||||| From: nospam@hvfdcf.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Dander 5-30-02 vol3 (reformatted) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 9166 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.29.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1023843208 12.225.29.45 (Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:53:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:53:28 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:53:29 GMT Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!vienna7.his.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1524894 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 179 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, Plaintiff, vs. VOLUME 3 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. _______________________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. CONTENTS: Testimony of Kennan Dandar. DATE: June 4, 2002. Afternoon Session. PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building St. Petersburg, Florida. BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR. Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 180 APPEARANCES: MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorney for Plaintiff. MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 Attorney for Plaintiff MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. MR. LEE FUGATE MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN. RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 181 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Dandar. MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have got a message back from Mr. Pope that he checked with Judge Baird on the 12th. And Judge Baird has no time on the 12th. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FUGATE: He said that the 11th had been selected. Obviously he didn't know that this hearing would be going back in April -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. FUGATE: -- and that they would like to try to keep it. I said I would advise the Court of that. And then I also left the no court dates, the dates you announced that we're not going to have court, which I have as the 14th, 21st and the two weeks of June 22nd through 26th and July 1st through the 5th, so that he can also look for those dates, as well. And he asked counsel and I that -- Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot not book those dates because he'll also check with the Court on that. And that is all I can tell you. THE COURT: I don't want him to think they can't book any of those dates because he wants to set one hearing. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 MR. FUGATE: No. That is all I said. Those are the dates I passed on to him, and he'll try to check the dates out. THE COURT: Good. If he insists on having this hearing on the 11th, Judge Baird and I will confer and decide between us which is more important. MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: You may proceed. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, before lunch we talked a little bit about phone calls. You had indicated that -- or maybe it was even speculated -- that maybe Jesse Prince had used your cell phone. Do you remember that? A Yes. Many people -- Q Now, Jesse Prince, from the moment that you first met him at the end of 1998, prior to him reviewing the PC folders, he always had his own cell phone, didn't he? A Not that I'm aware of. Q When do you first remember him having his own cell phone? A My best memory is when he went to work for the trust in June of 2000. Q So prior to June of 2000, he didn't have a cell phone? A Not that I remember. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 183 Q But once June of 2000 came about, he had a cell phone? A Well, he was at the trust. Yes, for sure he had a cell phone when he was at the trust. Whether he had one before that, unless you show me something, I can't remember. Many times on these Minton numbers, also, I would end up talking with Stacy Brooks, because she was there quite a few times, and I would talk to her before I got to talk to Mr. Minton. Q Usually if you talked to her, then you would talk to Mr. Minton? A Not all of the times. Sometimes she would just talk to me and I wouldn't be allowed to talk to Mr. Minton. Q You wouldn't be allowed because of what? A I don't know why. Q And sometimes you just talked to Mr. Minton and didn't talk to Ms. Brooks. Right? A Yes. Q Now, if you go back to Exhibit 105, which is your response to the request for production, right at the -- do you see that there are four calls, two on October 18, 2001, one on October 20, 2001, and one on October 22nd, 2001? Do you see those calls? A Yes. Q And those were four calls again you initiated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 184 Now, my question to you is -- A I can't say that. But -- Q Well, you can say that you initiated those calls, right? A No. I can't say that. I can say that my phone number initiated those calls. I can't under oath tell you it was me. Q All right. Now, can you tell, from what you produced to us, whether it's your cell phone number that those calls were initiated from? A No. Q Or your office number? A No. Q But you can tell from your office records as to whether it was your cell phone or your office number. Right? A Yes. Q And if it is your cell phone, the chances are that that was you that initiated the calls. Correct? A No. There is no way to tell. Q Now, Mr. Minton was deposed on October 11th and 12th, 2001. Is that right? A That sounds right. Q All right. And even though he had cut off the phones and even though his second -- or third, whatever -------------------------------------------------------------------- 185 deposition it was, was over, you were still -- somebody from your cell phone and/or office phone made four calls to Mr. Minton after all of that in late October, 2001. Right? A Yes. That is what the records show, calls were made. Q And do you remember what you -- what interest you had in talking to Mr. Minton after his deposition was completed on October 11 and 12? A No. Q Now, you said, I believe, earlier today that absolutely you never sent to Mr. Minton an advance version or copy of an amended complaint before it was filed. Right? A That is right. Q Well, let me show you what we'll have marked as the next exhibit. THE CLERK: 145. MR. WEINBERG: 145? THE CLERK: 145. MR. WEINBERG: So that would be Defendant's 145, Judge. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I'll just give you this copy. Now, do you recognize -- by the way, look at Defendant's 145 and tell me if you recognize Defendant's 145 to be -- okay, there are two pages at the end we're going to remove. They're not -------------------------------------------------------------------- 186 part of that exhibit. I'll take those two pages. Now, do you recognize Exhibit 145 to be a draft of the fifth amended complaint that was -- oh, do you recognize it to be a draft of the fifth amended complaint? A No. Q Well, did you -- when you did your drafts, is it your practice to put at the top the date of the draft? A No. No. Q It's not? A No. I don't think so. Q Okay. Let me show you -- MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach the witness, your Honor. THE COURT: You may. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I have a notebook of all of the complaints filed in this case. I'm going to show you, Mr. Dandar, if I can -- A See, what is really weird is this last page that has "Count 1, Error. Main document only," has "Count 8, fraud --" or "Count 8, Count 9, fraud, error." And I have no idea what all that is. That -- go ahead. Q Let me show you -- MR. WEINBERG: If I can just stay here a moment, your Honor? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 187 THE COURT: You may. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me show you what I believe is an executed copy of the fifth amended complaint that was filed with your motion to add parties in late August, although this is executed September 7, 1999. Right? A Right. Q And see at the top of that complaint you have got the date, 9/6/99. Right? A That is what that shows. I don't remember having her ever doing that, though. Q That is -- MR. WEINBERG: Do you have that notebook, your Honor? THE COURT: All I have is a notebook that was compiled for me a long, long time ago by Mr. Fugate called "Compendium of materials requested by the Court." MR. WEINBERG: Well, if I could hand you this notebook that has all of the versions of the complaint in it, and I'll tell you which exhibit. If you go to Exhibit -- if you go to Exhibit 6, that is what I have shown to Mr. Dandar. THE COURT: That is not in the fifth amended complaint. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 188 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me? THE COURT: I said I don't think that is in the fifth amended complaint. MR. WEINBERG: The one I just handed you. THE COURT: Well, the ones I have are the ones that are filed. MR. WEINBERG: Well, right. But let me explain. This is the one that he -- when he had his motion to add parties, he attached this as what he wanted to file to his motion to add parties that was filed in September of 1999. Judge Moody ultimately denied his ability to do these amendments. But this is what he filed as of 9/6/99 in his motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Okay? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you see, under Tab 6, if you look at the complaint, at the style at the top in the left-hand corner, it has the date 9/6/99 on it? A Top left-hand corner. THE COURT: I see. I was just looking to see if I could find the fifth amended complaint. I don't have it. I'm not sure if I took it out. MR. WEINBERG: In the notebook I just handed -------------------------------------------------------------------- 189 you, fifth amended complaint, the first one that was actually filed is under Tab 7, and there were some amendments, and then the one adding David Miscavige is under Tab 8. THE COURT: I can't find my fifth amended complaint. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. In the notebook I handed you, the one that is actually extant now is Tab 11, I think that is the one you are looking for, that was date stamped January 20th, 2000. THE COURT: I now looked at the second amended complaint, third amended complaint, fourth amended complaint. None of them have a date stamp on it. MR. WEINBERG: Well, this one does. The last exhibit in that notebook I just handed you, this one, I guess, if you go to Exhibit 11, that is the one you're looking for that has a date stamp on it. THE COURT: Yes. Okay. I -- the trouble is, I can't find mine, but I'm sure mine looks like this. MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely. THE COURT: It does not have the date stamp. That is the clerk's stamp. MR. WEINBERG: That is the clerk's stamp. THE COURT: But whatever it is you are referring to in the left-hand corner does not. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 190 MR. WEINBERG: Right. But the one I'm referring to, as he said, he didn't remember doing that. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Tab 6 does have the date 9/6/99 on it, correct? A Yes. But can you show us that this came from the clerk's file? Q It's what you filed as part of the motion. A Well, I wish you would have asked me, I could have brought my file and then I can tell you one way or another whether that is correct. THE COURT: Why would he file -- I'm kind of curious why somebody would file something as part of a pleading that wasn't what he filed. MR. WEINBERG: Because he made a motion to amend and to file this particular -- and asked leave to file this complaint. Then we had a hearing on his motion for leave to file this version of the complaint. And that is the hearing that ultimately took place in I think it was October that Judge Moody denied his ability to do that because of the contract. And then, after that, he prepared a new motion to file a fifth amended complaint which was filed in November to add David Miscavige as head of the Sea -------------------------------------------------------------------- 191 Org. That was argued in December, and ultimately the complaint that was clerk-stamped January 20, 2000 is what resulted. THE COURT: If you are saying this was filed, so be it. But what I have in my book that was prepared for me by you-all does not have one amended complaint in it, not one that has a date. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. We will get the motion -- THE COURT: So I don't know what that is. But maybe he can tell us what that is if he remembers what that is. