of 2002, I
17 believe.
18 Mr. Howie initiated a call to Mr. Pope, Mr. Pope
19 spoke to Mr. Rosen. And I think there was some discussion
20 on this day, the 29th, about what had transpired during
21 those conversations. I was not privy to any of those
22 conversations.
23 Q Do you think you may have missed some important
24 points that your notes don't reflect that happened at the
25 meeting?
217
1 A Not points that I thought were important at the
2 time.
3 Q Maybe --
4 A In hindsight, there are things that were said that
5 I didn't realize were important, but --
6 Q All right. Well, I'll tell you in a second what
7 I'm looking for. I thought it was in here but maybe my eyes
8 aren't working now.
9 But Mr. Rosen did tell Mr. Minton that the Church
10 was preparing a RICO suit?
11 THE COURT: It's in here.
12 MR. DANDAR: I can't --
13 A Reference to RICO, I believe, was as part of
14 Mr. Rosen's list, that being that the Church had done
15 research on that issue, whether or not there was -- there
16 was a viable claim for RICO. And --
17 THE COURT: Look at Page -- I'm sorry to
18 interrupt you, look at Page 5, right almost in the
19 middle where it says "SR."
20 MR. DANDAR: All right.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Now, Mr. Rosen, in addition to saying he spent
23 $40,000 on research and other things, he also said to
24 Mr. Minton that the RICO suit will be filed when the
25 wrongful death case is won. Right?
218
1 A Mmm, that -- that is what is reflected in -- in
2 the notes. I don't have a specific recollection of -- of
3 that having been said.
4 Q At that point in time -- this is probably a silly
5 question -- do you recall Minton or Mr. Jonas saying
6 anything in response to that?
7 A No. The only thing -- the only time that
8 Mr. Jonas said something about RICO was when -- as I
9 explained before, when Mr. Minton asked for a total of all
10 of the damage and -- and Mr. Jonas dismissed that question
11 and said that he -- he believed that one of the reasons for
12 the exercise of setting forth what damage the Church
13 believed Mr. Minton had caused was as a measure of magnitude
14 for a RICO case.
15 Q Did Mr. Rosen talk about the RICO chart that
16 Mr. Rosen or someone representing the Church of Scientology
17 had created and used at some other hearing in some other
18 case?
19 A No, he did not.
20 Q Did he produce a copy of a proposed RICO complaint
21 to Mr. Minton -- or Mr. Jonas?
22 A No, he did not.
23 Q Did he give Mr. Minton a copy of the Armstrong
24 complaint that names Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks as
25 defendants?
219
1 A I think he may have shown him a copy of -- of --
2 of a complaint that had been prepared for filing. But I
3 don't believe that a copy was provided. But I'm not sure
4 about that.
5 Q Okay. Did Mr. Rosen express his opinion, as an
6 attorney and representing the Church of Scientology, that
7 Mr. Minton had, indeed, violated the RICO statutes?
8 A No. There was no substantive discussion of that
9 particular point at all. As I said, all of this was
10 represented in a very matter-of-fact way, and it reflected
11 the Church's position and the Church's estimation of damages
12 that Mr. Minton had caused.
13 Q Was there any discussion about the extraordinary
14 steps that Minton or Brooks had to take in the Florida case
15 to make it go away?
16 A No. That was Mr. -- Mr. Jonas's term. And what
17 he said was that they were willing to take steps to see if
18 they could resolve the matter, and he thought -- he -- when
19 he used the word "extraordinary" he wasn't using it to
20 describe steps. He was saying he thought that their
21 willingness to do something was extraordinary, and that is
22 what he was using the term for, not to modify steps.
23 Q Did you know, at the time of March 28 and 29 of
24 2002, there were two appellate decisions staying all
25 discovery of financial information concerning money given to
220
1 me to fund the Lisa McPherson case?
2 A I did not, Mr. Dandar. But no one could read the
3 transcripts of these proceedings without not knowing that
4 now.
5 Q I'm talking about the stay that was filed back in
6 September of 2001.
7 A I'm aware of that at this point in time. I was
8 not at these meetings.
9 Q Okay. So when you were meeting with Mr. Minton on
10 April 6 and April 7 and April 10, you didn't know that there
11 was a court-ordered stay that prohibited the Church of
12 Scientology from discovering any financial information and
13 money given to me by Mr. Minton?
14 A First of all, I have read those documents. And I
15 don't believe that is what the stay says.
16 But, in any event, I was not aware of any stay or
17 anything having to do with that until it was raised by, I
18 believe, Mr. Tom Dandar in the hearing in front of Judge
19 Baird on the 9th of -- of April. That was the first time I
20 ever heard about it.
21 Q Okay, then after April 9, you again, on April 10,
22 requested of Mr. Minton the UBS checks?
23 A I don't think there is anything in that stay that
24 prohibits Mr. Minton from providing his own bank records if
25 he wants to.
221
1 My understanding was that stay was put in place
2 because there was an effort to protect Mr. Minton from
3 having to produce those bank records. And when Mr. Minton
4 decided that he wanted to produce his bank records, there
5 was no reason why he couldn't do that.
6 Q You didn't think it might have been a good idea
7 for a lawyer to first get permission of the Court that
8 issued the stay order before you entered into trying to
9 obtain UBS checks?
10 A No, I did not.
11 Q And you have to agree -- I would -- I would
12 believe you do -- that the UBS checks are not a check of
13 Mr. Minton's?
14 A It was a check that represented funds of
15 Mr. Minton -- both of those are -- checks. In that sense
16 they certainly are checks of Mr. Minton's because they were
17 checks that represented his funds.
18 Q And how did you know that?
19 A Because Mr. Minton told me.
20 Q So if Mr. Minton lied to you, then you would be
21 totally incorrect?
22 A I don't believe that Mr. Minton lied to me. And
23 the fact he was able to produce the checks verified, in my
24 mind, that he had control of the funds that were the subject
25 of those checks.
222
1 Q Now, you said that you were in Paris when you
2 first found out that there was going to be a meeting with
3 Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton on April 6.
4 What is the date that you found out that you were
5 requested to come to Clearwater?
6 A If I was in Paris, it was probably the 3rd, which
7 was Wednesday, because I believe I went to Madrid on
8 Thursday, the 4th. But -- it was either the 3rd or 4th, but
9 my recollection, I was still in Paris.
10 Q And when is the first time you found out that
11 Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were going to appear on Saturday,
12 April 6, without an attorney representing them?
13 A On the morning of the 6th.
14 Q And you saw a letter that was produced, signed by
15 Mr. Moxon and some other attorney, saying it was okay to
16 proceed without the attorney being present?
17 A Well, the signature that was key to me on that
18 letter was Mr. Howie's, not Mr. Moxon's.
19 Q Okay. And do you recall the date of that letter?
20 A I believe it was dated the day before, which was
21 April 5, but I don't know that I'm recalling the date of the
22 letter specifically now.
23 Q And isn't it true that you did -- never saw a
24 letter from Ms. Brooks' counsel, Mr. McGowan, saying it is
25 okay to meet with her without his presence?
223
1 A I don't even know that I was aware at that point
2 in time that Ms. Brooks had separate counsel. She was
3 represented by Mr. Minton's counsel at the meetings in New
4 York. And it was my understanding that Mr. Minton's counsel
5 was representing both of them. And I don't know if the
6 letter says that specifically or not, but that was my
7 understanding.
8 Q The meeting on the 6th started late in the
9 afternoon. Correct?
10 A Yes, it did.
11 Q And Wally -- although it took place in Wally
12 Pope's office, his conference room, Wally Pope was not
13 there, is that right?
14 A That is correct. Mr. Pope was not there that day.
15 Q Was he there at all that day, I mean, like at the
16 beginning, or at the end, or any time?
17 A No, he was not.
18 Q Okay. Was there an attempt -- intent not to have
19 a licensed Florida lawyer present for this meeting on
20 April 6th?
21 A Absolutely not. It was my understanding, when I
22 cut short my trip to New York to come over, that Mr. Minton
23 and Ms. Brooks wanted to meet, and that their counsel was
24 going to be available.
25 And I specifically asked them where their counsel
224
1 was and why he wasn't there. And I was told that he was not
2 available but that he had no problem with -- with their
3 meeting without counsel.
4 Q Was there an intent by the Church of Scientology
5 not to have one of their licensed Florida lawyers present?
6 A I'm sorry -- I'm sorry, Mr. Dandar, I
7 misunderstood your question.
8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, who -- I'm confused.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, too.
10 THE COURT: Which who is there?
11 MR. DANDAR: The Church of Scientology's
12 Florida lawyers, like Mr. Weinberg, Mr. Fugate.
13 THE COURT: Oh, I understand now. Okay.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Well, then to the extent the
15 response to that question would reveal
16 attorney-client privilege, I would object. If she
17 knows.
18 A I think that probably it could get into privilege.
19 But I was representing Mr. Rinder. And Mr. Rinder
20 was going to be attending the meetings. That was my role.
21 And there wasn't any of the Florida counsel that I knew of
22 that was representing Mr. Rinder.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Now, is it your understanding that Mr. Minton set
25 up or requested the hearing on April 6?
225
1 MR. WEINBERG: Meeting?
2 MR. DANDAR: What did I say?
3 MR. WEINBERG: Hearing.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q Yes. Meeting on April 6?
6 A It's my understanding, yes, that Mr. Minton called
7 Mr. Rinder and requested an opportunity to meet with him
8 again.
9 Q Do you have any knowledge that Mr. Rinder called
10 Mr. Minton on Friday afternoon, March 29, after the New York
11 meeting and after Mr. Minton had flown back to New
12 Hampshire, to tell him that, "We know you can't get the
13 wrongful death case dismissed, we have another idea"? Or
14 words to that effect?
15 A No. That -- that did not happen. There was a
16 telephone conversation between Mr. -- Mr. Minton and
17 Mr. Rinder on Friday afternoon -- well, actually, it was
18 still Friday morning at that time, and it was after they had
19 left the meeting but they were still in New York.
20 In fact, I was the one who placed the call. I
21 placed the call to Mr. Jonas at the New York offices of Hale
22 & Dorr, which were just down the street from Paul Hastings,
23 which is where we believed they had gone after they left the
24 meeting, because Mr. Rinder did want to speak to -- to
25 Mr. Minton.
226
1 And Mr. Minton got -- I heard only one side of the
2 conversation, Mr. Rinder's side. I was still sitting there
3 with him.
4 He asked Mr. Jonas if it was okay for him to speak
5 to Mr. Minton. And Mr. Jonas said yes.
6 And what I heard Mr. Rinder say was that -- to
7 Mr. Minton that he was sorry that the discussions had broken
8 down, but he wanted Mr. Minton to know that the door was
9 still open if he ever wanted to try to initiate settlement
10 discussions again.
11 And that was the extent of the conversation.
12 Q When you flew back from Paris to attend the
13 meeting on April 6, did you know, while you were flying
14 back, that there was going to be a meeting with Minton and
15 Brooks on April 6?
16 A No, I did not. And I did not fly back from Paris.
17 I actually flew from Madrid to Miami and Miami to Tampa.
18 But, no, I did not know. I was just asked if I
19 could come to Florida and was told that Mr. Minton had
20 indicated that he wanted to speak with us again.
21 Q And is it your recollection the first time you
22 found out that the estate refused to dismiss the wrongful
23 death case was at the late afternoon meeting of April 6?
24 A I don't know that I was ever told that the estate
25 refused to settle the case.
227
1 I believe what I was told was Mr. Dandar refused,
2 and that Mr. Dandar would not permit Mr. Minton and/or
3 Ms. Brooks to speak with Ms. Liebreich. So I don't think I
4 was ever told what the estate's position was. I was told it
5 was your position.
6 Q So I wasn't speaking for the estate when I said
7 that, as far as you understood?
8 A It just wasn't conveyed to me one way or another.
9 What I was told was Mr. Dandar, and that was it.
10 Q Now, when did you first learn about this alleged
11 perjury of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks on April 6? Was it
12 before, or after, you went to dinner?
13 A I believe it was after dinner.
14 Q So --
15 THE COURT: I have to -- something isn't clear
16 in my mind that has been bothering me, I guess.
17 Tell me again what it was that -- that you
18 believed had occurred as to why they didn't have any
19 counsel present.
20 THE WITNESS: What I understood was that they
21 really wanted to meet and their counsel wasn't
22 available, and so they had spoken to their counsel
23 about wanting to meet and, I guess -- I don't know
24 what the discussion was with their counsel -- but
25 their counsel had agreed that if they wanted to
228
1 meet, they should go ahead and do it.
2 THE COURT: I'm not sure which exhibit this is
3 and I'm not sure what the date on it was, myself,
4 but there is an exhibit in evidence where there is
5 some discussion or something in the letter, and
6 Mr. Howie, I guess, signed this, I guess indicating
7 that he was aware that there would be -- I may be
8 all wrong about this -- he was aware there might be
9 discussions going on without him being present and
10 that was okay or something like that.
11 What is that? Somebody tell me --
12 MR. WEINBERG: It is --
13 MR. DANDAR: It is --
14 MR. WEINBERG: -- 75.
15 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, let me see Exhibit 75.
16 MR. DANDAR: Of the defense.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Is it defense?
18 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
19 THE COURT: Let's get this so we know what
20 we're talking about.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: Is this mine?
23 MR. WEINBERG: This is yours.
24 THE COURT: Or is this yours?
25 MR. WEINBERG: This is yours.
229
1 THE COURT: Well, Madam Clerk, henceforth when
2 I ask for something --
3 THE CLERK: You want the original?
4 THE COURT: I want the original. As I have
5 indicated to you, I made all manner of notes on my
6 thing. Do not share my copies of this with any
7 lawyer in this courtroom. All right?
8 THE CLERK: Yes, ma'am.
9 THE COURT: And for you-all --
10 MR. WEINBERG: I didn't know --
11 THE COURT: -- my books are off base to both
12 sides. I have many, many notes on here. My notes
13 are for my eyes only.
14 MR. WEINBERG: We are aware of that.
15 THE COURT: Are we clear?
16 MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
17 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
18 MR. LIROT: Clear.
19 THE COURT: There aren't any notes on this.
20 But I do have a lot of notes in here.
21 MR. WEINBERG: I thought you put all of the
22 exhibits in the notebooks. And I was congratulating
23 her.
24 THE COURT: I didn't mean to fuss at you. It
25 is just these are mine and I know -- I have lots of
230
1 notes on here and, frankly, they're my opinions.
2 And, frankly, you wouldn't like some of them, and
3 Mr. Dandar wouldn't like some of them.
4 MR. WEINBERG: Shall we get the original and
5 hand it to Ms. Yingling?
6 THE COURT: Yes, we could do that. Although,
7 frankly, I could share mine because -- I'll let her
8 take a look at it.
9 MR. DANDAR: There are no notes on it?
10 THE COURT: No notes on it.
11 MR. WEINBERG: I have it right here.
12 THE COURT: Do you? Okay. I guess he has the
13 original.
14 MR. WEINBERG: That is the April 4 one, right?
15 THE COURT: Right. Have you had a chance to
16 look at this?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 THE COURT: Is this the letter you were
19 referring to earlier when you said Mr. Howie's
20 signature was the one you were looking for?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: I can't tell you that -- if I were
23 to say I found this startling, that would be an
24 understatement. The -- I don't know how much of
25 what was going on in this particular case Mr. Howie
231
1 was aware of. I don't think -- he was brought in on
2 this certainly after Mr. Jonas at some point in
3 time.
4 So, in any event, let me ask you this. Have
5 you ever signed a letter like that?
6 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, I have not.
7 THE COURT: Okay. If you had signed a letter
8 like that, would you have had something signed by
9 your clients in your office relieving you from any
10 malpractice? Something -- I mean, would you be
11 concerned, under the circumstances, if you'd been
12 Mr. Howie, particularly if you had any communication
13 with your client and knew that maybe they committed
14 perjury -- I don't know what he knew -- but I don't
15 care if you knew anything.
16 Would you have been concerned about just
17 blithely signing this and letting your client go
18 into, in essence, the -- Mr. Rinder was not one of
19 their favorite people at one point in time, even
20 Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton, they said pretty hateful
21 things about Mr. Rinder, both of them.
22 THE WITNESS: They had, your Honor. I was
23 aware of that. They had, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Frankly, there was a time when they
25 had little to no regard for him, called him evil,
232
1 called him the devil, those kinds of things. I'm
2 not saying they are accurate; I'm just saying this
3 is a fact.
4 So knowing that, knowing that they had had this
5 opinion and -- and I do recall the affidavit of
6 Ms. Brooks and the affidavit of Mr. Rinder which
7 would imply at least at that point in time that
8 Ms. Brooks thought Mr. Rinder was a liar, I don't
9 know what she says now.
10 What she said then, he was a liar. So I have
11 to assume Mr. Howie had some of this information. I
12 don't know what he had.
13 But just to let these two people walk in to
14 this -- to this man, this Mr. Rinder, and his
15 lawyer -- I mean, I find that just -- I mean, I just
16 don't know. I just find that outstanding, I'm
17 flabbergasted, and I know Mr. Howie.
18 And, you know, frankly, I always had thought he
19 was a pretty good lawyer. I have no reason to think
20 differently. But would you, representing somebody
21 under those circumstances, have blithely just signed
22 off on a letter like this?
23 THE WITNESS: No. And that is why I insisted I
24 was going to attend the meetings, if Mr. Rinder was
25 going to attend the meetings, because I wasn't going
233
1 to let him attend the meetings without counsel.
2 But we did repeatedly ask if counsel was
3 available, if they wanted to have their counsel, and
4 I think that it was -- I don't think -- first of two
5 things, I think. I don't know Mr. Howie, but I do
6 know that it was Mr. Minton's view and Ms. Brooks'
7 view that the lawyers that they had recently
8 retained here, that being Mr. Howie and then
9 ultimately learned Mr. McGowan, did not know much
10 about the case.
11 They were relatively new, they didn't know what
12 was going on. And they didn't really think that
13 they could be that much assistance to them. They
14 actually thought Mr. Rinder could be more assistance
15 to them because he was more familiar with the case
16 and -- and what had gone on and so forth.
17 So I -- I think that it was Mr. Minton's desire
18 to continue what he had started and he wanted to do
19 it whether or not his counsel was available, and he
20 may have even thought somehow his counsel could have
21 been an impediment to it because his counsel didn't
22 know enough to be helpful. I didn't really know
23 what his thought process was.
24 THE COURT: Well, does it strike you at all as
25 odd that Mr. Minton, who apparently was -- knew he
234
1 was going to come in -- go in there that day and
2 admit to perjury at some point in time. Like you
3 said, I didn't get the idea that Mr. Minton was a
4 fool or anything close to that when he was here. I
5 don't know whether he is or he isn't, but he seems
6 like a fairly intelligent fellow who had some savvy.
7 Doesn't it seem odd to you that Mr. Minton
8 would want to go in to see Mr. Rinder and his lawyer
9 to confess perjury with not even so much as a lawyer
10 and nobody but his -- I hate to sound -- make this
11 sound unkind but, in essence, his lover, his
12 romantic interest, with him?
13 THE WITNESS: I think -- I have thought about
14 this quite a bit, your Honor.
15 First of all, I don't think that Mr. Minton
16 necessarily had come to the decision that he was
17 going to tell us what he did that day. I think he
18 was still going through -- through the process.
19 But I also think at the point when he made the
20 decision, I think it may well have been calculated
21 on his part. And I don't think he's a fool. And I
22 think that he may have thought that he would put
23 himself in a better position, he even -- he had been
24 told by his lawyer he had to tell the truth, and I
25 think he made a decision he had to tell the truth.
235
1 So I think the question in his mind was, "Would
2 I be better off telling them privately what the
3 truth is and -- and taking it from there, or will I
4 be better off having this come out in a deposition
5 in front of Mr. Rosen who is immediately going to
6 run to court and file perjury charges again me?"
7 And so in a sense I think it may have been --
8 he may have thought that while he was doing
9 something extraordinary and he was certainly taking
10 risks in telling people he didn't know whether to
11 trust or not what he ended up telling us, that he
12 may well have thought that from his perspective it
13 was better to do it that way and -- than risk having
14 it come out in court and risk your Honor's ire or
15 Judge Baird's ire or Mr. Rosen's -- God forbid --
16 ire.
17 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, as I perceive
18 this hearing up until now, when this hearing is
19 over -- this is probably all in the record so you
20 have probably seen it -- there is no question that
21 I'll have to -- I mean, I'm not going to get in
22 trouble over this. I'm going to turn this matter
23 over to the State Attorney because there has been
24 all kinds of allegations of criminal acts from all
25 sides, so that is not my job, I don't sort it out.
236
1 "Here you are, that is your job," everything goes to
2 the State Attorney with a cover letter.
3 It's my understanding, having been somewhat of
4 a criminal lawyer, having sat on the bench for ten
5 years, that Mr. Minton is far less than candid in
6 his recantation, that some of the matters of perjury
7 I uncovered, or others uncovered, and then he
8 recanted. He's too late, quite frankly.
9 Florida has a statute called perjury that is
10 two inconsistent statements, whether he recants or
11 doesn't; one statement, another statement, two
12 inconsistent statements. One is a third degree, one
13 is a second degree felony.
14 I think Mr. Minton is in all manner of trouble.
15 Whether or not the State Attorney wants to get
16 bogged down in this is, quite frankly, doubtful.
17 But -- so Mr. Minton has perjury problems.
18 Mr. Minton has contempt problems, without any
19 thought about it because, frankly, I'm in my 22nd
20 day of hearing and I am most aggravated, you know.
21 Who all I'm aggravated with depends what I decide.
22 But he surely, surely is one of them.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am?
24 THE COURT: I think Mr. Minton has IRS
25 problems. I, frankly, have no intention of keeping
237
1 anything from them.
2 And I think he's got problems because he hasn't
3 filled out the form that anybody that fills out a
4 Schedule B knows that -- I have seen this form.
5 There must be some reason why they asked me whether
6 I had a foreign bank indicated. Never having had
7 one, I never followed up. But I got on the
8 Internet, saw this little form is supposed to be
9 filled out. Right there on the bottom it says if
10 you don't fill this form out, you've got big
11 trouble.
12 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh?
13 THE COURT: So from what I gather, he's got
14 troubles with two government agencies, both of which
15 involve criminal sanctions. He has trouble with the
16 State Attorney which involves criminal sanctions.
17 He has trouble with me which involves criminal
18 contempt.
19 And Mr. Howie here has just signed off on this
20 saying, "Well, just go on ahead, it's all right with
21 me."
22 Do you think it would be smart if Mr. Howie has
23 got something in his office that covers him, like,
24 for example, that this is what his client wanted to
25 do? Would you not want that as a lawyer? If -- if
238
1 your client -- would you -- if you knew any of that,
2 would you not want something that covered you
3 from -- from some sort of malpractice?
4 THE WITNESS: Certainly. Certainly. I -- I
5 don't think that I would -- I would ever permit a
6 client that had those potential problems to meet
7 without me.
8 But I don't know that Mr. Howie was aware of
9 any of that at that point in time. I think that he
10 had been recently retained to represent Mr. Minton
11 with respect to contempt proceedings. And I -- I
12 don't know that he knew anything -- I don't -- I'm
13 not here to defend him, obviously.
14 All I can say, I don't know one way or another,
15 your Honor.
16 THE COURT: But you have never done it?
17 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: And you surely wouldn't be putting
19 your name on the letter. It would be bad enough to
20 have agreed orally, but to put it in writing, I just
21 can't imagine.
22 But be that as it may, it is still your
23 testimony this was not a requirement of the Church,
24 that no -- that Mr. Howie nor --
25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. And to the
239
1 contrary, we asked on a number of occasions if
2 counsel was available.
3 In fact, when I arrived, I fully expected to be
4 meeting -- I didn't know whether it could be
5 Mr. Jonas, I don't even know if I knew who Mr. Howie
6 was at the time. And I was quite surprised when I
7 learned that there wasn't one of Mr. Minton's
8 attorneys available.
9 THE COURT: And -- and, really, I gather
10 throughout, except for the few occasions that have
11 been mentioned where a lawyer was present, there
12 were many times you met with Ms. Brooks and
13 Mr. Minton without a lawyer, even after this perjury
14 was discussed? Right?
15 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
16 THE COURT: And so I just assume either they
17 didn't discuss this with Mr. Howie and, therefore,
18 he never knew, or I guess they just continued to go
19 on in and talk about crimes to somebody on the
20 opposite side. I don't know, maybe they thought
21 they were on the same side. It's not really a
22 matter of sides, but it's a matter of somebody who
23 would have no privilege. In other words, somebody
24 who, if the State Attorney called you to a State
25 Attorney investigation and said, "What did he tell
240
1 you," you certainly would have no -- you can't say,
2 "I'm sorry, I can't reveal that to you because I'm
3 counsel and that is private."
4 THE WITNESS: No. That is correct. But
5 Mr. Minton -- the first time he told us what he told
6 us on the 6th of April made it clear that was his
7 testimony. And if he were asked those questions in
8 deposition he would testify that way. If he were
9 asked in court, he would testify that way.
10 And, in fact, it was after the hearing and --
11 in front of Judge Baird which I attended and I did
12 hear Mr. Minton's testimony that I -- I can speak
13 for myself, not really Mr. Rinder, that to the
14 extent I was very wary of what he said and didn't
15 know whether or not to believe him, the fact he was
16 willing to testify to these things in open court
17 certainly made me feel more comfortable about the --
18 about the truth of the testimony.
19 THE COURT: Well, if you continue to read or if
20 you have read you will find he really wasn't quite
21 so candid. And it's nice that you -- he was very
22 candid with you. However, it seems to me that he
23 only spoke about money matters and revealed money
24 matters on this record when -- except for these two
25 things that he has talked about when he got caught.
241
1 So, you know, you and I may see those things
2 differently. But perhaps he was more candid with
3 you than he was with me. That is fine for him to
4 you. That is not so fine for him to me.
5 THE WITNESS: And I don't disagree with that,
6 your Honor. I think he told us what he told us
7 because in a sense he thought he maybe wasn't caught
8 on the 6th but he was going to be caught on the 8th
9 or caught on the 9th, because his lawyer, Steve
10 Jonas, told him he had to tell the truth, and he
11 crossed that bridge, he was going to tell the truth.
12 So in that sense, I think he was telling us also
13 when he thought he had been caught --
14 THE COURT: But do you know what? He didn't.
15 Have you seen that deposition?
16 THE WITNESS: On the --
17 THE COURT: On the 8th?
18 THE WITNESS: I haven't seen the deposition.
19 But I do understand that the actual testimony
20 regarding the checks came -- came out on the 9th in
21 front of Judge Baird.
22 THE COURT: He actually told lies on the 8th.
23 Here is a guy that is supposedly coming clean. I
24 mean, it is just remarkable to me. This is why --
25 this is quite mind-boggling. He's supposedly coming
242
1 clean with you, telling you things. Told us in here
2 he wants to set the record straight. With you-all
3 that was critical, I mean, that the record be set
4 straight. And he went straight into a deposition
5 with this person he tried to set the record straight
6 and said I can't tell you how many lies. There was
7 one right after another right after another.
8 But of course, it was on these money matters.
9 So, you see, I'm a little suspect about what he said
10 about these money matters.
11 So, anyway, for whatever it is worth, I find it
12 remarkable that he was willing to do this. I find
13 it even more remarkable that a member of the Florida
14 Bar, that I know, was willing to let him do this
15 unless it was insisted upon. And yet I have no
16 reason to disbelieve you. And you say that this was
17 not a requirement before this meeting --
18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
19 THE COURT: -- or any of the meetings, that
20 there was not counsel?
21 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
22 THE COURT: Then I just continue to be amazed.
23 Thank you, though, for making that clear for me.
24 This goes back to my --
25 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not getting near that
243
1 notebook.
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. WEINBERG: Could I take the original back
4 and give it back to the clerk, unless Mr. Dandar
5 needs it --
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. WEINBERG: -- so we don't get this lost?
8 THE COURT: The only reason I get real fussy
9 about that, I write outlandish and outrageous things
10 on some of my stuff. And I really wouldn't want
11 somebody to see some of the stuff that I write. It
12 isn't very judicious, some of it.
13 MR. WEINBERG: I can't imagine that.
14 THE COURT: Continue on.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q So late in the afternoon of Saturday, April 6, you
17 meet with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks before dinner. And I
18 need to go through this sequence of events. Who talked
19 first and what was said?
20 A I think I have testified of my best recollection.
21 I don't remember exactly who spoke first or exactly what was
22 said. But there were pleasantries exchanged, and Mr. Rinder
23 asked what -- what Mr. Minton wanted to talk about.
24 And I believe Mr. -- Mr. Rinder might have asked
25 whether or not Mr. Minton had met with you.
244
1 And he told us no, that you had told him that you
2 did not want to meet him in Cleveland or anywhere else
3 because you were afraid you would have a heart attack.
4 And that -- and that you had told him that you
5 would not dismiss the -- the wrongful death case.
6 Q And then what was said when you and Mr. Rinder
7 knew that I would not dismiss the wrongful death case?
8 A We asked Mr. Minton what -- what else he wanted to
9 talk about. And it was at that point that Mr. Minton and
10 Ms. Brooks left to talk among themselves. And I believe
11 they went to dinner. I'm not sure I have all of the
12 sequences right, but I know at some point there was a break
13 for dinner and then we came back.
14 Q Well, I think they testified they went to dinner
15 around 8, 8:30. You said it started late afternoon, around
16 5. So what did you talk about for some almost three hours
17 or more?
18 A We did not talk for three hours or more at the
19 initial segment of that meeting.
20 Q All right.
21 A It's not my recollection we did, I'm sorry, I
22 should say. I don't recall that.
23 I recall the meeting taking place in three
24 segments: A short segment before dinner, another segment
25 after dinner, and a third segment where it was continued at
245
1 a hotel. But I cannot put precise times.
2 I'm trying to remember whether it was dark or not
3 dark, but it was dark -- before Daylight Savings Time so it
4 was getting dark much earlier, so their recollection could
5 be better than mine on the exact time they went to dinner.
6 I don't remember.
7 Q Did the meeting end at the hotel at about 1:30 in
8 the morning?
9 A It was late. And it could have been, as I
10 testified, it could have been midnight or later, but I don't
11 remember specifically the time.
12 Q The first time you heard Mr. Minton say that he
13 had perjured himself in the wrongful death case was after
14 dinner?
15 A I believe that is correct. Yes.
16 Q Was there any suggestion made by you or Mr. Rinder
17 to Mr. Minton that he had perjured himself in the case,
18 prior to going to dinner?
19 A No. There was not.
20 Q So Mr. Minton, out of the blue, so to speak, just
21 blurts out, "Oh, by the way, I committed perjury, I lied
22 under oath"?
23 A No, that is not what happened at all. What
24 happened was when -- after the initial discussions that we
25 had and there didn't seem to be anything else forthcoming,
246
1 Mr. Rinder asked what else Mr. Minton wanted to discuss and
2 why he asked to have a further meeting with us, and were
3 they prepared to tell us what was really going on in the
4 case with respect to discovery abuse and things of that
5 nature.
6 Q You did not take any notes of this meeting or any
7 other meeting commencing April 6, correct?
8 A I did not. Uh-uh.
9 Q Okay. So why is it that we have 14 typed pages of
10 notes from March 28 and a couple hours or so of March 29,
11 and you have no notes at all for everything that happened
12 after that?
13 A This was a settlement conference. And it would
14 normally be my practice to take notes at a settlement
15 conference. When we had this meeting with Mr. Minton on
16 the -- beginning on the 6th of April, I really didn't know
17 what kind of a meeting it was. And I was prepared to listen
18 and see.
19 If I had thought it appropriate to take notes at
20 some point in time, I would have. But I have no notes from
21 any of those meetings.
22 Q When Mr. Minton started to say that he committed
23 perjury, you didn't stop him and say, "Wait a minute, you
24 are confessing to a crime. You need to go get your lawyer
25 on the phone. You need to stop talking to me. I have a
247
1 duty to report crimes. I'm a lawyer." Or Mr. --
2 THE COURT: She did not have a duty to report
3 past crimes. Don't try to suggest she does. The
4 lawyers look bad enough in this case, with the St.
5 Petersburg Times here. Let's not have us look any
6 worse than we already do.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q You didn't stop Mr. Minton from talking when he
9 said he committed a crime?
10 A That is not what happened, Mr. Dandar.
11 What Mr. Minton did was first of all told
12 Mr. Rinder, outside of my presence, Mr. Rinder then told me,
13 and I was told again in his presence that he had provided
14 you additional moneys than he had previously testified
15 about. And he described the amounts and how it had come to
16 be that he had given you those moneys. That was the initial
17 discussion.
18 He didn't come in and say, "Hold on, I have
19 committed perjury, I want to tell you I committed perjury."
20 It is my characterization to you of what I believe
21 he did when I got all of the facts. I don't know that he
22 ever said the words, "I have committed perjury." I mean, he
23 has certainly said he was concerned about having committed
24 perjury, or that there might be -- somebody might make a
25 finding he committed perjury. But I don't believe he ever
248
1 said that to me.
2 He gave me the facts of what he had been involved
3 in, including not telling -- giving complete answers or
4 giving false answers to questions regarding how much money
5 he had provided you for the case, telling me that you had
6 specifically told him that he should not reveal those checks
7 on a number of instances, telling him that because his
8 signature was not on the checks they were not his checks,
9 that he just needed to concentrate on the checks that he had
10 written and so on. He told us facts of that nature.
11 And he didn't come in and say, "I have committed
12 perjury."
13 Q So who suggested that he did?
14 A I'm telling you that as I'm testifying here today,
15 that is my characterization. I don't know that, as the
16 judge suggested, the State Attorney would ever think it
17 amounted to perjury or it had something that hadn't been
18 remedied in this procedure. I don't know that any judge
19 would ever find it was perjury. I can't make that
20 determination.
21 What I can tell you is my characterization of
22 what -- I believe when anybody lies under oath, that it's
23 perjury, and that is what I use the term for. But I
24 certainly know there is a difference of opinion.
25 I believe your Honor has a different opinion than
249
1 I do, having read that your view is that it has to be
2 material in order to be perjury. But I guess I have always
3 understood that anybody who ever lies under oath, that is
4 perjury. So that is the sense in which I use it. But
5 whether it actually is perjury in the technical sense for
6 which someone could be convicted of that crime, that is not
7 what I'm saying when I use that word.
8 Q Why is it that you were asked by your client,
9 Mr. Rinder, to step out of the room?
10 A Because Mr. Minton had made that request to him.
11 Q And did anyone say, "Well, why do you want
12 Mrs. Yingling to leave"?
13 A I don't know that anyone said it specifically.
14 What Mr. Minton said was that he didn't feel comfortable
15 saying what he had to say with me there. And as I said,
16 although against my better judgment at the time, I did step
17 out momentarily.
18 Q So when Mr. Minton said he didn't feel comfortable
19 with you being there, why didn't you simply stop the meeting
20 and say, "We'll reconvene when you get your lawyer"?
21 A I wasn't asked to do that. And that is not what
22 he expressed.
23 THE COURT: You are being facetious, aren't
24 you? I mean, you are surely being facetious when
25 you asked her why she didn't tell him to call his
250
1 lawyer, why she didn't stop and report things to --
2 I mean, you are being facetious, aren't you?
3 MR. DANDAR: I'm not being facetious when I say
4 why didn't you ask him to get -- or why didn't she
5 get his lawyer on the phone when he started to say
6 the things --
7 THE COURT: Why? For heaven sakes, do you not
8 remember? She represents the Church of Scientology.
9 That is who she is. That is what she is. That is
10 her client at that moment.
11 He is about to say something and do something
12 that is going to help the Church of Scientology.
13 Why in the world would she do something detrimental
14 to her client that she's under no obligation to do?
15 I mean, that is why I say, you are being
16 facetious?
17 MR. DANDAR: Actually --
18 THE COURT: That is why I have to wonder what
19 in the world Mr. Howie was thinking about. And
20 surely there is something more there that doesn't
21 meet the eye, because Mr. Howie is smarter than
22 that.
23 MR. DANDAR: I was just saying I would have
24 called Mr. Minton's lawyer. Maybe it's just a
25 personal preference.
251
1 THE COURT: Well, then you could have been sued
2 for malpractice. The truth of the matter is you
3 don't represent him. She does not represent him.
4 You represent your client. And you have a loyalty
5 to your client, not to that other person. So, I
6 don't know, maybe you get sued for malpractice a few
7 times, you will change your mind.
8 Don't misunderstand, that is very noble,
9 Mr. Dandar. But the truth of the matter is you have
10 to be kidding. That this man is there getting ready
11 to say things that will be very helpful, as I hope
12 you will have seen, to her client. It is not her
13 job, as a lawyer, to shut that down and stop things
14 that might be helpful to her client.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q How long were you out of the room?
17 A Just a few minutes, I believe. About twenty
18 minutes, something like that. I'm not sure how long.
19 Q Now --
20 THE COURT: You do know, and I know you know,
21 if he said, "I am going to commit perjury tomorrow,"
22 you might have had some other obligations.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, with respect to
24 future crimes, yes. My husband is a criminal
25 lawyer.
252
1 THE COURT: Well then, you would know that. I
2 mean, am I crazy here, Mr. Dandar? Maybe we are on
3 such different pages, I can't imagine.
4 You didn't feel any obligation to do something
5 detrimental to your client?
6 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. My interest is
7 in protecting my client and in looking out for them.
8 THE COURT: And at that point, when Mr. Minton
9 began to reveal these things, you could see that
10 this could be potentially beneficial to your client?
11 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: And there would have been no reason
13 in the world for you to have stopped that, that you
14 can think of right now, can you?
15 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: That is why I'm asking. I mean,
17 are you kidding? What is happening here? Do you --
18 MR. DANDAR: I just -- it's my own preference,
19 and if it is not within the code of ethics, then I
20 guess it is just my extra --
21 THE COURT: Oh, brother.
22 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
23 THE COURT: You know, I have to be real honest
24 with you. Do you know the allegations that have
25 been made here?
253
1 MR. DANDAR: I sure do.
2 THE COURT: Well, you know what? It really
3 ought not be -- in the first place, even saying that
4 shows me that you don't understand your obligation
5 to your client. Your obligation to your client is
6 one of loyalty. It is not loyalty to the
7 opposition.
8 MR. DANDAR: With that loyalty, Judge, you have
9 to be within the code of ethics. You can't just --
10 THE COURT: It just sounds wonderful but,
11 frankly, that would violate the code of ethics, in
12 my humble opinion.
13 MR. DANDAR: All right.
14 THE COURT: Let's take a break. Okay? What
15 time do you have to catch your plane?
16 THE WITNESS: I should try to leave by 4
17 o'clock, if possible.
18 THE COURT: Do you think you'll be done by 4
19 o'clock if I don't go on more lecture tours?
20 MR. DANDAR: I think I can be done by 4
21 o'clock.
22 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to be done by
23 4 o'clock so she doesn't have to come down -- I'll
24 try to be real quiet. I'll tell Mr. Weinberg not to
25 make any objections and we'll get you out of here by
254
1 four.
2 We'll be in recess for fifteen minutes.
3 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken at 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
4 ___________________________________
5 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dandar, proceed.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q On April 6 at the meeting was there any discussion
8 about -- from Mr. Rinder about me?
9 A Certainly your name came up, Mr. Dandar. I'm just
10 trying to remember specifically what might have been said.
11 I think that most of the -- most of the conversation on the
12 6th was Mr. Minton speaking. And I don't recall anything
13 specific that Mr. Rinder had said about you at that meeting.
14 Q Was there any discussion about getting Mr. Minton
15 prepared for his April 8 deposition?
16 A No. Not -- certainly not that day. The next day
17 there was discussion in the sense that we knew that Mr.
18 Minton was speaking with his lawyers. And I understood that
19 Mr. Howie and Mr. Jonas were speaking to Mr. Minton about
20 preparing them. And I believe that the lawyers may have
21 also spoken to Mr. Rosen.
22 Q About Mr. --
23 THE COURT: This would have been Sunday?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that was Sunday the 7th,
25 your Honor.
255
1 THE COURT: I can't remember, his deposition
2 was on a Monday?
3 THE WITNESS: Monday, the 8th.
4 THE COURT: I remember it was the 8th. Was
5 that a Monday?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q So what is your understanding of what Mr. Minton's
9 lawyers spoke with about Mr. Rosen -- or to Mr. Rosen
10 concerning Mr. Rosen's taking of Mr. Minton's deposition on
11 April 8?
12 A I don't know specifically. I wasn't privy to
13 that. But to the extent -- all I was trying to say was to
14 the extent that there were conversations about Mr. --
15 Mr. Minton's deposition and preparing him for that, I -- I
16 was not involved in any of those conversations. It was
17 between the lawyers for -- for Mr. -- for Mr. Minton and --
18 I understood -- Mr. Rosen was taking the deposition.
19 Q All right. And I'll jump around a little bit, try
20 to get this to go faster.
21 You mentioned this morning that you received a
22 letter dated May '97 that I wrote to Stacy Young and her
23 husband Vaughn Young. Do you recall that?
24 A Mmm, I don't know if we -- if I said I received
25 it. I believe we were shown a copy. There were documents
256
1 that we were shown by Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, and -- and
2 documents that we showed them. I personally did not keep a
3 copy of any of the documents. So I know that that was a
4 document that was shown at one of the meetings. And whether
5 or not a copy was received, I'm just not exactly sure.
6 Q Well, the Church of Scientology has produced it as
7 one of their exhibits and they received it.
8 My question to you is who gave you the letter?
9 A Stacy Brooks, I believe, had a copy of the letter.
10 Q Did she give it to you or Mr. Rinder?
11 A Mmm, she would not have given it to me. But she
12 may well have given it to Mr. Rinder.
13 Q Would she not have given it to you?
14 A Because I didn't take custody of any of the
15 documents at the -- at the meeting.
16 Q Was this the meeting of April 15th?
17 A Do you mind if I look at my calendar?
18 Q No. Go ahead. Tell me the meeting where
19 Ms. Brooks produced the May '97 letter.
20 A I don't think that it would have been at that
21 meeting, no. Uh-uh. But I don't have a specific
22 recollection of when that letter would have been discussed.
23 Q Would you agree that it would be a breach of your
24 ethics to accept a work product letter that was written to
25 an attorney's expert if the expert decided to turn it over
257
1 to the opposition?
2 A I don't believe it would be a breach of my ethics
3 to accept a document like that, no. And I understood at
4 that point in time that Stacy Young was not an expert
5 witness for you.
6 Q Okay. Let's go to April 13, a Saturday. This is
7 a meeting where Bob Minton announced that he was going to
8 meet with Jesse Prince in the evening.
9 A That is correct. Actually, I think that we knew
10 that before the meeting, and that the meeting was scheduled
11 because he had planned to have dinner with Jesse Prince that
12 evening.
13 Q Okay. And you said some papers -- copies of Judge
14 Schaeffer's hearing transcript where she talked about Jesse
15 Prince's credibility was brought over by whom to Mr. Minton?
16 A Mmm, it was discussed at that meeting. I don't
17 know that the -- that the documents, the actual transcript,
18 was provided at that meeting or at a later point in time. I
19 think there was a copy of it at that meeting because I can
20 remember Mr. Rinder reading from it aloud.
21 But whether that copy was actually given to
22 Mr. Minton at that time, or whether he received a copy
23 subsequent to that, I'm not sure. But it would have been
24 from Mr. Rinder to Mr. Minton.
25 Q Now, is it your understanding that when Mr. Jonas
258
1 said to Mr. Minton, "You got yourself into that trouble all
2 by yourself, you can get yourself out of that trouble all by
3 yourself," do you understand that Mr. Jonas said that
4 because Mr. Jonas didn't know that Mr. Minton was meeting
5 with you and Mr. Rinder without an attorney?
6 A Mr. Jonas did know that Mr. Minton was meeting
7 with me and Mr. Rinder without an attorney. I specifically
8 discussed that topic with him.
9 And that is not an exact -- my exact recollection
10 of either my testimony or what Mr. Minton represented to me
11 that Mr. Jonas had said to him.
12 What I recall Mr. Minton had said when they had --
13 when there were discussions between Mr. Minton and Mr. Jonas
14 about whether or not he should continue to meet without an
15 attorney, Mr. Jonas said something to the effect, "Well, you
16 got yourself into this mess on your own, you can get
17 yourself out on your own."
18 I think Mr. Jonas was not familiar with all of the
19 ins and outs of the case. And so that was part of his
20 unwillingness to become more involved. But I don't want to
21 speak for Mr. Jonas because I don't know what his --
22 Q When did Mr. Jonas tell you he knew Bob Minton was
23 meeting with you and Mr. Rinder on April 6 without a lawyer?
24 A Not on April 6, but I had a subsequent
25 conversation with him on April 13 and it was during that
259
1 conversation.
2 Q During that conversation, just to be clear,
3 Mr. Jonas told you that he knew that Bob Minton was meeting
4 you and Mr. Rinder on April 6, before April 6, without a
5 lawyer?
6 A No. No. That is not my testimony.
7 Q All right.
8 A It is that Mr. Jonas was aware of the fact that
9 Mr. Minton was meeting with Mr. Rinder and me without his
10 own counsel present. In general, I stated that. Not that
11 he knew about it on the 6th or before the 6th. I had a
12 conversation with him on the 13th where he made it clear to
13 me he knew about it at that time.
14 Q All right. So he never said he knew about it
15 beforehand?
16 A I never asked him.
17 Q Did Stacy Brooks ever tell you, on any of the
18 meetings you had with her, that her prior declarations in
19 any form or shape or manner was false?
20 A During the last meeting that I had with Stacy
21 Brooks and -- and Mr. McGowan sometime in the middle of May
22 when we discussed affidavits that she had filed in other
23 cases, yes, there was some discussion about -- about
24 particular issues having been described falsely in her
25 affidavits.
260
1 I think I have already testified that -- that she
2 said that with respect to the contrasting affidavits that
3 she and Mr. Rinder filed regarding the meetings that they
4 had had, that she believed that Mr. Rinder's affidavit more
5 accurately described those meetings and that her affidavit
6 distorted the facts.
7 Q Did Stacy Brooks tell you that Graham Berry,
8 the attorney from California, had her lie in affidavit or
9 declaration?
10 A What she told us was not specifically that the
11 attorney had her lie. But that the attorneys basically
12 looked to her to create scenarios or speculations or
13 whatever to support theories that they were trying to
14 advance in particular cases.
15 She also told us, specifically with respect to the
16 affidavits that had been filed in the -- in the Wollersheim
17 case, that she wanted those affidavits withdrawn and that
18 she was going to advise the attorney out there about that
19 because she didn't believe that she could support them.
20 Q Did she tell you that anything in the Wollersheim
21 declaration case was a lie -- untrue, a lie?
22 A I don't know that she ever said that specifically,
23 the word "lie," but she certainly did tell us that she
24 didn't have personal knowledge, that it was an opinion, it
25 was her belief.
261
1 And she told us that she had told the attorneys
2 that. And they said, "Well, you can put it in an affidavit
3 anyway."
4 But I don't recall, other than with -- than with
5 respect to the Rinder affidavit where -- where she did say
6 that her version of the facts was not true, I don't recall
7 that she specifically said anything else was not true but,
8 rather, that she didn't have personal knowledge or she
9 didn't know.
10 Q Did she ever tell you that her former husband,
11 Robert Vaughn Young, lied in any of his previously filed
12 declarations or affidavits in any case?
13 A I don't know that we ever really discussed
14 Mr. Young, other than I recall one conversation in which
15 Mr. Young was discussed where Ms. Brooks verified a
16 suspicion that the Church had had that it was actually
17 Mr. Young who had drafted an affidavit that Jesse Prince
18 signed in a -- another proceeding.
19 But beyond that, I don't know that he ever really
20 talked about Mr. Young.
21 Q Did Stacy Brooks tell you, at any of the meetings,
22 that Jesse Prince had lied in any declaration or affidavit
23 he filed in any case?
24 A Yes, she did.
25 Q What case?
262
1 A Well, she specifically told us that the affidavit
2 that he had filed in I believe it was the FACTNet case was
3 not even drafted by Mr. Prince, it had been drafted by
4 Mr. Young. And Mr. Prince signed it as if it were his
5 affidavit and he had personal knowledge. And that that was
6 not his affidavit, it wasn't his creation, and he didn't
7 have personal knowledge.
8 And, in fact, I believe Mr. Prince was deposed in
9 that case. And I never read the deposition, but it was
10 discussed at one of our meetings that it was so clear to
11 everyone who attended the deposition that he could not
12 possibly have written that declaration because he had
13 absolutely no idea what was in it. It had very technical
14 statements about copyright law and who owned copyrights and
15 so on and so forth, because that was the issue in the
16 FACTNet case. And even though he had signed that affidavit
17 under oath, he knew absolutely nothing about what was in it.
18 And Ms. Brooks, as I said, confirmed the Church's
19 suspicion that he had not actually written it, that
20 Mr. Young had written it.
21 She also told us that the --
22 THE COURT: I'm sorry, just a second, the
23 FACTNet case?
24 THE WITNESS: That was in the FACTNet case,
25 which was a copyright case. The Church of
263
1 Scientology sued Mr. Wollersheim, FACTNet, some
2 other individuals for copyright infringement.
3 A She also told us that the affidavit that Mr. --
4 Mr. Prince filed in this case containing allegations about
5 whether or not Mr. -- Mr. Miscavige would have known about
6 and let Lisa McPherson die was based on speculation and
7 things that he had created out of hole cloth.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Did she tell you whether or not Jesse Prince
10 agreed with that statement of hers?
11 A She told us that she had actually had a
12 conversation with Jesse Prince where she had told him that
13 that affidavit was over the top and that he had no basis for
14 making the assertions and the allegations that he was making
15 in that affidavit.
16 But I don't believe that she ever told us whether
17 he agreed or disagreed with that statement.
18 Q Now, did Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks ever express
19 to you, at any of the meetings, that either one of them or
20 both of them could get Jesse Prince to recant any of his
21 affidavits?
22 A They indicated to us, when we met with them in New
23 York, that in terms of some sort of an overall settlement,
24 that they believed that Jesse Prince would be part of that,
25 that -- and that they essentially controlled him. I don't
264
1 want to say that was the word they used, but that certainly
2 was the impression that they conveyed to us. They believed
3 they could pretty much get Jesse to do whatever they wanted
4 him to do because they were his sole source of income. They
5 were paying him, they had paid him for testimony against the
6 Church of Scientology around the country, and they were
7 continuing to pay him.
8 And they believed that they could control him
9 because, in fact, they had -- they had explained to us that
10 they had directed him to withdraw as your witness in this
11 case, and he complied. And he did withdraw at their
12 request.
13 Q And are you aware of the Jesse Prince affidavit
14 that has been filed after these several meetings that you
15 had with Mr. Minton?
16 A Yes. Yes, I am.
17 Q Okay. And would you agree that if Bob Minton and
18 Stacy Brooks thought they could get Jesse Prince to come
19 into their camp, so to speak, they failed miserably?
20 A I would agree -- I did look at the affidavit. I
21 don't have any specific recollection, other than the overall
22 impression, that it was -- it was so absurd, the allegations
23 and things that he was saying about the meetings that had
24 gone on with Mr. Minton in New York and so on. But beyond
25 that, I don't -- I don't remember much about the affidavit.
265
1 But, yes, to the extent they thought somehow he
2 was going to be part of some settlement, they were wrong.
3 Q And just one quick question backwards to the New
4 York meetings. Did Mr. Rosen ever tell Mr. Minton in New
5 York that Mr. Minton and his wife were going to go to jail?
6 A No.
7 Q Or could go to jail?
8 A No.
9 Q Now, you said Mr. Minton thought he was lied to.
10 When did that conversation come up?
11 A It certainly came up a number of different times.
12 And I don't know if -- I don't have an exact recollection
13 whether the first time would have been Saturday, the 6th of
14 May, or -- excuse me, of April -- or sometime thereafter.
15 But it certainly came up a number of times that he believed
16 that he had been lied to.
17 Q By whom?
18 A Mmm, by you. By Mr. Merrett. By Jesse Prince.
19 By other attorneys in other litigation that he had been
20 involved in.
21 Q At any of these meetings did Mr. Rinder show
22 Mr. Minton deeds of property that had the name "Dandar" on
23 it?
24 A Mmm, yes. Yes, he did. That came up as -- as a
25 part of the discussion. I remember Mr. Minton -- Mr. Minton
266
1 told us at some point in time that he believed what had
2 happened to the additional moneys that he had provided to
3 you was that that money had gone into your pocket and that
4 you had essentially stolen that money from him.
5 And he did his own mental calculation of what he
6 thought you might have spent on this litigation of the money
7 that he provided to you.
8 And I think his estimate of how much you might
9 have spent was somewhere between $750,000 or $1 million. So
10 he speculated that you had put a million dollars in your
11 pocket, and he wondered what you might have done with that
12 money.
13 He speculated that you might have put it into a
14 Cayman Islands bank account, or you might have done
15 something else with it.
16 And Mr. Rinder told him he was aware you had made
17 some property purchases, so there were properties in your
18 name that were discussed.
19 Q Let's make this real clear. Is it your testimony
20 that it was Bob Minton who first suggested that I had
21 converted this money and spent it somehow improperly?
22 A It was Mr. Minton who first suggested that -- it
23 wasn't so much a suggestion as much as he came to a
24 realization which he then -- he then disclosed to us -- that
25 the reason that you had wanted him to provide you with funds
267
1 that weren't traceable and the Church of Scientology
2 couldn't find was because you wanted to hide those funds for
3 your own personal use. And that was the reason that you
4 asked him not to tell your employees, specifically
5 Dr. Garko, he told us, and I think also perhaps Mr. Haverty,
6 that you specifically asked Mr. Minton not to let those
7 employees know that you were being provided this money, and
8 that you were going to tell those employees that you were
9 paying for the case out of your retirement account.
10 So, yes, it was Mr. Minton's suggestion -- or he
11 was the first one to raise that topic.
12 Q And Mr. Rinder helped him along by showing him
13 copies of deeds that had my name on it, my parents' name on
14 it, or my sister's name on it, correct?
15 A I don't remember specifically, Mr. Dandar, what --
16 whose names were on the deeds.
17 I do remember that there was a warehouse that was
18 involved, because we had a subsequent conversation where we
19 were speculating where some of the evidence that the Church
20 asked to have produced in this case might be, since you had
21 claimed that you lost it.
22 And I remember Mr. Minton making a joke that
23 perhaps Mr. Rinder should look in your warehouse.
24 Q Did Mr. Rinder say I owned a 200,000 square foot
25 warehouse?
268
1 A I don't remember how many square feet. But I do
2 remember that there was a warehouse discussed, yes.
3 Q And did Mr. Rinder say I owned it?
4 A I don't remember that Mr. Rinder said who
5 specifically owned it, no.
6 Q Well, you read the transcript -- and you were
7 present -- when Mr. Rosen cross-examined me before Judge
8 Baird, asking me -- or accusing me of purchasing a -- and
9 owning a 200,000 square foot warehouse in Odessa, Florida.
10 Do you recall that?
11 A I do recall you testifying. And I do recall
12 Mr. Rosen examining you. But I don't recall specifically
13 questions or testimony about a warehouse, no.
14 Q What was the date of the meeting when you first
15 saw the May '97 letter that I wrote to Vaughn Young and
16 Stacy Young?
17 A I believe I testified that I don't specifically
18 recall at which meeting.
19 Q But as you sit here, you are positive that it was
20 Stacy Brooks who produced this letter and it wasn't
21 Mr. Rinder who produced the letter? Is that right?
22 A I certainly don't recall Mr. Rinder producing the
23 letter. I do remember that Stacy Brooks had a copy of the
24 letter in her possession. And I know she had a copy in her
25 possession when she was preparing her affidavit because she
269
1 quoted from it.
2 Mmm, I -- I -- I have no other specific
3 recollection of -- of that letter, although I know that it
4 formed the basis for discussions having to do with the
5 origination of the strategy to add David Miscavige to the
6 litigation, and how Stacy Brooks was the architect of that
7 strategy, and that somehow she believed that you had known
8 about this strategy before the first time she met with you
9 because you had put it in a letter to her and her husband
10 back in 1997.
11 And she showed us the letter as proof of that.
12 That is my recollection of how the letter was discussed.
13 Q Okay. Now, you said that the two affidavits first
14 written and signed by Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton with
15 their -- the assistance of their attorneys were shown to
16 you, is that right?
17 A The first recanting affidavits I never saw until
18 they were actually signed.
19 Q Okay. And then there were meetings after they
20 filed those original recanting affidavits, correct?
21 A Yes. There were.
22 Q All right. Was there a meeting to discuss more
23 information that needed to be put in the second recantation
24 affidavit before the first drafts were written by Mr. Minton
25 and Ms. Brooks?
270
1 A There was a meeting. And I believe it was
2 probably the meeting on the 18th of April. And I remember
3 that it was after -- I believe it was after the first
4 affidavits had been filed.
5 And I believe Mr. Minton apologized to Mr. Rinder
6 that the affidavits had not been more forthcoming, hadn't
7 included other issues and so on.
8 And he said he really wanted to tell his story and
9 was going to tell his story, but that his attorney had
10 insisted that he do an affidavit as quickly as possible to
11 recant the things that needed to be recanted that he's aware
12 of, I guess at that point in time. And that was the reason
13 that the short affidavit had -- had been filed.
14 But it was Mr. Minton's suggestion that he wanted
15 to tell his story. And I think he told us at that time he
16 was working on it. And this would have been, I believe, on
17 the 18th.
18 Q Did he tell you any time between the 9th and 18th
19 he lied several times in his April 8 deposition?
20 A That is not my recollection of what happened. I
21 understood that he -- he did lie or gave an incomplete
22 answer or something during the deposition.
23 He then got quite upset and left, and then came
24 back and said that there were some things that he had said
25 that needed to be corrected. And at that point in time, for
271
1 whatever reason, that deposition was continued.
2 And the reason I remember it that way is because
3 that was what Mr. Minton testified to in court the next day.
4 And, in fact, I remember when Mr. Rosen asked him whether he
5 had testified truthfully at the 8th, I remember his
6 testimony to be -- well, with respect to these points, there
7 are some areas that need to be corrected that were talked
8 about. And so I think that he knew that he had said
9 something that wasn't correct or was incomplete and he -- he
10 knew that it had to be corrected.
11 Q When Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton presented to you
12 their --
13 THE COURT: When was Mr. Minton's third
14 affidavit signed?
15 MR. DANDAR: His third -- I have it right
16 here -- was signed the 24th of April, the same date
17 as his second affidavit.
18 MR. WEINBERG: I think the third was about
19 Jesse Prince, though.
20 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
21 MR. WEINBERG: I think the third one, if I'm
22 right, was about Jesse Prince, you know, the
23 interaction with Jesse Prince.
24 THE COURT: Maybe I mean the second. The large
25 affidavit.
272
1 MR. WEINBERG: The 24th.
2 MR. DANDAR: The 24th.
3 THE COURT: Of what?
4 MR. WEINBERG: April.
5 MR. DANDAR: April.
6 THE COURT: Of April? This testimony that you
7 are speaking of was on the 9th?
8 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Regarding his testimony in his
10 deposition on the 8th?
11 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
12 THE COURT: And in his affidavit he filed
13 subsequent to that time, I am sure you must have
14 noticed that he still neglected to correct some of
15 his testimony?
16 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: And it was only after it was
18 corrected in here that we have affidavit number 4?
19 THE WITNESS: You are correct, your Honor. And
20 it was something that I indicated, when I testified
21 on direct, when Mr. Weinberg asked me if I made any
22 suggestions about his affidavit.
23 And I specifically had suggested that this
24 whole question of how the moneys came into the Lisa
25 McPherson Trust needed to be cleared up. But as I
273
1 said, I wasn't his lawyer and he didn't take my
2 advice.
3 THE COURT: And, you know, he may have
4 thought -- I don't know what he thought of what it
5 meant when it was a confidential -- I mean, there
6 had to have been some discussion that these
7 discussions would be confidential.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is correct.
9 THE COURT: So perhaps Mr. Minton relied on the
10 fact that whatever he had told you was confidential.
11 THE WITNESS: I think that following the
12 testimony on the 9th of April in front of Judge
13 Baird when -- when Mr. Rosen said that the Church of
14 Scientology would waive that confidentiality, that
15 Mr. Minton understood that there was no further
16 confidentiality.
17 THE COURT: However, even if he -- if he
18 understood that, then one would have to wonder even
19 more why, when he did his subsequent affidavit, he
20 didn't clear up those things that he had not been
21 truthful about on the 8th.
22 THE WITNESS: I agree, your Honor.
23 MR. DANDAR: The waiver by Mr. Rosen was the
24 April 19th. However, Mr. Howie did not waive
25 confidentiality in front of Judge Baird.
274
1 THE COURT: The long and short of it is
2 Mr. Minton had a gracious opportunity to file a
3 lengthy affidavit if he understood that on the 8th
4 that he had not been truthful when he stopped and
5 said, well, perhaps he better straighten it up.
6 Well, it seems to me that he should have
7 straightened it up in his long affidavit. And, you
8 know, I just got his fourth affidavit just a few
9 days ago. And that has to do with a bunch more
10 money.
11 And as I indicated to Mr. Minton, it's my
12 belief that Mr. Minton didn't want to disclose any
13 more money than he had to. And, you know, as we
14 find out things, he may take the Fifth, but then
15 certain things become clear that he's lied about it.
16 And then he's got to either recant and hope that
17 he's not too late, or he could be charged with more
18 perjury, which apparently is a great concern of his.
19 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
20 THE COURT: And if this hearing never gets
21 over, I guess if we uncover more lies, I guess his
22 belief is -- maybe he has been told this by his
23 lawyer -- that as long as this hearing is going on,
24 he can just keep affidavit number 5 and affidavit
25 number 6, should we find out anything more. I don't
275
1 know what he's been told.
2 I just find it amazing to me that somebody that
3 wants to set the record straight has to file four
4 affidavits to do it.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Did you -- you mention you made suggestions to
7 both Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks on their long second
8 recantation affidavit. But can we go into more detail as to
9 what you told each one of them?
10 THE COURT: By the way, I do understand what
11 the lawyers were talking about, the need to get
12 something filed. I'm sure they were hoping that
13 something filed would be -- some effort taken, that
14 he -- it's always good to come forward first.
15 THE WITNESS: Before someone else raises --
16 THE COURT: Right. Exactly.
17 THE WITNESS: Right.
18 THE COURT: So, naturally, I do understand the
19 concern of the lawyer. And I understand the
20 necessity of then perhaps having something broader.
21 But as I said, one would have hoped that he
22 would have disclosed all of the errors, the lies, in
23 that affidavit, and not be waiting until some of the
24 others were uncovered.
25 THE WITNESS: Exactly.
276
1 THE COURT: I promised I wouldn't interrupt and
2 I did. I'm sorry.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q What suggestions did you make to Mr. Minton about
5 his long affidavit?
6 A Well, as I testified earlier, the suggestions were
7 essentially in the area of making it a little shorter,
8 trying to be more precise about facts and personal
9 knowledge, omitting opinion, belief, omitting background and
10 his history of involvement with -- with the Church of
11 Scientology and the free speech movement and the
12 anti-Scientology community and so on.
13 And as I said, I also did make a specific
14 suggestion with respect to the Lisa McPherson trust funds
15 which I believe is mentioned at some point in -- in
16 Mr. Minton's affidavit, but certainly not to the extent that
17 he came clean on it, your Honor.
18 Q Why is it that the Wollersheim case is mentioned
19 in Ms. Brooks' affidavit, the second long one?
20 A Ms. Brooks' original draft affidavit not only
21 mentioned the Wollersheim case but mentioned the Graham
22 Berry case, included the Fishman case, and a number of other
23 cases, because she felt that it was essential to -- to
24 provide her background and her -- the way that she had
25 become a witness in -- in anti-Scientology litigation and
277
1 how she had developed the strategy to -- to add
2 Mr. Miscavige.
3 And I suggested that all that background
4 information wasn't necessary, and that to the extent she
5 thought she needed to put some historical context, that it
6 should be much more concise.
7 And so I think that the Wollersheim case got in
8 there as part of that background. And there was still some
9 background that ended up in her final draft and that was
10 included in it.
11 Q Was Mr. Rosen part of any of these meetings
12 leading up to the second long recantation affidavit?
13 A He was not.
14 Q Was he part of any meeting making suggestions as
15 to what should be in the second affidavit of either Brooks
16 or Minton?
17 A With Mr. Minton? Or Ms. Brooks?
18 Q Either one. Right.
19 A No.
20 Q Did he give you any notes for you to relay any of
21 his suggestions on how they should edit their second
22 affidavit?
23 A No.
24 Q Isn't it true the Wollersheim case is in Stacy
25 Brooks' second affidavit because it was the intent of the
278
1 Church of Scientology to use that in the Wollersheim case in
2 California to accuse Mr. Leipold of suborning perjury?
3 A The Church of Scientology really had no intent
4 with respect to Ms. Brooks' affidavit.
5 Ms. Brooks advised us that she wanted to do an
6 affidavit that told the complete story -- or what she
7 believed was her complete story and her involvement in
8 anti-Scientology litigation.
9 And that's -- that affidavit included mention of
10 the Wollersheim case. I think that Ms. Brooks had told what
11 you have just suggested about Mr. Leipold to Mr. Leipold
12 himself. I think Ms. Brooks told us -- "us" being
13 Mr. Rinder and me -- at some point that she had spoken with
14 Mr. Leipold and she had asked him to withdraw her affidavits
15 in the Wollersheim case because they were not true and she
16 could not support them, and that if he did not withdraw
17 them, that she would have to testify and tell the Court that
18 they weren't true or that she couldn't support them or
19 whatever.
20 So to the extent there would have been an
21 allegation that Mr. Leipold was suborning perjury by using
22 Ms. -- Ms. Brooks' affidavit, I think that was something
23 that Ms. Brooks told Mr. Leipold herself, or at least she
24 relayed to Mr. Rinder and to me that she had told him that.
25 Q Are you now specifically recalling an instance
279
1 where Ms. Brooks told you that a previously filed
2 declaration of hers was -- contained lies made by her?
3 A As I said, she didn't use that word. I don't want
4 to put that word in her mouth. I think she said things more
5 along the lines that she had no personal knowledge, she
6 didn't really know if it was true or not, that it was
7 hearsay or -- or more things of that nature.
8 It's probably more my characterization to say that
9 they're not true, because certainly with a number of her
10 affidavits, including the ones that were filed in the
11 Wollersheim case, I know from personal knowledge that
12 they're not true.
13 For example, she talked about different corporate
14 matters and so on. And these were matters that I had
15 personal knowledge of and I know that they're not true,
16 so --
17 Q When did you, if ever, first learn that Mr. Rosen
18 was going to use Ms. Brooks' second affidavit in the
19 Wollersheim case?
20 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the extent it calls
21 for privileged information.
22 MR. DANDAR: It is just a date.
23 THE COURT: Well, it still might called for
24 privileged information. If she can answer without
25 that.
280
1 A I think to the extent I have any knowledge on
2 that, I would have obtained that knowledge from my client.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q How many drafts did you see of each, Brooks and
5 Minton?
6 THE COURT: Draft of what?
7 MR. DANDAR: Of their second affidavit. Sorry.
8 A I believe just one.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Okay. And when you saw their drafts, who was in
11 the room with you besides either Brooks or Minton?
12 A Mr. Rinder.
13 Q Who else?
14 A That was all.
15 Q Do you have any idea why Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks
16 would come to you and Mr. Rinder to see if their second
17 recantation affidavit was okay?
18 A I think that they were interested in -- in our
19 opinion of -- of what they were saying. By the time they
20 were doing these affidavits, there had been a certain amount
21 of trust that had built up between the parties.
22 And I think that they -- they -- not so much me --
23 but Mr. Rinder has a lot of knowledge about a lot of the
24 incidents that they were talking about. And I think they
25 wanted to verify whether or not their version of the facts
281
1 was correct, or things of that nature, perhaps.
2 I think those questions are better put to them. I
3 mean, certainly to the extent I could make suggestions that
4 were helpful, I was willing to do it. But their motivation
5 I think is something that you have to ask them.
6 Q You said Ursula Caberta is a person in Germany who
7 is out to destroy Scientology. Isn't it true she's a
8 government official in an office of the German government
9 that looks into and investigates cults?
10 A She's a very minor government official in Hamburg.
11 I don't believe it's in the federal government of Germany.
12 I believe it is in the state of Hamburg.
13 Unfortunately, Germany doesn't have the same
14 tradition of religious freedom we have in the United States,
15 and there have been many problems in Germany with respect to
16 religious discrimination over the years, and particularly in
17 this century. And, unfortunately, that continues. And the
18 German government and offices within the German government,
19 particularly headed by this woman, have targeted new
20 religious movements as cults, and have done everything they
21 can to prevent individuals, not just the Church of
22 Scientology -- I mean, I'm talking about religions like
23 Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormon church, any religion that is
24 not recognized as a traditional religion in Germany.
25 MR. DANDAR: It's too long. It is almost 4
282
1 o'clock. And she has to leave.
2 THE COURT: Well, then ask me to cut her off.
3 MR. DANDAR: All right.
4 THE COURT: If you want to get out of here by
5 four, give us some "yes" and "no" and no
6 explanations, if you can.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Have you been given a copy of the movie The
10 Profit?
11 A No.
12 Q Do you know if your client has, the Church of
13 Scientology?
14 A Not that I know of.
15 Q Have you seen it?
16 A No. And since I learned to respect Judge
17 Schaeffer's opinion, I don't think I want to see it.
18 THE COURT: If it had a better quality to it,
19 it might have entertainment value. I don't know.
20 But the problem is you can't see half of it.
21 Did Mr. Moxon enjoy it?
22 MR. WEINBERG: I think he did not enjoy it but
23 he enjoyed the company of Mr. Lirot.
24 MR. LIROT: I think my hospitality made the
25 evening, Judge.
283
1 THE COURT: I'm sure that you like it better
2 probably than either of us would have.
3 MR. WEINBERG: I think he's going to remain
4 silent, I think.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Good thing.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q Now, what was your understanding of how Mr. Minton
8 or Ms. Brooks could make the Wollersheim case go away, since
9 it had already been a final judgment just waiting to be
10 collected?
11 A That they could perhaps -- or Mr. Minton could
12 perhaps facilitate settlement.
13 Q Was that by calling up Mr. Leipold, the attorney,
14 and asking him to withdraw Jesse Prince's and Stacy Brooks'
15 declarations?
16 A I don't know if that is what Mr. Minton believed
17 or not.
18 Q Now, this isn't the first time -- this case right
19 here before Judge Schaeffer and the one before Judge Baird
20 is kind of the same case -- this isn't the first time that
21 your client, the Church of Scientology, has accused lawyers
22 representing the party opposed in litigation with the Church
23 of Scientology from suborning perjury, is it?
24 THE COURT: That was an awful complicated
25 question. See if you can do a little better for me.
284
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q The McPherson case is not the first time that your
3 client, the Church of Scientology, has alleged the opposing
4 counsel has suborned perjury, is it?
5 MR. WEINBERG: Which client are we talking
6 about?
7 MR. DANDAR: The Church of Scientology.
8 THE COURT: Any of them?
9 MR. DANDAR: Any of them.
10 MR. WEINBERG: Worldwide?
11 MR. DANDAR: Sure.
12 A The only other instance I'm aware of is with
13 respect to Mr. Graham Berry in California. And I don't
14 know -- I know that there were allegations made against
15 Mr. Graham Berry, and I'm not sure whether they included
16 suborning of perjury. But I do know as a result of those
17 allegations, Mr. Graham Berry was disbarred and declared a
18 vexatious litigant in California because of the way he
19 conducted litigation against the Church of Scientology. I
20 don't know of any other instance.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Wasn't he suspended?
23 A I haven't actually read the pronouncement from the
24 Bar. But I was told that he was disbarred.
25 Q Did you allege -- before that case which I think
285
1 was the Michael Pattinson case where he sued the president
2 and --
3 A John Travolta, Bill Clinton.
4 Q Wasn't there allegations --
5 THE COURT: Who did that?
6 THE CLERK: Graham Berry.
7 THE COURT: Oh.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Wasn't there, in fact, when Mr. Rinder met with
10 Mr. and Mrs. Young in '94, that he wanted them to sign
11 declarations that Graham Berry suborned perjury?
12 A I think I started to explain that this morning.
13 And I think the judge indicated she wasn't so interested in
14 that.
15 That had to do with the Vicki Aznaran affidavit
16 and the fact he added pages to her -- Mr. Berry added pages
17 to her affidavit. And Mr. Rinder was of the opinion that
18 Mr. Berry had done the same thing with respect to the
19 Youngs' affidavit. And that was the context in which that
20 came up.
21 Q And it was Mr. and Mrs. Young who told Mr. Rinder
22 that wasn't true, Mr. Berry had not added any pages to their
23 declarations. Correct?
24 A I have been -- I wasn't there -- but I have been
25 subsequently been told that, yes, they did -- did say that
286
1 Mr. Berry did not do that with respect to their declaration.
2 Q Now, Vicki Aznaran was just not a former
3 Scientologist, was she? She was the president of RTC.
4 Correct?
5 A I'm not sure if she ever was the president of RTC,
6 no.
7 Q Okay. Isn't it true that Vicki Aznaran filed a
8 recantation affidavit only after the Church of Scientology
9 paid her a settlement and it was part of her settlement
10 negotiations?
11 A I was not part of that settlement so I don't know
12 whether that is correct or not. The reason I said I don't
13 know if she was president, I know that she had a title of
14 inspector general, but I don't know if she also had the
15 corporate title of president.
16 THE COURT: She certainly was a higher-up.
17 THE WITNESS: She was a high official and her
18 ecclesiastic title was inspector general. But
19 whether she was also president of the corporation, I
20 do not know. I don't know.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q And Attorney Joseph Yanny, the attorney for RTC,
23 wasn't he accused by the Church of Scientology of misconduct
24 when he filed suit against the Church of Scientology?
25 A I never was involved in any matters involving
287
1 Mr. Yanny, so I'm not familiar with that, Mr. Dandar.
2 Q What about Attorney Ford Greene representing -- in
3 litigation against the Church of Scientology, was he ever
4 subjected to allegations of subornation of perjury?
5 A Not to my knowledge. But, again, I have never met
6 Mr. Greene. I have never been involved in matters with him.
7 I don't know.
8 Q What about Attorney Michael Flynn, formerly of
9 Boston, who was down here in the '80s and had litigation
10 against the Church of Scientology? Wasn't he alleged to
11 have suborned perjury when he was in litigation against the
12 Church of Scientology?
13 A I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Dandar.
14 Q What about Charles O'Reilly, when he was
15 representing Mr. Wollersheim in the trial in California, the
16 original trial, wasn't he accused of misconduct by the
17 Church of Scientology?
18 A I don't know, Mr. Dandar.
19 Q Now, you said the Church of Scientology is very
20 effective in discovering things about their opponents. Tell
21 me --
22 A That is not what I said. I said they are very
23 effective in conducting discovery and being able to use the
24 discovery process to get information that they believe is
25 relevant to litigating cases that they're involved in.
288
1 Q They are also good at discovery outside of the
2 court system with private investigators, correct?
3 A That is not my testimony.
4 Q Is that your knowledge?
5 A No, it is not.
6 Q You made -- the reason I'm asking that, you made a
7 comment on your interview with Dateline a while back where
8 they talked about the Boston federal case.
9 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, beyond the scope.
10 THE COURT: I don't even know what he's talking
11 about so I don't know if it is or not.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Dateline, an interview with
13 Dateline. I don't remember asking Ms. Yingling
14 about Dateline.
15 THE COURT: Well, I want to hear something new,
16 so --
17 MR. WEINBERG: It is definitely new, so --
18 THE COURT: Okay.
19 MR. DANDAR: It is just a follow-up to the
20 direct examination.
21 THE COURT: Go ahead.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q Do you recall making a comment about the Boston
24 federal prosecution of a private investigator for the Church
25 of Scientology in a check scheme either orchestrated or
289
1 started by a lawyer for the Church of Scientology?
2 A I -- I don't remember the specific comment. I
3 mean, if you're trying to say that I'm aware that private
4 investigators are used in litigation involving the Church of
5 Scientology, I am certainly aware of that.
6 What I believe I was asked before, by either you
7 or Mr. Weinberg -- no, I believe it was you -- was whether
8 or not I was aware that the Church hired private
9 investigators or whatever they did.
10 My only knowledge with respect to the use of
11 private investigators is that lawyers who are litigating
12 cases and representing the Church of Scientology have, on
13 occasion, hired private investigators to assist with the
14 litigation.
15 I have no knowledge of any instance in which the
16 Church of Scientology, any Church of Scientology itself,
17 hired a private investigator. But I do know -- myself, I
18 have never done it. But I do know that other -- I just
19 haven't been involved in that kind of litigation -- but in
20 some litigation that the Church has been involved in, that
21 lawyers have used private investigators to assist them with
22 their litigation.
23 Q Quickly, I don't know if I asked you this. Why
24 did Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks come to you to get you to give
25 them suggestions on their second long affidavit?
290
1 THE COURT: You have asked that.
2 MR. DANDAR: All right. I just had the
3 question twice in my notes.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q Now --
6 THE COURT: You are aware, I take it, in this
7 case I made a finding the Church of Scientology had
8 hired an -- maybe you aren't, maybe you haven't seen
9 that order. Did you see that order?
10 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. No.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q Now --
14 THE COURT: Sometimes corporate clients don't
15 always tell everything that they're doing to their
16 lawyers. Would you agree with that?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would agree with that.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q Would you agree that Clearwater and Pinellas
20 County is an area that is very important in reference to the
21 Church of Scientology's image in relationship with the
22 citizens and the government?
23 A I'm not sure I know which citizens and which
24 government you mean, Mr. Dandar.
25 Q The citizens and the governments of Pinellas
291
1 County, including Clearwater.
2 A Mmm, the Church has very large facilities here in
3 the Clearwater area. I think it believes that it is a very
4 important part of the community from an economic
5 perspective. And I think it would like to have good
6 relations with the community and -- and with the government,
7 yes.
8 Q Do you, as a lawyer in litigation or in legal
9 matters, deal with the Office of Special Affairs of the
10 Church of Scientology?
11 A I have -- I have, yes, dealt with the Office of
12 Special Affairs with the Church of Scientology
13 International, yes.
14 THE COURT: Maybe I'm wrong here but isn't
15 Mr. Rinder the -- sort of the head of the Office of
16 Special Affairs?
17 THE WITNESS: Well, he's not really the head of
18 the Office of Special Affairs, if there is somebody
19 else who holds that position. He's sort of above
20 the head of the Office of Special Affairs.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q What is his post called?
23 A His post title is WDC OSA Int.
24 Q WDC stands for "watchdog committee"?
25 A Correct.
292
1 Q Did he hold that post in 1995?
2 A I'm not sure if he did or not.
3 Q But he definitely was your client in 1995 as a
4 representative of the Church of Scientology?
5 A He certainly was an employee of the Church of
6 Scientology at that point in time. The Church of
7 Scientology International, yes.
8 THE COURT: "Int" means International?
9 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q Out of all of the litigation that you and
12 Mr. Rinder discussed with -- you, Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen
13 discussed with Mr. Minton on March 28, the Lisa McPherson
14 wrongful death case, would you agree, is the most important
15 or the most problematic to the Church?
16 A At this point in time, problematic? I don't know
17 about problematic. I mean, from the Church's perspective,
18 it was the case Mr. Minton had the most involvement in
19 because he poured the most money into it. And -- and,
20 consequently, the Church had to expend a huge amount of
21 resources to deal with the chaos that money -- that money
22 had created.
23 I don't think there is much of any outstanding
24 litigation ongoing at this point in time anywhere in the
25 country involving the Church of Scientology except for the
293
1 cases down here.
2 Q So when Mr. Rosen wrote down or said to Mr. Minton
3 that the Church had spent, as of March 28, 2002,
4 $14.5 million on the Lisa McPherson case, was that the
5 largest amount of money it had spent in the last five years
6 on any case anywhere in the world?
7 A I don't know the answer to that question. And I
8 also don't know that the 14.5 million dealt only with the
9 Lisa McPherson case. I -- I don't know what went into that
10 figure. And it might have had something to do with other
11 litigation down here. I just don't know the answer.
12 Q Well, you agree your notes and his notes assign
13 that $14.5 million figure only to the wrongful death case?
14 A Yes. But as I testified in response to -- to a
15 question from Judge Schaeffer, I don't know exactly how he
16 arrived at that number and -- and what that number is made
17 up of.
18 Q Do you know an attorney in California by the name
19 of Gary Soter?
20 A No, I do not.
21 Q The attorney who is representing Mr. Minton on
22 apparently pursuing a claim for return of money from
23 Mr. Leipold?
24 A I understood he was going to be represented in
25 California. I didn't know about the Leipold thing, but with
294
1 respect to the -- to the interpleader matter filed in
2 California, but I don't know who his lawyer is. I may have
3 heard that name before, but it doesn't ring a bell with me.
4 It is not someone I know.
5 Q You are not aware Mr. Soter, the attorney in
6 California, was co-counsel with Mr. Moxon in representing a
7 former Scientologist by the name of Cipriano?
8 A I'm not aware of that.
9 THE COURT: Before we leave this area, you will
10 certainly agree, I'm sure, that the case that could
11 cause the Church a great deal of problems, public
12 relations-wise, and certainly even dollar-wise,
13 before this was the Lisa McPherson case?
14 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: And I don't think anybody disputed
16 this, this case was very important to the Church of
17 Scientology?
18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q What was the -- when did you find out and how did
21 you find out that Jesse Prince was not going to join the
22 camp of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks in April of 2002?
23 A Mmm, following the dinner that Ms. Brooks and
24 Mr. Minton had with Mr. Prince, I believe on the 14th of
25 April, I think Mr. Minton may have called Mr. Rinder and
295
1 told him what had happened and he believed threats had been
2 made to him and he didn't know what to do.
3 And I believe Mr. Rinder told Mr. Minton that he
4 should call his lawyer, Mr. Howie, or someone else. And I
5 think it was at that time that it was clear -- it was
6 certainly clear to Mr. Rinder and to me that Mr. Prince
7 wasn't part of their camp.
8 I think at that point it was also clear to
9 Mr. Minton. I'm not sure if Stacy Brooks was willing to
10 accept that realization until sometime later.
11 Q Did you find out that Mr. Prince's explanation why
12 he wasn't going to join their camp is because he wasn't
13 going to lie for Scientology?
14 A No, I did not.
15 Q Now, you continued to meet with Ms. Brooks and
16 Mr. Minton even while this hearing was going on before Judge
17 Schaeffer?
18 A No. The only meeting that I had, once this
19 hearing began before Judge Schaeffer, was one meeting with
20 Ms. Brooks and her lawyer, Mr. McGowan, sometime in the
21 later part of May, addressing her -- her prior affidavits.
22 THE COURT: And that was after she had
23 testified?
24 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor.
25
296
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q What did you talk about in reference to her prior
3 affidavits?
4 A Mmm, she --
5 THE COURT: Counsel, didn't we go through that?
6 MR. DANDAR: I don't know.
7 THE COURT: Didn't we go through that on
8 direct? We really did.
9 MR. DANDAR: All right. I'll try not to make
10 her late.
11 THE COURT: I am not asking you to cut short
12 your examination. But a lot of this has been gone
13 over.
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q Without going into, of course, conversations with
16 your client, isn't it true that Mr. Rinder, in his position
17 in OSA Int, is involved in litigating cases, making
18 decisions on litigating cases?
19 A The decisions on cases are made, for the most
20 part, by the lawyers that are litigating the cases, is my
21 understanding.
22 The Department of Special Affairs -- or Office of
23 Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology does have
24 general oversight for legal and public relations matters,
25 matters dealing with government agencies, community benefit
297
1 activities and so on and so forth.
2 So -- so in that sense he has general
3 responsibilities for legal matters in general. But I would
4 think that with respect to litigation, that the lawyers
5 litigating the cases make the decisions.
6 Q Well, decisions by lawyers aren't made unless the
7 client consents, correct?
8 A I don't know that that is always true.
9 THE COURT: Well, somebody -- if this case --
10 we'll just use this case. If this case were
11 settled -- oh, dear, wouldn't that be a blessing --
12 I mean, if the client made the decision, the client
13 is going to have to get somebody to sign off and say
14 that is what --
15 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. But that would not
16 be Mr. Rinder. That would be Mr. Shaw or some other
17 official from the Church of Scientology Flag Service
18 Organization here in Florida.
19 THE COURT: You are saying Mr. Shaw would not
20 be required to get Mr. Rinder's approval?
21 THE WITNESS: He -- he might well want to
22 discuss it with Mr. Rinder. But I think it would be
23 the decision of this particular Church entity that
24 is the party to the litigation.
25
298
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Well, Mr. Shaw has no senior at Flag, does he?
3 A Certainly, he does.
4 Q Who is his senior at Flag?
5 A Well, I'm not sure I know exactly what his
6 position is. But -- but I would think that whoever the --
7 the executive director of the organization is, is his
8 senior, among other people.
9 Q You are not aware then that Mr. Shaw has
10 previously testified in court before Judge Moody that his
11 senior is not at Flag, his senior is Mr. Rinder at OSA Int?
12 A Well, I don't know what the context of either the
13 question or the response was given in.
14 Q Okay.
15 A So I don't -- I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.
16 Q And without giving me any substance of
17 conversations, isn't it true that Mr. Rinder, as the OSA
18 Int -- above OSA Int, I forgot the title of his post, but he
19 does communicate quite frequently with David Miscavige on
20 litigation in cases, doesn't he?
21 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. There
22 would be no way she could answer that without having
23 privileged information, either from talking to
24 Mr. Rinder, or talking to some other church official
25 or talking to Mr. Miscavige.
299
1 THE COURT: You must be tired, Counsel, because
2 you are not on your feet. But I'm going to let it
3 go because it is four and I try not to be cranky.
4 MR. WEINBERG: I apologize.
5 THE COURT: That is sustained. That is the
6 only way she would know. You know, I'm not a fool
7 here. And I tried to tell you that. And I tried to
8 tell the other side that. There are things that I
9 just know from what I know about this case.
10 MR. DANDAR: The thing I just hate if I ever
11 hear something, "Well, you didn't ask the question."
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q When did you find out about the Lisa McPherson
14 litigation, wrongful death litigation?
15 THE COURT: When did she find out what?
16 MR. DANDAR: About that there was a suit filed
17 against the Church of Scientology Flag Service
18 Organization by the estate of Lisa McPherson.
19 MR. WEINBERG: My objection is relevance,
20 beyond the scope.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q Did you know that Mr. Rinder showed up at
24 depositions and hearings in this case as a representative
25 for Flag?
300
1 A No, I did not.
2 Q Is he an employee of Flag?
3 A Not as far as I know, no.
4 MR. DANDAR: That is all I have.
5 THE COURT: Redirect?
6 MR. WEINBERG: Very few questions.
7 THE COURT: Well, now it is up to you.
8 MR. WEINBERG: Believe me, I'm very mindful and
9 I have a very, very few questions.
10 THE COURT: All right. I can't imagine why,
11 but you go on ahead.
12 MR. WEINBERG: When I say few, I mean really a
13 few.
14 THE COURT: All right. Go.
15 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. WEINBERG:
17 Q In the meetings up on the 28th and 29th of March
18 with Mr. Jonas and -- and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks,
19 Mr. Jonas, in essence, negotiated an agreement on behalf of
20 Ms. Liebreich and the plaintiff's side of the wrongful death
21 case that if she were to be deposed, that you could not --
22 or the Church could not get into questions concerning
23 these -- these discussions. Is that correct?
24 THE COURT: You know, that is really unfair.
25 Mr. Jonas thought he was making an agreement on
301
1 behalf of Ms. Liebreich? Surely he would have to
2 get on the phone and talk to her, Mr. Dandar. That
3 didn't occur. And that form is so poor, I'll not
4 let you ask that.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Let me just refer
6 Ms. Liebreich -- I mean Ms. Yingling to Plaintiff's
7 Exhibit 61, which is a letter to Mr. Dandar that
8 Mr. Dandar put in, from Mr. Jonas dated April 1,
9 2002 in which --
10 THE COURT: It is already in evidence.
11 MR. WEINBERG: All right.
12 BY MR. WEINBERG:
13 Q There were no -- there was no extortion or
14 blackmail --
15 THE COURT: The truth of the matter is nobody
16 is supposed to be talking about settlement in
17 depositions, you know? It isn't supposed to happen.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. WEINBERG: I don't have any further
20 questions.
21 THE COURT: Good. I didn't think you needed to
22 ask any.
23 Thank you for coming. You may step down and
24 you may be excused.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, your Honor.
302
1 THE COURT: You are welcome. I hope your first
2 experience being a witness was a pleasant one.
3 THE WITNESS: You made it pleasant, your Honor.
4 And to the extent anyone thinks that you have lost
5 your edge or control of your courtroom, I will
6 testify that that is not the case.
7 THE COURT: Well, thank you. But you will tell
8 them, please, not to call me Judge Ito because this
9 is going so slow. I find it very, very offensive.
10 All right, you want to quit for the day? Do
11 you have a witness? Are you done?
12 MR. FUGATE: Yes.
13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, we're done with witnesses.
14 There was one submission Mr. Fugate was going to
15 make.
16 THE COURT: Let's get your case over so you can
17 rest so I know that happened, and then I may just
18 call it a day, because, frankly, I don't know I want
19 to hear anything more.
20 MR. DANDAR: I do have Mr. Franks here.
21 THE COURT: Oh, you do?
22 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
23 THE COURT: Well, was he leaving tomorrow?
24 MR. DANDAR: He's leaving tomorrow evening.
25 He'll be here all day.
303
1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, maybe if I can take a
2 break, I can stand some more.
3 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have two opinions that I
4 will give copies to Mr. Dandar and to the Court that
5 I would file that are prior --
6 THE COURT: Two opinions?
7 MR. FUGATE: They are two prior --
8 MR. WEINBERG: I'll step out for a moment, is
9 that okay --
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 MR. WEINBERG: -- to say good-bye to
12 Ms. Yingling.
13 MR. FUGATE: I think I handed one up to your
14 Honor before. But I -- I would submit these as
15 exhibits to the hearing on sham pleadings. They are
16 prior sanctioned opinions, which would be our next
17 numbers consecutively.
18 And I submit them without any argument under
19 Kozel versus Ostendorf, which is K-O-Z-E-L versus
20 O-S-T-E-N-D-O-R-F, 629 So.2d, 817, at Page --
21 THE COURT: I don't know what you are talking
22 about. Ostendorf? I don't even see that on here.
23 MR. FUGATE: No, these are -- I'm submitting
24 these to you as prior findings by courts that
25 Mr. Dandar has filed frivolous pleadings.
304
1 THE COURT: Oh.
2 MR. FUGATE: That is all they are. And we
3 would rest with that.
4 THE COURT: But, what? You started talking
5 about Ostendorf or something?
6 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge, I got ahead of
7 myself.
8 One of the cases that we had at one time
9 discussed is the Florida Supreme Court case --
10 THE COURT: Don't go there yet.
11 MR. FUGATE: I'm not. I have just given them
12 up to you, and I'll make them whatever our next
13 number is, which I think is 192 and 193.
14 THE CLERK: Yes.
15 MR. FUGATE: And I'm submitting them.
16 THE COURT: Which is which?
17 MR. FUGATE: There is an 11th Circuit opinion
18 which is actually about an earlier decision by Judge
19 Kovachevich, and then there is the RTC opinion in
20 May of 2002 which I think I handed up to you which
21 is the District Court judge in Texas indicating that
22 there had been frivolous pleadings filed.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Madam Clerk, tell me, if you
24 would, which is which. Just tell me, RTC versus
25 Liebreich, what is the number?
305
1 THE CLERK: That is 192.
2 THE COURT: 190-what?
3 THE CLERK: 192.
4 THE COURT: And now there is an opinion, and
5 the reason you are making this part of the record,
6 is because it has Mr. Dandar in it?
7 MR. FUGATE: Correct.
8 THE COURT: Otherwise, I don't want an opinion
9 in the record.
10 In any event, what number is that?
11 THE CLERK: 193.
12 THE COURT: Number 193. All right. And with
13 that --
14 MR. FUGATE: With that, we rest, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: All right. We'll go ahead and
16 start with Mr. Franks if you want to. I mean, if
17 you really want to get started, it is all right with
18 me, because if he has to leave tomorrow, why, we'll
19 try to afford him the same courtesy as we tried to
20 afford their witnesses.
21 So you are on notice he'll probably be here
22 today and tomorrow.
23 MR. WEINBERG: Before he testifies and before
24 he's in here, I would like to address an objection
25 that I have as to Mr. Franks and his testimony. So
306
1 I can do it now, or --
2 THE COURT: Let's do it now. That will be a
3 good thing to do. Then tell Mr. Franks he can come
4 back tomorrow, and we'll go ahead and hear the
5 objection. And if, in fact, the objection is
6 sustained, why, he doesn't need to come back. If
7 the objection is not sustained, we'll do it
8 tomorrow. Okay?
9 MR. DANDAR: Would it be all right for him to
10 listen to what this objection is?
11 MR. WEINBERG: No -- well, I would ask not to
12 do that. I'm going to talk about what --
13 THE COURT: He's under the rule and this
14 apparently is about him, so I would suggest not.
15 MR. DANDAR: Okay. Let me --
16 THE COURT: He can stick around out there if he
17 wants to. I'm going to take a little break. I'm
18 not sure why. I just feel like we finished a long
19 witness and I need to clear my head of that witness
20 and --
21 MR. WEINBERG: Sounds like a good idea.
22 THE COURT: -- and think of something else. So
23 I don't need the break. I'm just taking it. Clear
24 the cobwebs. It is 4 o'clock and all of those
25 reasons.
307
1 It doesn't have to be a long one. Ten minutes.
2 Okay?
3 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 4:10 to 4:20 p.m.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
308
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA )
4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS )
5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter,
certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically
6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is
a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
7
I further certify that I am not a relative,
8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
10
11 DATED this 12th day of June, 2002.
12
13
14 ______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25