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you remember, when you filed your motion to add parties in September of 1999, that you attached as an exhibit to the motion a -- a copy of a proposed amended complaint that would have added David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun? A Yes. But whether or not this exhibit is what I attached to the motion, I can't say. Q Okay, we will get that and we'll show you the motion as an exhibit. A I'll have to look in my file. Q Okay. I'm looking now at Defendant's Exhibit 145, which is this draft and -- and -- of a -- of a fifth amended complaint. And it has a date on the top of 8/30/99. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 192 Now, my question to you is do you remember having a draft at or about that date? A No. Q And do you remember E-mailing to Mr. Minton this draft? A No. Q August 30, 1999? A No. But I'm sure you can show me the E-Mail to refresh my memory. Q Do you deny that you E-mailed this draft to Mr. Minton at or about August 30, 1999 before the fifth amended complaint was filed? A To Mr. Minton? Right, I would not have done that. To Ms. Brooks or Mr. Prince, it's possible. Q Well, did you E-Mail drafts of amended -- of the fifth amended complaint to Ms. Brooks up in New Hampshire on Mr. Minton's computer? A I don't remember -- well, no, I don't remember doing that. Mr. Prince, I'm sure he had a draft of all my drafts -- he had a copy of all my drafts because he was in my office at that time working on this. Q Well, did you authorize Ms. Brooks or Mr. Prince to give Mr. Minton draft copies of the amended complaint? A I don't think so. No. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 193 Q Well, not think so? Or did you not? A Well, I'm pretty sure I didn't. Okay. If they were already filed, anybody can get anything. But after -- I mean, before they're filed, I don't recall ever giving Mr. Minton anything. Q Well, that one that I have just showed you, Defense Exhibit 145, there was never a complaint in that version that was filed, was there, as it sits in that -- in that document? A This is a gobbledygook, as far as I'm concerned. This looks like someone trying to scan it. I can't tell you what this is. There is some language in here from the fifth amended complaint that was filed in September with the motion. But I can't tell you what this is supposed to represent. I don't know why it's so poorly organized. Q Okay, let me mark as 146 -- Defense Exhibit 146 -- the following document. Now, do you remember E-mailing Defense Exhibit 146 to Mr. Minton prior -- A No -- Q I'm sorry. Let me finish my question. A I'm sorry. Go ahead. Q -- prior to this version of the fifth amended complaint being filed? A This version, meaning 146, which has a date on the -------------------------------------------------------------------- 194 top left corner of 9/6/99? Q Of 9/6/99, right. A I don't remember doing that. But do you know what? If I did, you should have an E-Mail that goes with this. And I would be surprised. But -- Q Well, you don't always have the hard copy of the E-Mail that goes with the attachments that may well reside on the hard drive, right? Isn't that right? A No, I -- I don't know. I'm not knowing that much about it. THE COURT: Do you really know? THE WITNESS: I don't really know. THE COURT: I wouldn't know. A But this doesn't look like an attachment. This looks like something that was actually filed. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Except that this version was -- was attached to a pleading. But this particular version was using the word "filed" meaning actually accepted by the Court. This version, the 9/6/99 version, was never accepted by Judge Moody, was it, he -- A No -- Q You were never allowed to file this? A No, because we never argued the motion to add on parties. We argued the motion to challenge the stipulation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 195 we entered into in 1997. Q So the answer to my question is no, this was never actually filed as the fifth amended complaint, this was just part of a motion that was actually filed, right? A Right. THE COURT: This Number 146, I can guarantee you, was not attached as part of any E-Mail. This is far too clean, far too nice. I have never gotten anything quite that nice, I don't think, off an E-Mail. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, I'm not going to quibble with you, except I have. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: I mean, we pass between our offices pleadings back and forth. THE COURT: Yes, come to think of it, I get enclosures. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: Not attachments. I mean, if something comes to me and it's part of an E-Mail, it isn't pretty like this. MR. WEINBERG: But if it's -- THE COURT: This is weird. But if I get it as an enclosure and I pull it up, then it can be perfect. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 196 MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: That is all I know. And I don't know the difference or anything of the sort, but if it is a little icon on the bottom and I click on that, it's like this. If it comes as part of an E-Mail that something that it look likes 145, weird, something you couldn't use. Why that is, you need a computer man to explain it to us. MR. WEINBERG: Right. Do you know how to do an enclosure? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. THE COURT: So 146 could be an enclosure? THE WITNESS: Yes, it can. THE COURT: Maybe when you say attachment, you mean the same thing. THE WITNESS: I believe he does. MR. WEINBERG: I believe I do. THE COURT: Okay. Then, I'm sorry, I think of -- I have always been told you have to enclose it, so I'm showing my ignorance. MR. WEINBERG: My level of knowledge of computers, I think, is lower than yours, so -- my kids can -- THE COURT: I feel sorry for you. MR. WEINBERG: I know. Yes, my kids feel sorry -------------------------------------------------------------------- 197 for me. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me show you what we'll mark -- I don't need to mark it. We'll give you a copy -- THE COURT: So can we assume Number 146 then is not -- see, I can't find mine, but this is not the filed version? MR. WEINBERG: Right, it was an attachment to what I'm going to show you and Mr. Dandar, right now, as I understand it. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q We'll go to the file copy, Mr. Dandar, and show you that. But does this refresh your recollection on or about September 7, 1999 you filed a motion to file amended complaint to allege claim for punitive damages and motion to add party defendants which would include Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Minton and Mr. Rathbun, and that as part of that motion you attached a draft of a complaint dated the day before, 9/6/99? A That is most likely. THE COURT: Does it say that? I mean, I just don't know the answer to that. Does it say that in this motion? Normally, if you're going to attach -------------------------------------------------------------------- 198 something, you're going to refer to it. MR. WEINBERG: We'll get the motion. But that is what happened. THE COURT: Well -- MR. WEINBERG: That is how we got it. THE COURT: Is it Exhibit E, Exhibit F -- I'm just saying is it listed as an exhibit? Yes, Proposed Amendment, Exhibit A. THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Normally, you would have that under a tab, I suppose, or have it noted Exhibit A for the record. MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to actually mark this as our next exhibit, this actual motion, if it is okay. THE COURT: What is that? MR. WEINBERG: That is 147, the one I just handed you. THE COURT: Is that the motion to file amended complaint? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So to eliminate all of the confusion here, you filed a motion to add parties on September 7 attaching to it as an exhibit a draft of a fifth amended complaint with this -------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 date at the top left-hand corner which says 9/6/99. Correct? A No. Unless I see my file or the court file, I can't say that. But most likely it looks -- I'm surprised I would have a date up there. Q Okay. But you're not suggesting that anybody other than your office prepared a fifth amended complaint in whatever form, are you? A Right. Right. I just -- if I just saw my file or the court file, then I could answer it 100 percent. Q So that E-Mail attachment draft, whatever it is, that I -- that I showed you with the August date at the top, that may well be -- emanate from your office and be an earlier draft of what was going to be the fifth amended complaint. Correct? A It's possible. It's possible. But this formatting and -- this doesn't look like an E-Mail. This looks like someone attempted to scan it. And it looks like it comes off the Internet somewhere. But I just can't imagine what this is. Q Now, if you look at that draft which is Exhibit -- A 145. THE COURT: 145. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q -- 145, that -- well, if you look at the 9/6/99 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 200 draft of the fifth amended complaint, that has the end of cycle allegation in it, correct? THE COURT: Tell him where. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q At Number 34? Paragraph 34? THE COURT: Of what number now? MR. WEINBERG: 146, which is the version that was filed with the motion. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q That has end cycle in Paragraph 34. Right? A Right. Q That has the allegations about letting her die, essentially, correct? A Right. Q Now, in Exhibit 146 -- A We are on 146. Q 145, I mean -- A You want to know if it's in there? THE COURT: Well, who would know -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q It's not in there, is it? THE COURT: -- unless he takes the time to read it. Tell us what paragraph it is that matches up to this paragraph. That might help. MR. WEINBERG: 33, I think, matches up, I -------------------------------------------------------------------- 201 think, with that paragraph. A Well, 34 in the August one, which is 145, is the same as 35 in the September one. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Right? A So what is the question? Q But the end of cycle which is 33, the August one, I mean, that paragraph, that is most like 34 in the September one, that is Paragraph 33, see, it talks about extremist medical condition, it doesn't have end cycle, does it? A I'm still looking for 33 in Exhibit 145. I see -- oh, there -- THE COURT: Counsel, we'll have to do the same thing with him I had the courtesy to do with the witness earlier. He can take it home with him and you can move on so we don't have to sit and go through these things. I'll take it home, he can take it home, and we can move on. MR. WEINBERG: That is fine. THE COURT: Then you can answer this question tomorrow, Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: The same would be true of any other large document. There is no time for him to sit and -------------------------------------------------------------------- 202 read it. MR. WEINBERG: That is fair. A But it does not have end cycle in it. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q When you come back tomorrow, after having read it, making sure you are right, then I'll ask you a few questions about that. A I'll check my office file, too. THE COURT: If you are comfortable it doesn't have it, go ahead and answer the questions. THE WITNESS: Yes, it doesn't. What he has shown me, Exhibit 145, Paragraph 33, does not use the parens and include the word "End cycle" as does Exhibit 146. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And do you know what happened between August 30, 1999 and September 6, 1999 so that end cycle got into the complaint? A No. I can speculate that I sat down with Jesse Prince. But other than that, I can't tell you. But I can tell you one thing. Mr. Minton had nothing to do with this, for sure, 100 percent. Q Now, when you have an opportunity, would you check to confirm the August 30, 1999 document was a draft produced in your office? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 203 A I'll do my best. But like I said, this looks like someone trying to scan something. It's just terrible. THE COURT: Do lawyers keep drafts of pleadings when they file the regular pleadings? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, usually on the computer, actually. THE COURT: Well, check and see if you have got it. THE WITNESS: I will. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Are you able to check whether you E-mailed it to anyone? A No. I don't keep that. Q Okay. A That is highly unlikely I did. Q Now, changing subjects now, you incorporated the LMT, is that right? A But can I interrupt you? It is obvious from this Exhibit 145, in comparing it with 146, 145 is definitely not an attachment to an E-Mail. It's something that looks like someone tried to scan and didn't know what they were doing. Q And if Mr. Minton were to come in and say he received it from you in E-Mail form, he would just be mistaken? A Terribly, unless he could show me proof. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 204 Q And if he could show you proof, then you would be mistaken? A I would be mistaken, surprised, bewildered, all of the above. Q Now, going to a different subject, you incorporated the LMT on or about October 19, 1999? A Yes. Q And -- A As the attorney incorporating it, yes. Q And Dell Liebreich authorized you to do that, correct? A No. She had nothing to do with it at all. Q Did she authorize the use of Lisa McPherson's name in the Lisa McPherson Trust that you incorporated? A With great hesitation. She just said "Okay." I asked Mr. Minton not to do this at all, but he just said he was going to do it. Q Who asked Mr. Minton not to do it? A I did. Q Well, when did that conversation take place? A While this was all going on. While we were racing the clock with Bennetta Slaughter, while she had her attorneys use the Lisa McPherson name -- four or five names -- in incorporation. I said, "Look, don't use her name. Just call it -------------------------------------------------------------------- 205 something else." Q And you didn't want Mr. Minton to establish the Lisa McPherson Trust because, what? A Because there was no need for him to use Lisa McPherson's name. Q So you just wanted to use a different name? A Well, he was going to do whatever he wanted to do. He had no lawyer. He asked me to help him. I said okay. And he did what he wanted to do. Q But if you were against it and your client wasn't enthusiastic about it, couldn't you have stopped it? A Well, actually, not legally. Q Well, you certainly didn't have to do the incorporation papers? A Yes, but there was no reason to smack the guy in the face and not do the incorporation papers if he's going to do it anyway. I mean, '99, he was a great help to us, to me, with this case. So I wasn't going to kick him out of my office. He was going to do it. He was intent on doing this. Q Well, regardless of the name, whether it was Lisa McPherson, or Ken Dandar, or Sandy Weinberg Trust or whatever else, regardless of the name, were you enthusiastic about the concept of creating an organization that could reside in Clearwater, Florida, right literally in the face -------------------------------------------------------------------- 206 of the Church of Scientology, to promote the cause, so to speak? A No. Q So you were -- A Do you want to define cause? Well, I was never enthusiastic about any of this. But I could tell you what I thought was a good idea. Q Well, what did you think was a good idea? A A good idea was to help people who wanted to leave the Church of Scientology and they had nowhere to go, they had no former Scientologists who would sit down and counsel with them and help them. They had nobody who would -- like hundreds of thousands of dollars they wanted to get back for whatever reason, they didn't know how to go about doing that. Some people, some attorneys, knew how to do it. Not me. But mostly the counseling. The counseling of people who were in desperate need for counseling. Q So what was a bad idea that Mr. Minton went ahead and did that you didn't like? A Well, the picketing, as Ms. Brooks testified in this court. She and I were adamantly against his picketing and his carrying on and his nonsense. Q You were against the picketing? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 207 A Oh, yeah. Q And you had any number of conversations with Mr. Minton about the picketing? A Oh, yes. Many. Q What? Face-to-face? A Yes. Q Well, in your office? A Maybe. But mostly at the LMT. Q So you actually had meetings with Mr. Minton at the LMT? A Not meetings. I happened to be there. I saw him, for instance, with that outrageous Nazi picket sign. I said, "You're not going outside with that." He said, "Try to stop me." And Stacy Brooks said, "Don't you go outside with that Nazi sign." He said, "I made it, I'm proud of it, I'm going to use it." So what are you going to do, tackle him? Q Well, you didn't have to stand in the picture with him, holding signs like that, did you? A It was not a picket. That was after a criminal hearing which I think he prevailed in. And we just happened to take photographs. And that is not the Nazi sign I'm talking about. Q You mean there were more than one Nazi sign? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 208 A Right. There was one that was really offensive that had the Swastika on it and something else. I think it said -- it even had the word "Nazi" on it. Q Well, weren't a lot of the signs that Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince, and other people that were associated with your side of the case -- weren't a number of the signs that they were carrying over the years offensive? A No, they were exercising their First Amendment rights, as your client does. And it all depends on your viewpoint of what is offensive. The Nazi sign was offensive to me. It was offensive to Ms. Brooks. It was offensive to other people. Q Let me put -- A If you show me holding the picture of a Nazi sign, well, I'll be bewildered. THE COURT: I don't want to get into this courtroom as to what sign is offensive because the question is always to whom. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: I mean, I assume all those signs would be offensive to any member of the Church. What might be offensive to any member of the Church might be offensive to me or it might not be. And it might be offensive to someone else. It really doesn't matter. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 209 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, offensive is in the eyes of the beholder. Some things I think clearly could be offensive to anyone. To anyone. But -- MR. WEINBERG: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q In any event, when you incorporated, I guess over some protest, the Lisa McPherson Trust, you incorporated it as a for profit corporation -- a for profit corporation, correct? A Correct. Q Now, you had discussions with Mr. Minton about whether it should be for profit or not for profit. Correct? A Yes. I asked him why he was doing it for profit. That was his decision. THE COURT: I'm sorry, I want to stop you just a minute because I'm not sure what I'm to do with this. This is a book you gave me. Was this in evidence? Or is this something -- MR. WEINBERG: No, it was just easier to deal with. But you know what, why don't I leave it back here and bring it up when I refer to it? THE COURT: You know what, I might keep it because I can't find my fifth amended complaint. MR. WEINBERG: No? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 210 THE COURT: But this was just to be used when you may use it again? MR. WEINBERG: Right. It just has, I think, all of the versions that were either filed or attached to motions to file. I think those were all of the versions. THE COURT: One of the versions that I didn't have, so I guess I will keep this, although now you are saying there are a bunch of different fifth amended complaints, the only fifth amended complaint I had seen from Mr. Fugate was the fifth amended complaint that was, in fact, the complaint that everybody is traveling on in this case. MR. FUGATE: That is correct, Judge. THE COURT: Whatever else went, I don't have. I have the first amended, second, third, fourth and fifth that is in existence. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: So if there are others -- I'll keep this. MR. WEINBERG: There are. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: There were various iterations that ended up in what we have now. THE COURT: Okay. I didn't know there was a -------------------------------------------------------------------- 211 fifth amended complaint not accepted, but I know the second was accepted. But if there were more -- MR. WEINBERG: There were some in between, and ultimately we have what we have now. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Which was that January 20th clerk-stamp thing. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry, now get back to wherever you were. MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually, I wanted to -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So this didn't pass. I heard what you said about the things being offensive to you. Let me show you what is already in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit 74, which is -- which is you, Mr. Minton, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince and Mike Garko, your trial team, and you are standing there in a picture with I think a Nazi sign. And that certainly looks like "Scientology, Hubbard's Third Reich," then it says, "Lisa's blood on Scientology's hands." My question to you is regardless of who that is offensive to, wasn't that offensive to you? A No, all I know, I was coming out of the courtroom, Bob Minton or Jesse said, "Come on over for a picture," they took our picture and we left. There is nothing planned -------------------------------------------------------------------- 212 about this. There was no organization. It was just a snapshot. THE COURT: I also want to correct something you said. Mr. Minton testified that those -- that those things on there are Scientology things. Now, I don't know if he's right or not, but whatever those signs are -- on one it says, "Scientology, Hubbard's Third Reich." I believe he was saying that -- I don't know what they are. MR. WEINBERG: I think he's saying that the -- the symbols are not Swastikas but I think Third Reich was -- THE COURT: Right. MR. WEINBERG: -- was referring to it. THE COURT: But the symbols, I believe he said, were Scientology symbols. MR. WEINBERG: He did. MR. FUGATE: Yes, he said there were marks he put on there himself. THE COURT: Right. Right. THE WITNESS: His expression on this particular sign is that there is no freedom in Scientology, just like there wasn't any in Nazi Germany. That is why he made this particular sign. But this is not the sign I'm talking about. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 213 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So this sign, you were comfortable with it? A No, I wasn't comfortable with it. It was another one that was just totally not in good taste. Q Now, going back to the LMT, Mr. Minton funded the LMT, correct? A As far as I know. Q And what was the reason -- now we're going to get into the questions where we started to get sidetracked. You said Mr. Minton explained to you why it was for profit and not not for profit. And his reason was what? A For privacy, to keep Scientology out of his financial affairs in the corporation. Q Did you tell him and discuss with him the fact that when and if it ever came to pass that the sisters would donate a part of the proceeds from this litigation to -- from the wrongful death case to the Lisa McPherson Trust, that it would then -- that you would then convert it from a for profit to a not for profit? Did you-all discuss that? A No. Then Scientology can find all of the contributors. So that wasn't discussed. THE COURT: Can I ask you one question? I'm not sure if I have this down right or not. Mr. Minton wanted to be for profit so Scientology could stay out of, what, LMT's financial -------------------------------------------------------------------- 214 business? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Or his, Mr. Minton's, financial business? THE WITNESS: LMT. THE COURT: LMT? THE WITNESS: They couldn't get public documents showing how much money went into a private corporation. THE COURT: If it is nonprofit, you have a lot more access to contributors and this type of thing? THE WITNESS: Yes, as far as I know. THE COURT: I'm curious. But isn't it a little more difficult to do a nonprofit? I mean, you can't just because you want to run up to Tallahassee and get a nonprofit. Don't you get permission from the IRS -- THE WITNESS: I did one only twenty years ago and it was a missionary group. It was tremendous. THE COURT: So if he -- Mr. Minton was in a rush to try to beat somebody, he had to do it for profit for that reason, too, I think. THE WITNESS: It wasn't discussed. But you are right. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 215 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you discuss with him that some day it would -- it may well be converted to a nonprofit? A No. That is ridiculous. That would defeat the whole purpose. Q Well, would it be ridiculous, if somebody were donating a bunch of money to it, that it be converted to nonprofit so you get a tax deduction? A As long as it had anything to do with exposing Scientology abuse, it would be ridiculous. Q I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. A As long as it had anything to do with exposing Scientology abuse, it would be ridiculous. Q Why is that? I don't follow you. A Because then they would find out the financial condition, they would get this -- there is a form that you are allowed to copy of a nonprofit that discloses how much is paid to officers and how much the contributions are and money on hand. Again, I'm not a tax expert so I'm speaking out of turn. Q Is this something you do on regular basis, incorporate companies for people? A I have. It's not on a regular basis, but I have done probably, I don't know, two dozen, in twenty years plus. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 216 Q And did you do this gratis for Mr. Minton, or did you charge him for it? A I didn't charge him for it. This is '99. He has given me, what, over a million dollars? I don't think I would charge him for it. Q Let me show you what we'll mark as 148. THE COURT: This extra picture, do you want it back? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Because I already have it. MR. WEINBERG: It's already in evidence. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I show you what we've marked as Defendant's Exhibit 148. Now, Defendant's 148 is a posting by Mr. Minton dated 11/3/2000. And I just refer you to the next-to-last page at the bottom -- A The tab? Q -- where it is tabbed. And there are a bunch of questions, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Lisa McPherson Trust" is the title of this thing. But at the end it says, "Is the Lisa McPherson Trust nonprofit?" And Mr. Minton says, "Solely to protect the privacy of financial supporters of the Lisa McPherson Trust, -------------------------------------------------------------------- 217 we are registered as a for profit company. If we were required to report the names of our contributors, we would run the risk that Scientology could find out their identities. They would then be subjected to harassment and intimidation to punish them for supporting the LMT." Then he says, "At some point in the future the LMT may become a nonprofit organization." But you didn't have that conversation with him about it converting to a nonprofit down the road? A No. This is a year after it was incorporated. It speaks for itself. That is his thoughts a year later. Q Okay. Now -- THE COURT: Is that a number, Counselor? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I put a number on it. THE WITNESS: 148. MR. WEINBERG: 148. THE COURT: Are you moving these things into evidence as we go? MR. WEINBERG: I move -- yes, I'll move what I marked into evidence, yes. THE COURT: You need to do it one at a time because, frankly, if there is an objection, we need to hear it. Mr. Lirot, do you have any objection to any of these things? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 218 MR. LIROT: I have no objection. THE COURT: But in the future, if you want to move them in, just move them in. MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. THE COURT: I'm glad we don't have to go back. That is 145, 146, 147 and 148. THE WITNESS: 145 hasn't really been identified by me, subject to me going back tonight, tomorrow morning, and checking it out. THE COURT: What is 145? THE WITNESS: That is this crazy complaint. MR. WEINBERG: Draft complaint that has 8/30/99 on it. THE COURT: Yes, 145, you are right, at this point in time, I suppose -- well, it's in for whatever. THE WITNESS: Whatever? THE COURT: It has not been authenticated, frankly, what it is, but it is in, just like a lot of this stuff is in. We just have to figure out what value, if any, to place on it. Well, we don't. I do. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, from time -- let me ask you about some folks that were affiliated with the LMT. You filed some witness -------------------------------------------------------------------- 219 lists in this case. Is that right? A Yes. Q And you filed an April 17, 2000 witness list which I'll hand up in a second, and you filed most recently, on April 24, 2002, an amended witness list. Is that right? A Yes. MR. WEINBERG: And we will have the clerk mark as 149 the witness list from 2000, and as 150 the witness list from 2002. THE COURT: Were there three? MR. WEINBERG: There are two. Did I hand you three? THE COURT: No. You gave me two. I thought you said there were three. MR. WEINBERG: No. There are two. The first one which is dated April of -- April 17 of 2000, is 149. And the second one, which is dated this year, April of 2002, is 150. THE COURT: They are both April of 2002. One is the 17th and one is the 24th, is that right? THE WITNESS: No. One is 2000. THE COURT: I'm sorry. MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 149 is April 17 of 2000. THE COURT: The one I'm looking at is the 24th -------------------------------------------------------------------- 220 of April, 2002. MR. WEINBERG: That is 150. THE COURT: That is 150? MR. WEINBERG: Right, Exhibit 150. Then there is 149 is April of 2000. Do you have that one? Did I give you two of the same? THE COURT: You must have given me two of the same one. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. That wasn't too smart. Here is the 2000 one. Give me one of those back. THE COURT: Yes, these are different. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: No wonder you try to confuse me. MR. WEINBERG: I'm not trying to confuse. I already confused myself. THE COURT: Okay, now I have them. Tell me which is which. The 17th of April, 2000 is what number? MR. WEINBERG: That is 149 -- I believe that is 149. THE COURT: And the one that is 2002 is number 150? MR. WEINBERG: 150. THE COURT: All right. We're all on the same -------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 page. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, the -- there was a trial date back in 2000 where the first time we were thinking about having a trial would have been June of 2000. Correct? A We stipulated to it, six weeks in June of 2000. Q Right. Prior to that time, just prior, April 17 of 2000, you filed Exhibit 149 which was notice of filing plaintiff's witness list. Correct? A Yes. Q And then 150 is your most recent plaintiff's witness list. Correct? A Yes. Q Now -- THE COURT: Are these the only two? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: Of the plaintiff's. MR. WEINBERG: Of the plaintiff's. I move these into evidence. And I was going to ask a question about them. MR. LIROT: No objection. THE COURT: It will be received -- they will be received. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 222 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, there were a number of witnesses on both your witness list in 2000 and your most recent witness list of people that were employed at the LMT and/or sat on the board or advisory board of the LMT. Correct? A There were a few. Q Well, let's -- let's go down the list. And on 149, this is in -- this is your 2000 witness list, on the first page, Number 10, Gerald Armstrong. He was affiliated with the LMT, wasn't he? A I think he was on an advisory board, if -- Q Okay. A -- I'm not mistaken. Q Then if we go to Number 31 on that list, Jesse Prince, he was certainly affiliated with the LMT. Correct? A Yes. Q Marjorie Wakefield, she was affiliated with the LMT, wasn't she? A I don't know. Q Do you need to look at the Lisa McPherson Trust list, the advisory committee list? A Yes. If it is on there -- you tell me it's on there, I'll agree with you. Q It is on there, Defense Exhibit 81, "Marjorie Wakefield, Advisory Committee." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 223 A Okay. THE COURT: Who is she? I never heard of her. MR. WEINBERG: She's a former Scientologist. THE COURT: I know. But why is she on your witness list? THE WITNESS: She, I believe, had a similar experience to Lisa McPherson. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Number 65, Teresa Summers -- A Yes? Q -- she was actually employed at the LMT, correct? A At the time this was filed, that is correct -- well, wait. No. No. Wait a minute. No, that is not true. I've got to look at their deposition date that I took. I don't think she had anything to do with the LMT at this time. THE COURT: Why is -- what is she on your witness list for? THE WITNESS: She was a former Sea Org member at Flag. THE COURT: I know. But this case, what was she on this case for? THE WITNESS: She was going to talk about her experience with end cycle; having someone die, helping someone die who has a terminal illness. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 224 There are actually policies written on that. And she was going to talk about the income Flag was generating per week, because at this time we had punitive damages. She was the commanding officer at Flag for several months. And I believe she left in '98 as a Sea Org member, if I'm not mistaken. THE COURT: So it was for your punitive damages? THE WITNESS: Punitive damages, and the policies on helping someone with a terminal illness to die. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Then number 68, Dan Leipold, he was on the advisory committee of the LMT, correct? A Right. And he was a witness, not -- never co-counsel. Q But you listed him as a witness. That is what I'm asking you. A Yes, I did. Q Now, if you go to 150, which is the most recent filing, correct? A Yes. Q If you go to Page 2, Number 10, you have Peter Alexander -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 225 THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I'm sorry. MR. WEINBERG: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: At the time this trial was going, had the counterclaim been filed? I have just forgotten. THE WITNESS: No. MR. WEINBERG: It was filed on May 4 -- MR. MOXON: It was an affirmative defense at that time. THE COURT: But not nearly as elaborate as the counterclaim, as I recall. MR. MOXON: Yes. THE COURT: So the counterclaim was not filed when the first trial was contemplated? MR. WEINBERG: Right. It was a year later in May. THE COURT: And when this was filed, out of curiosity, I had severed the counterclaim so I'm assuming this witness list dealt with the wrongful death? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: When you say this witness list, you are talking about 150, the April of 2002 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 226 THE COURT: Right, 150. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q If you go to April of 2002, go to witness number 10, that is Peter Alexander. He's on the board of directors of the LMT, right? A He was until he was asked to leave. Q Right. But -- A Yes. Q Oh -- but he was on the board of directors and he was the producer of The Profit, as well, correct? A Yes. Q And then Number 27, David Cecere, you have listed as a witness this April? A Yes, sir. Q He was affiliated with the LMT. Right? A He was fired by the LMT. Yes. Q He was actually an employee. Correct? A Yes. Q And then on Number 45, Maria Pia Gardini, she was affiliated with the LMT, wasn't she? A I don't think so. Q Well, what is she on there for, by the way? A She is a former -- THE COURT: You know what, in a way -- well, I guess we can do this. This is a little free -------------------------------------------------------------------- 227 discovery here. We might as well. MR. WEINBERG: I only have a few, I mean -- THE COURT: Yes, I don't know who she is, either. A She's an Italian physician who is a former Scientologist, former staff member at Flag, who has personal knowledge of isolation watches taking place only at the Hacienda, the staffing berthing, in a particular room which is a small room with bars on the windows so no one can leave, and cockroach-infested Hacienda where the staff is berthed. That is why she's on the list. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay, Number 69, Frank Oliver, you say "Former Scientologist." He was affiliated with the LMT. Correct? A You know, I can't say yes or no to that. If it is on the LMT paper, though, I'll go with that. But I don't -- I don't -- Q Did you ever meet Frank Oliver over at the LMT? A Sure, I did. He picketed. I met him in the offices over there when I dropped in. But he's from Miami, so I can't say what he has to do with the LMT. Q And then '97, you have Teresa Summers again. And at this time, certainly she had been an employee of the LMT, correct? A Yes, but she quit. So she's a disaffected -- if -------------------------------------------------------------------- 228 that is the word to use -- LMT member. Former LMT member. Q Then 103, you have Marjorie Wakefield still on there. And she was part of the LMT. Right? A If you say -- I mean, if the document says she was, then, fine, I have no personal recollection. Q Okay. THE COURT: So you listed 109 witnesses, and you have got, golly, "All witnesses identified in depositions, interrogatories, all witnesses on defendant's witness list," then you have 10 experts and one, two, three, four, five, six main defendants associated with LMT. You said you didn't know about Maria Pia Gardini -- sorry, ma'am. I'm sure I said that wrong. THE WITNESS: I think you did that right, Judge. THE COURT: Did I? Okay. And you aren't positive about Marjorie Wakefield? THE WITNESS: Well, only as -- I am positive if I can either play her video deposition or -- THE COURT: No, no, you are not positive if she is connected with LMT? THE WITNESS: That is correct. THE COURT: Okay. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 229 THE WITNESS: I mean, the paperwork by LMT will disclose the names of those people. THE COURT: Right. Is it true -- I don't know myself, is this Maria Pia part of LMT? I never heard of her until this very moment. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I'm under the impression that her way was paid by the LMT to bring her from Italy here for purposes of the case. THE COURT: Is she on this list you have here, this all-inclusive list? THE WITNESS: She's on my list. THE COURT: Number 81? No, she's not. MR. WEINBERG: No, she's not 81. THE COURT: How about this other lady? MR. WEINBERG: Marjorie Wakefield, that is what I'm about to hand up. THE COURT: Is she on this, Number 81? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, right here, on the advisory committee. THE COURT: On the advisory committee? Okay. THE WITNESS: Maria Pia Gardini was never brought here for this case, although I did have the opportunity to meet her, but not for this case. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not sure if it matters so much if Ms. Pia Gardini is or isn't, but -------------------------------------------------------------------- 230 at least she's not on 81 as a member of the board or advisory committee member. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q By the way, on that April of 2002 list, that is when you first identified Bill Franks as your Scientology expert, correct, April 17, 2002? A That is correct. THE COURT: Is he listed under the expert witnesses? THE WITNESS: No, he's not. MR. WEINBERG: But it says here -- THE WITNESS: But it does say -- call him a Scientology expert. MR. WEINBERG: Number 44, Judge, on that Exhibit 150, it says, "Scientology experts." See that? THE COURT: No. I'm looking, Number 40 what? MR. WEINBERG: 44. THE COURT: Is Mr. Prince on here? THE WITNESS: I'm just looking for that right now. I can't see him. But he should be on there. Well, at this time he was still -- I just recently was able to convince him to come back. MR. WEINBERG: He did not list Mr. Prince on this one, I don't believe. But he did list -------------------------------------------------------------------- 231 Mr. Franks, Number 44. THE COURT: Well, I have news for you. There are a lot of people on this witness list that I dare say will not testify. Here is Mr. Miscavige listed. I suspect -- do you have him under subpoena? THE WITNESS: No. There are a lot of people that will not testify. THE COURT: Right. So, I mean, I don't know exactly what -- maybe if we ever get to a case management conference, we'll discuss these people. But I do see that Bill Franks is listed as a Scientology expert. It's odd, if he's a Scientology expert, I'm not sure why he's not down under expert witnesses. THE WITNESS: You are right. And I need to add on Jesse Prince. So I need -- I'll file an amended one. THE COURT: You better file an amended one. THE WITNESS: Mr. -- THE COURT: I see a whole lot of former Scientologists listed, a whole lot of them. And I guarantee you that we're going to go through what, if any, relevance they have and, if so, what it is. And a lot of them may be limited, too. But that is for another day, maybe. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 232 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Talking about Mr. Franks for a moment, did you have any conversations with him prior to putting him on this list? THE COURT: If that has something to do with whether or not there is an agreement, if it has something to do with whether or not he lied under oath, I can't have you going into his trial strategy and all that sort of stuff. If it has something to do with the three things that have been identified, you can ask that. If not, you cannot. MR. WEINBERG: We can wait. He said he's going to call Mr. Franks, so we can find out when Mr. Franks takes the stand. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, you had telephone communications, both from your cell phone and your office and your home, to the LMT. Correct? A I doubt I had it from my home. Q And there was telephone communication from the LMT, from the various folks at the LMT, to various of your numbers, including your cell phone, your office number, and I think you'll find on those -- those records there are a few to your home number. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 233 A Okay. Q Have you had a chance to go through or have somebody from your office go through that big folder there with the tabbed phone calls -- A Yes. Q -- from LMT? A Yes. Q And did you -- did you identify that there are approximately 494 calls from the LMT to you -- to either your cell phone or your office phone or your home? A Well, I think that number, quantity, is correct. I actually had someone prepare a chart for you and for the Judge, which I'll have here tomorrow, that shows the percentages of which person's cell phone was being used to call me. Q Well, how do you know whose cell phone it was, by the way? A Because I know Jesse Prince's cell phone number, I know Stacy Brooks's cell phone number. For sure, those two. Q And do you know the one Mr. Minton used at the LMT? A No. Q Do you know he used Unit 1? A I'm not sure. Did he say that? I don't know. Q I'm asking you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 234 A No, I don't know. Q Well, this chart that you are -- I guess we'll see it tomorrow, but this chart, does it identify all of the eleven cell phones at the LMT? A Yes. Yes. And if someone had told us which phone number Mr. Minton used, then I would be able to put that on the list. But I know for sure Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks. And I know Jesse Prince, I believe, is 56 percent of the time, 56 percent of -- THE COURT: I thought Mr. Minton -- excuse me a second -- I think we're well past the question -- I thought Mr. Minton testified he didn't use one of LMT's cell phones for his own, he just picked one up when he was in there. He had his own cell phone. MR. WEINBERG: He had his own cell phone. But I believe he said, when he was down here, he used one of the LMT phones. THE COURT: Right, sometimes. But he didn't tote around an LMT cell phone, he had his own cell phone. When he was around or -- MR. WEINBERG: Correct. THE COURT: Or he would use one of his own -- MR. WEINBERG: Particularly he said he used Unit 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 235 THE COURT: I don't remember that, but if you say he said it, I don't doubt it. MR. WEINBERG: I think he said it. THE COURT: Because I am sure you have reviewed the transcripts and I have not. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. Well, in any event, there were a lot of phone calls from the LMT phones to either your cell phone or your office. Correct? A There were a lot of cell phone calls from Stacy Brooks, and mostly from Jesse Prince to me. And, of course, cell phones, you don't know where they are when they're using their phone. But that is the majority. I would get, from time to time, calls from John Merrett, from either a cell phone or a LMT landline. I would get calls from Dee Phillips, who is the fiance of Jesse Prince. THE COURT: Why don't we save this for tomorrow when he has a chart? I think that would be nice. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And we have our own chart. THE COURT: Good. Then we can look at charts. MR. WEINBERG: Color-coded charts. THE WITNESS: I'll put color on mine. MR. WEINBERG: We'll do this tomorrow. But let me just identify these records now. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 236 THE COURT: What records? MR. WEINBERG: There is one other set of phone records that will go on our chart, and I just wanted to identify them. And that was -- you also had a request for -- you also had a request for production with regard to calls from your office to the LMT. Correct? THE WITNESS: I don't know. You have to show me. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Is it a good time to take a break? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, maybe so. I have a lot of numbers to go through. THE COURT: We'll be in recess until 2:30 by the courtroom clock. (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:12 to 2:40 p.m.) ______________________________________ THE COURT: Okay. You know, I guess since I'm getting these transcripts, I mean, I probably don't have to make all these excessive notes I make. MR. WEINBERG: Sometimes when I take notes, I remember them better. THE COURT: I think so. MR. WEINBERG: This is my next exhibit. I have premarked them with the clerk, 151A and B. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 237 THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, in addition to the request to admit where you identified the calls from you to Mr. Minton, and in addition to that folder of phone calls from the LMT records that are already in evidence that we're going to talk about tomorrow, we're -- I also want you to look at 151A and B, which I believe are your responses: 151A, which is plaintiff's supplemental response to second request for production of documents to counterdefendant, which is dated -- THE COURT: Who is counterdefendant? THE WITNESS: The estate. MR. WEINBERG: In other words, this is in the counterclaim. And we made a request to produce to the estate, which is the counterdefendant. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Just for the record, 151B -- and that finally -- 151A is dated January 17, 2002. Then 151B is the second supplemental response to this same request for production which was filed on January 28, 2002, signed -- both signed by you, 151A and B. Correct? A Yes. Q And the combination of 151A and 151B is your -- your tabulation of phone calls that was initiated from -------------------------------------------------------------------- 238 either your office or your personal cell phone to the LMT, is that correct? A The document speaks for itself. But that is what it looks like. Q Who did that tabulation? A Donna West. Q 151A -- you can look at this tonight -- but my records indicate 42 calls from either your office number or cell phone from February of 2000 until sometime in October of 2001. And 151B, according to my tabulation, sets forth a log for an additional 32 calls between April 19, 2001 and December 7, 2001. A I wouldn't trust any Nextel bill that says one minute because that is usually a minimum charge even if there is no connection. Q Okay. And this -- am I correct that as with the other exhibit that we looked at, that the numbers that were checked was your cell number and your office number? A Well, Nextel, it is only cell number. So the Nextel bills are only a -- part of 151A, and the other one -- whatever exhibit it is, let's see -- it would be the landline from my office to the Lisa McPherson Trust, which says it could be the trust, Jesse Prince, or Mr. Merrett who used the trust as his Clearwater office. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 239 Q Okay. You also had calls from Mr. Minton from your phone at the LMT. Correct? A I don't know. MR. WEINBERG: All right. So I'll offer 151A and 151B into evidence, your Honor. MR. LIROT: No objection. THE COURT: They will be received. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now -- THE COURT: These, once again, just because I don't have time to read the documents, are phone calls he made from his cell phone or his office number to LMT? MR. WEINBERG: Right. And, I mean, this is his production. So it is whatever they can glean from whoever's records they had. And there is some explanation as to the limitations so far as the records -- THE COURT: Some are not long distance and, therefore, there would be no way to know, is that -- MR. WEINBERG: I think the explanation is for a period of time, the Nextel numbers indicated the calls, and at some period they didn't. THE COURT: Okay. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 240 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, for your -- tonight, I want to give you the opportunity to look at our compilation of these three sets of records, the first request to produce which -- where you listed your calls to Mr. Minton, the big production of the LMT which is Exhibit -- which is Exhibit 97 which is behind you where all those -- you know, those 600 -- or all those 494 calls. Then finally this Exhibit 151A and B. And -- A Well -- Q -- what we have produced we'll have marked as the next exhibit. MR. WEINBERG: And Mr. Dandar can take this with him. And that will give him some -- and it is a -- let me mark it as our next exhibit, 152. And this goes together. THE COURT: So that is a compilation of calls from LMT to Mr. Dandar's and Mr. Minton's phones? MR. WEINBERG: Yes -- well, no. What we've done is so far in front of you, your Honor, is -- do we have the exhibit number for the Dandar to Minton calls? We'll pull that out. What we've done is we've put together now three sets of documents. We put together Defendant's Exhibit 105, which is this exhibit where Mr. Dandar, on the request to produce, identified calls from his -------------------------------------------------------------------- 241 office to Mr. Minton. We've put together Defendant's Exhibit 97, which is those Nextel phone records behind Mr. Dandar's head, with the 494 calls in it, your Honor, which are the LMT calls -- from LMT to Mr. Dandar, either cell phone -- you'll see three to his home phone or to his office phone. There are 494 calls. Then finally we have put in this list what we just identified, which is 151A and B, which is Mr. Dandar's response to the request to admit where he has identified calls from his -- either his cell phone or his office phone to LMT. THE WITNESS: That is request for production, not request for admission. MR. WEINBERG: I mean request for production, which is 151A and B which we just marked. THE COURT: So 105 is Mr. Dandar's office or cell numbers, right? MR. WEINBERG: To Mr. Minton. THE COURT: Right. 94 is LMT calls which were all cell calls? MR. WEINBERG: They are calls -- yes, they're all the Nextel calls to either Mr. Dandar's cell phone, his home phone, or his office phone. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 242 THE COURT: So there are three, you say, to his home. So the rest are all to his cell phone or office phone? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Mostly to his cell phone, but we've broken it out here. THE COURT: And 151A and B are from Mr. Dandar's office or cell to LMT? MR. WEINBERG: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. I got it. MR. WEINBERG: Now, in this exhibit, what we've done -- in this exhibit what we've done, I have marked this as 152 -- this actually goes with it -- this is your copy, you can take it home. THE WITNESS: Well -- okay. I'm not taking these 496 Nextel phone records home. I already had -- MR. WEINBERG: No, I didn't tell you to take -- THE WITNESS: All right. MR. WEINBERG: What we have done with you, let me just go over with you and we'll go into detail tomorrow once you bring whatever you have done. The red numbers is Exhibit 105, which are the Dandar to Minton calls that we talked about and there are 77 of those. The blue ones are what we just went over which -------------------------------------------------------------------- 243 it turns out is Exhibit 151A and B, calls from Mr. Dandar's cell or office to LMT. And the black numbers represent those LMT records of calls to Mr. Dandar. And we have further broken those down because they're broken down in the exhibit. There are 333 calls to Mr. Dandar's cell phone, there is 3 to his home, and there is 158 to the offices of Dandar & Dandar. And if you add up the red ones, blue ones and black ones, the total number of calls, by our tabulation, is 634. So what we've done, your Honor, is in chronological order -- THE COURT: I think I can figure it out. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I was looking at your legacy -- or your legend. And I think it will be pretty obvious for me to figure it out. MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: You can discuss it tomorrow. MR. WEINBERG: I thought it would be fair if we just gave it to him tonight. THE COURT: Yes. I'll take it home and take a look at it. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 244 THE COURT: If I don't understand it, why, I'll let you know. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: And you can ask questions about it tomorrow if you need to. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: And, Mr. Dandar, if you have your whatever it is you are preparing, if you want to bring it in tomorrow -- THE WITNESS: I will -- THE COURT: -- that would be good. We can get it all done at the same time. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, the numbers we operated off of, I want to make sure these are correct -- THE COURT: I don't -- do we have to put his cell numbers in the record? Or are they already in the record? THE WITNESS: I would hate for them to be in the record. MR. WEINBERG: Can I do this? Walk up, show him these and ask him if they're correct. THE COURT: Yes, you can. I don't know if they are part of these documents. But the truth of the matter is none of us likes our home number and stuff -------------------------------------------------------------------- 245 like that readily available to the world. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is that your cell number? A Yes. Q Is that your office number? A Yes. Q Is that your home number? A That is my unlisted home number at home, yes. A total of three calls. The problem is all these calls, we just don't know who is at both ends of the phone. Q I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. A With all these 600-plus calls, we don't know who is on each end of the phone line, except I'm pretty sure Jesse Prince's cell phone, he's on the end of the phone line. Q All right, we'll get back to that tomorrow. Okay? A All right. Q All right. Now, you testified earlier that you had zero meetings, as you define meetings, with Mr. Minton to discuss the case. Is that right? A That is right. Q But there were occasions when you met with or got together with, in person, with Mr. Minton over -- between -- in 1997, '98, '99, 2000, 2001 and 2002, is that right? A Just he and I? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 246 Q You and Mr. Minton. Well, let's start with that, just you and Mr. Minton. A Well, there is one, in particular, and that is the Bombay restaurant where I had lunch with him and then he gave me the UBS check. Other than that, I can't under oath tell you any other time where I just met with Mr. Minton. Q Now, what about Mr. Minton and other people? A Well -- Q Did you have meetings -- well, I mean, you had times when you met with Mr. Minton and other people, including Ms. Brooks? A You know, those times were really social occasions: Dinner, lunch. Q Well, did Mr. Minton ever go to your old address on O'Brien? A Sure. Q Do you know how many times? A No. Q Do you remember the occasion? A No. He would -- it was by the airport. He would stop in leaving, or maybe he would stop in as he arrived. Q Just to say hello? A Just to say hello. Q Not to talk about the case? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 247 A No. Q Never to talk about the case? A No. Q Did he go to your Kennedy address? A Yes. Q Do you know how many times? A Not that many. Q And I didn't ask you how many times at your O'Brien address. A I was there a while until '99, as I recall. He went to the Kennedy address -- I was there two years -- just a few times. Q And the O'Brien address, more than a few? A I wouldn't be able to tell you how many. I mean, not a hundred. Maybe ten. I mean, I don't know. Q What about the West Shore address? Did he ever go to the West Shore address? A No. We moved in there December of -- of 2001. And I don't believe he was ever there. Q How many times did you visit with Mr. Minton at your house? A Never. Q At the LMT? A I don't know. Q Several dozen? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 248 A Stop in, say hello, you know. Q Well, it's not exactly around the corner from your office, the LMT. A Well, it is usually because I'm in Clearwater in court. That is the usual time I would just stop in and see what is going on. I was concerned about these white lines drawn by the City of Clearwater behind the bank building owned by the Church of Scientology. I was concerned about driving down Waters -- whatever that is called, Waterman Street, having police officers look at you like you are a criminal and all you are doing is driving down the street. Judge Penick, I think, expressed the same concern. So I was concerned about all that because this is kind of a strange circumstance. I was concerned when they drew orange lines on the sidewalk of downtown Clearwater, which would restrict First Amendment rights. Q Mr. Minton was in Clearwater at the LMT regularly in 2000, correct? He was there a lot? He was down here a lot in 2000? A I have no idea. Q Well, when he was down here -- and there were times when he was down here for extended periods of time. Correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 249 A I have no idea. I can tell you that there were a lot of times he was down here and I never saw him. Q Did you meet with Mr. Minton ever at Stacy Brooks' house? A Once. Q When was that? A It was -- I don't remember when. That was the episode when he was in -- having an emotional breakdown, as I call it, crying profusely, in a fetal position at times. It was terrible. Q What was the occasion of you going to Stacy Brooks' house to meet with Mr. Minton? A Because of his emotional condition. Q So you went there because he was having an emotional breakdown? A Yes. I was called by Stacy Brooks to hurry up over, it was an emergency. Q Was this during the day? At night? A During the day. Q And who else was there other than Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks? A I believe I was there just with -- it was just the three of us for a while. Then Jesse Prince and Jeff Jacobsen showed up. And by that time, Mr. Minton had gained his composure somewhat. And I kept insisting on calling -------------------------------------------------------------------- 250 911, but I was voted down. Q So I think your testimony was -- or you asked a question of Mr. Minton, I can't remember exactly which it was, or Ms. Brooks -- that on at least two occasions Mr. Minton broke down emotionally in front of you. Right? Did I hear you say that or ask a question like that? A At least two times. Q Right. One was this time. Correct? A Right. Q And do you remember -- you don't remember what year this was? A No. Q And do you remember what occasioned the emotional outburst? A Pressure he was under. And his marriage. Q Well, what do you mean, his marriage? THE COURT: I don't want to go there. I don't want to get into that. What does that have to do with this? MR. WEINBERG: Well, I'll go on. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And the other time was where? A New Hampshire. Q When you were up there in February? A Correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 251 Q So you had a close enough relationship with Mr. Minton where -- where he felt comfortable around you when he was having emotional issues or problems? A No. Just quite the opposite of that. I didn't get to Stacy Brooks' house on that date because Mr. Minton called me. I got there because Stacy Brooks called me, frantic, about what to do. Q Now, what different cities did you have meetings or did you meet with Mr. Minton in? A Over the five years? Q Yes. A Boston for the deposition. Boston maybe before that for that doctor's deposition in the cancer case I had, the malpractice case. Boston for Mr. Minton's deposition a month later. Philadelphia in August of '99 because I was on another doctor's deposition in another malpractice case. I just want to say Tampa Bay. I don't think there are any others. Q You went to his house, as well? A That was the only time, March of 2002. I always kidded around that I was the only one that was never invited to his house in New Hampshire. Q So it was Boston a couple times, Philadelphia, and New Hampshire, in addition to the couple of times in -------------------------------------------------------------------- 252 Clearwater and Tampa? A Right. Q Did you visit with Mr. Minton in any hotels? A Well, when he talked in this courtroom about the Philadelphia August of '99 hotel room with the young girl who had just left Scientology and Rod Keller, I believe he's correct about that. We didn't talk about the case; we talked about her. And we also talked to the head of the Scientology org. in Philadelphia after dinner, who apparently came back to try to get this girl back. And it was -- actually, it was not a -- a very pleasant conversation, a follow-up, on the steps of the hotel. But another hotel? I don't think so. Q How about restaurants? A Well, wait a minute. Hotels -- wait. The Holiday -- whatever it is called -- on U.S. 19 for the December 5th vigil, I'm sure I spoke there once or twice, and I'm sure Mr. Minton was there. Restaurants? Yeah, sure. Q I mean, are we talking -- can you quantify the number of times that you had -- you say they're not meetings -- but that you ate dinner or lunch or spent time over food with Mr. Minton over the years? A And others? Because it was never one-on-one -------------------------------------------------------------------- 253 except that Bombay Bicycle Club. Belleview Biltmore, I would say maybe I recall three times. And Octavio's Restaurant next to the Lisa McPherson Trust, I recall five times. That one hotel and dinner up in Philadelphia that one time. And we may have had dinner in Boston when I was up there for the deposition, but I can't really remember. Q And Ruth's Chris, you went there? A Ruth's Chris was a big dinner. My clients were there. My wife was there. And I believe Stacy Brooks got accosted there with a process server inside Ruth's Chris by the Church of Scientology. I remember that one. Q So you were there with Mr. Minton, among others? A Right. Q Then the Bombay Bicycle Club? A Right. We talked about that. Q Okay. Any celebrations that you spent with Mr. Minton, celebrating your birthday, his birthday, Stacy Brooks' birthday, Jesse Prince's, anything like that? A Not that I recall. Q Did you take any trips with Mr. Minton? A No. Q Now, how would you -- how do you characterize your -------------------------------------------------------------------- 254 relationship -- I'm talking about prior to this hearing -- with Bob Minton? A Arm's length. Q Excuse me? A Arm's length. Q What do you mean by that? A Well, except the time I was called to Stacy Brooks' house because of his emotional breakdown, by her, not by him, and until I saw him in March of 2002 and he was crying because he thought I wasn't his friend anymore, you know, we would meet -- I would happenstance see him at the Trust, and it was an arm's length -- it was never a buddy-buddy situation, not because of me, but that is just because of the way he was. Q I thought that in the questions that you asked Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, that the implication was that you had a close enough relationship with Mr. Minton where you talked to him and gave him advice about his personal life. Didn't I hear you say that? A Mmm, I did that twice, as I recall. Once in that -- that Philadelphia dinner. And once when Stacy Brooks called me to her house that I already described. And I don't think we had any other conversations because that was a subject that he really didn't want to talk about, although he's the one that brought it up in Philadelphia. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 255 Q So in all these phone calls and times you got together, if you didn't talk about personal things and you didn't talk about the case, what did you talk about? A I remember sending him an E-Mail about his personal relationships. I don't have it, but -- but what did we talk about? I mean, I don't know. I mean, when the trust was going on, we were talking about his picketing. We were talking about the police. We were talking about things like that. Then discovery was going on in 2000 and 2001. We talked about that. But he never approached me about the Lisa McPherson case. And I never brought it up. As strange as that may sound to all of you, he was hands off. His E-Mails were correct when he said he has no input in the case. Q Excuse me. You trailed off. He has no what? A He has no input in the case. Q Philadelphia. You did have a meeting -- or shall I say you met with Mr. Minton in Philadelphia. Right? A Yes. For dinner. Q Okay. Now, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks came specially to Philadelphia to meet with you. Correct? A No. Q Well, did they have business in Philadelphia? A Yes. Q Well, what was their business in Philadelphia? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 256 A This girl that was coming out of Scientology, they were very interested in her. It was the whole dinner, that is what it was all about. Q You knew, before they got there, that you were going to be meeting with them in Philadelphia. Correct? There had been some planning? A I would assume so. I can't tell you for sure. Q Now, I think I heard you say that Mr. Minton was correct that you didn't just see him at the dinner, you actually met him in his hotel room, as well, correct? Isn't that what you said a few minutes ago? A I met in a hotel room. I don't know if it was his or someone else's. If he says it was his, I can't quibble with that. Q So there was a dinner where you were present, Ms. Brooks was present, Mr. Minton was present. This was all on August 26, 1999? A Somewhere -- 25th, 26th, 24th. Q And you were there on some other business? A Right. Q So at this dinner -- what, was it at the hotel, do you know? A It was at the hotel. I remember -- I'm visualizing it right now. Q Were you all staying in the same hotel, -------------------------------------------------------------------- 257 Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks and you? A I would think so. Yes. Q Do you remember the name of the hotel? A No. Philadelphia -- might have been -- the Hyatt, Center City. Q Did you arrange for Mr. Minton's and Ms. Brooks' reservations at the hotel? A No. Q Or your office, I mean? A No. Q So at this dinner there was you, Minton -- Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, Rod Keller who was a critic of Scientology. Correct? A I suppose. I don't know what you call him. Q Well, he was -- he was active in the anti-Scientology movement. Correct? A Well, you -- he was active as a critic. I think what he actually -- he had some kind of computer job, and he would put together this alt.religion.scientology news, the most notable quotes or something, because there are hundreds and hundreds of people post there every day. I tried to access it a few times and I couldn't figure it out. But he would put together -- a newsletter together, which I never saw. And I think I asked him to send it to me, because I was interested in seeing what these people were saying. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 258 But as far as him being a critic, I have never seen anything posted by him, so I would assume that is true but I can't verify. Q Now, was Mr. Minton giving him money? A I don't know. Q And had you met him before this meeting; in other words, had you -- had you been in touch with Rod Keller prior to August 25/26, 1999? A Only if he showed up down here for a picket or something. Q In other words, he wasn't a close confidante or anything like that of yours? A No, never. Q He wasn't a trial consultant or anything? A No, never. Q The last person of the group was who? A Well, the girl that -- I can't remember her name right now. And there might have been somebody else. I just know the dinner -- Bob Minton and I were talking one-on-one. And everybody else was concentrating on this girl. Q Now, and you say at this dinner where all these people that were not confidantes of you, Mr. Keller and this girl's name, are, you say you talked to Mr. Minton with Ms. Brooks present and these two people that you didn't even -------------------------------------------------------------------- 259 know, about his marital life? A Yes. Mr. Minton and I were side by side. Stacy Brooks was on the other side of me. Rod Keller, the girl and somebody else was on the other end. This was a round table. And Mr. Minton and I were very close, shoulder to shoulder, talking. So we carried on our own conversation. And, again, he brings this up. I didn't bring it up. And he just -- you know, he already knew what I thought somehow. I think this is the first time we ever discussed it. Q And you didn't discuss the case at this dinner? A No. Q But then, after the dinner, you went to Mr. Minton's -- or Ms. Brooks' or some hotel room? A I believe they had adjoining rooms. And we talked to this girl again. I believe that was the purpose of going to the room. Q And at some point it was just you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton. Correct? A I would think so. I can't remember that part of it. Q Well, do you remember that some point the -- the issue of money came up? A It's possible. Q Well, he handed -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 260 A I don't remember. Q -- you a $250,000 check in the hotel room, didn't he? A I can't say that either. I can't say -- Q No, look -- A No, listen. Q I'm sorry to interrupt you. A I know there is a check -- THE COURT: Don't interrupt him, Counselor. Let him finish. A I know there is a check dated after this trip, the next day or -- probably the next day. But that, to me, is not a big deal because I can't tell you if he handed it to me then or if he mailed it to me or what. THE COURT: 97E, I think it is, is a check for $250,000 dated 8/27/99. MR. FUGATE: 93? That is my writing, I think. THE COURT: 93E. Right. I'm sorry. MR. WEINBERG: Right, it is 93E. If I could approach -- THE COURT: Unless you have to show him that. Here, he can have mine -- THE WITNESS: I know about it. I have seen it. THE COURT: What do you need to approach him for? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 261 THE WITNESS: It is no big deal to me. I don't care which way it happened. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, getting $250,000 was a big deal to you. Right? A Mmm, yes. Of course, by that time, it was -- it was not the first check. I mean, I was more shocked at the first check than anything that happened after that. Q And is it your recollection that that is where you got the check, at this meeting? A No. But if it is his recollection, I don't need to quibble with him about it. Q When you got this $250,000 check from Mr. Minton, what, if anything, did Mr. Minton say about the conditions under which he was giving you this money? A I can tell you 1,000 percent I never received anything from Mr. Minton that was conditioned upon anything. So I know, without being able to remember him handing me a check then, I know for certain he never said this is a condition for the check. Never. Never. Never. Q And he didn't, in August of 1999, give you any sort of written document with regard to this check or you to him. Correct? A Not that I recall. Q There was no written loan agreement or anything -------------------------------------------------------------------- 262 like that? A No. THE COURT: Counsel, by now surely we would have it in evidence. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, is it a coincidence that ten days or so after you received this check and had this meeting in Philadelphia with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you filed, on September 7, 1999, your motion to add parties by your motion to add, for the first time now, David Miscavige, as well as the end of cycle allegation? Is that a coincidence? A Two weeks later? Q Yes. A Yes, that is a coincidence because, believe it or not, we never even discussed David Miscavige or anything going on in the case, in Philadelphia. Q That was going to be my next question. Now, you heard Mr. Minton's testimony, you heard Ms. Brooks' testimony about discussions concerning their concern about you focusing -- not focusing enough on Scientology. Do you remember that testimony? A I -- in this courtroom? Yes. Q Okay. Now, did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Minton where he expressed his concern to you about you not focusing enough on Scientology and the case? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 263 A No. I had that discussion with Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince about not using them enough. And Mr. Minton said, "Why don't you go call and talk to Stacy and Jesse because, you know, they think they should be at these depositions helping you." Q Well, when did you have that conversation with Mr. Minton? A You know, I don't remember. But it was -- I want to say it was -- it was at the LMT, so it had to be in 2000 to the first half of 2001. Q So there came a point where you -- A But you would -- but you would know just by looking at the staff depositions that we took and the defendant's depositions that we took after they quit pleading the Fifth Amendment. So that happened after June of 2000. So I don't know if it was before or after June of 2000. Q But there came a point where you met with Mr. -- you met Mr. Minton one day at the LMT, Mr. Minton said something to the effect of, "Why don't you use Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince more in your depositions?" A Yeah, "When I'm doing Scientology staff, because, you know, they have their expertise in Scientology matters." That made sense. But sometimes I used -- you know, it was Jesse Prince mostly. I can't remember Stacy -------------------------------------------------------------------- 264 being at anything like that except maybe Bennetta Slaughter's deposition or AMC Publishing's depositions, the employers for Lisa McPherson. Stacy may have been at one or two. That is when you guys were moving to exclude depositions before Judge Moody. And he denied that. And I remember Jesse eventually showing up there. So that was -- that was early on, though. So I'm not talking about that. Q She also went to hearings? A She went to some hearings. Q Now, going back to the -- to the time when you had this conversation with Mr. Minton, did -- did he, during that conversation, tell you why he thought that it would -- it was necessary for you to use Stacy and -- Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince more? A No. He just said, "Go talk to Stacy and Jesse." I think Jesse, in particular, was upset because I didn't have him at every deposition. Q Does that mean that Jesse Prince and Bob Minton were talking about the case? A I have no idea. Q And was the activity -- well -- A Well, now that I know that Stacy Brooks was the spy of Mr. Minton, that is the shock of my career in this case, in this hearing. Sounds like she was talking to -------------------------------------------------------------------- 265 Mr. Minton quite a bit, contrary to her agreement with me. Q Well, it didn't come as a surprise to you that Stacy Brooks was talking to Mr. Minton, given her relationship with Mr. Minton, about the case, was it? A Actually, it did. THE COURT: Why, Counselor -- am I to assume when I instructed Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, who I assume were staying in the same room, not to discuss this case, that they disobeyed my orders and did so anyway? MR. WEINBERG: No. THE COURT: Well then, if he asked his consultant not to discuss the case with anybody else, is he to think differently? MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask him that question, if I can. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q There came a point in time when the LMT opened up, at the end of 1999, where Stacy Brooks was full-time at the LMT and was not working as your consultant, right? A Well, she was -- even before that, was barely working as my consultant. I mean, Jesse Prince was the person who I relied on 99.9 percent of the time. Q And you knew that Jesse Prince had a very close relationship, because of the money, and possibly other -------------------------------------------------------------------- 266 reasons, with both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton. Right? A No. No. Q You didn't know that? A No. In fact, I would -- I would venture to say that I don't think Jesse Prince had a close relationship with either one of them, as close as you want to make it out to be. Q Well, before Jesse Prince ever came to you, he was being paid by Mr. Minton, you know that, and you knew that at the time. Correct? A No. Q And then there came a time -- A The answer is no, I didn't know that. Q Well, when did you learn that, that before Mr. Prince came to you in 1998, that Mr. Minton was paying substantial sums to Mr. Prince? A The first time I knew about his income was in the deposition that you took of him where he described his income from FACTNet, not from Mr. Minton. And there is a difference. THE COURT: FACTNet -- I forgot, is FACTNet a corporation? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: An Inc.? THE WITNESS: At some time it became an Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 267 THE COURT: But it was nonprofit? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: But was it a corporation? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: I don't know the answer to the question. THE COURT: So if being checks were paid from FACTNet, Inc. we all have to assume the checks were paid by a corporation and not by Mr. Minton. MR. WEINBERG: Well, you heard Mr. Minton's testimony about all of the money that he gave -- THE COURT: I understand that. But I bet you any amount of money that he considers FACTNet, Inc. a separate entity, incorporated, from himself. I'll bet you any amount of money if FACTNet got income, that he would not put it on his personal return. I mean, anybody that works and does and uses corporations does so for all kinds of reasons. And you just can't, when it is convenient, suggest that is his money. If the money came from the corporation, it was corporate money. That is by law. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Were you aware that -- were you aware that after FACTNet, Mr. Minton was providing checks to Mr. Prince, -------------------------------------------------------------------- 268 after FACTNet? A Well, no. The only thing I was aware of -- and actually I learned about it in his deposition, Jesse Prince's -- is this bridge loan that Mr. Minton made to Jesse Prince of $50,000 so he could buy the home in Clearwater. But other than that, he was working either for me, then he went to work for the LMT. Q Well, let me show you what we'll mark as the next exhibit, please. THE CLERK: 153. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I have just shown you Exhibit 153. Let me see if -- A Uh-huh? Q -- if we can agree to something. Is it your recollection that beginning -- THE COURT: Are these all part -- I have three different things here. Are they all part of 153? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Beginning in June -- approximately June of 1999 until approximately May of 2000, you issued checks to Jesse Prince at $5,000 a month, correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 269 A Right. THE COURT: When was that from? MR. WEINBERG: Approximately June of 1999 through, I believe, May of 2000. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And after that, Mr. Prince -- after May of 2000, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Prince was paid by the LMT, and ultimately you found out in a hearing, by Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton. Correct? A Right. Q Still at that $5,000 a month clip? And what I'm showing you as Exhibit 153 is a check for February 2, 1999 from Mr. Minton to Mr. Prince for $6,500, and -- A Who is Madison S. Minton? That wasn't -- I don't understand what is at the bottom of this, "Madison S. Minton." Q I don't know what it is. But the check, at the top, you recognize that as a Bob Minton check, right? A Barely, but I -- I would guess so. Q I mean, you got one of those Bank of Boston checks, right? A I may have. I can't tell you. I am surprised -- THE COURT: Let's make this a little speedier here. We can assume that this was a Minton check. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 270 I mean, it is a very bad copy, but let's assume that for the sake of argument. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Then on the next page, the one I highlighted is a March 18, 1999 check for $5,000, a March check to Mr. Prince from Mr. Minton? A Yes. I didn't know about that. Q And then -- A I'm surprised about the $250,000 check to Stacy Brooks, though, in March of '99. Q Then on May 4, 1999 -- in other words, a May check for $5,000. Do you see that? A Yes. Yes. Q All right. Now, during this period of time, February, March, May, Mr. Prince was working with you as your expert? A I don't think so. Q He wasn't? A I don't think so. He came to work for me in June of '99, and -- full-time. Now, I had a few phone calls with him before that, but he wasn't working for me then. Q Well, he did the PC folders in December of '98. Right? A Yes. That was just gratis, as far as I was -------------------------------------------------------------------- 271 concerned. Q He just did that for free? A He did it for free as far as I'm concerned. He did it with Stacy Brooks. I wasn't paying either one of them. Q Isn't it your experience with Mr. Prince that he did nothing for free? A No. That is not true at all. That is just not true. Q Did you know that Mr. Minton was paying Mr. Prince -- actually paying him out of his own pocket when he was doing things for you? A No. I don't know that. You haven't proven that to me, by the way. But these checks don't prove it at all. THE COURT: What number is this compilation, please, again? MR. LIROT: 153. MR. WEINBERG: 153. THE COURT: Thank you. A This all predates the time that Jesse Prince came to work for me. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, except for the fact that the -- the PC folders? A Except for the PC folders, right. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 272 THE COURT: Which he already testified to, Counselor. Make your arguments to me. You really need to move through this. Make your arguments to me when this is all over. MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Back to the meetings. This Philadelphia meeting, anything that you can recall that you discussed about the case in the hotel room after the dinner? A Nothing. Q And you certainly wouldn't have had anybody else there other than Ms. Brooks if you were discussing with Mr. Minton money, was that right? A Well, no. I mean, I don't know if Rod Keller was around or not. And I don't remember discussing money with him. He may have -- I mean, if he did hand me a check then, he was the one that brought up money. He always would say, "How are you doing? Do you need some more?" Q Now, Mr. Minton, did he express concerns to you about the shape of the complaint as it stood prior to you moving for the fifth amended complaint? A Never. Q I mean, there had been a number of motions to dismiss, if you recall, with regard to the second, third and fourth amended complaints, prior to you seeking to file the -------------------------------------------------------------------- 273 fifth amended complaint where a number of counts were dismissed and allegations struck. Do you remember those hearings? A I remember those hearings. Q And my question was anybody suggest to you -- did Mr. Minton suggest to you that he was concerned that you had sort of lost your focus or was losing too many of those and that the case was not addressing enough Scientology? A Never. Q Okay. A I wouldn't classify it as losing those motions. They were very technical. Q Now, the motion to add these additional parties was actually argued in October 1999, correct? A No. What was argued in October of '99 was whether or not the stipulation was valid. We challenged the stipulation. Q The -- the effect of the hearing in October of '99 was that you were not permitted by Judge Moody at that time to add David Miscavige or Ray Mithoff or Marty Rathbun to the complaint, right? A No. My recollection is Judge Moody said the stipulation is valid, it does not need consideration, but you are free to breach it if you want to. And I said, no, we're not going to breach -------------------------------------------------------------------- 274 anything. So we stopped. Q You didn't file the fifth amended complaint at that time with David Miscavige and the other two gentlemen's names, right? A That is right. It was just attached to the motion. Q Now, after that hearing but before you filed the new motion to add Mr. Miscavige on, I believe we looked at it earlier, November 19 of 1999, between the hearing in October and November 19 of 1999, did you have any discussions, meetings, conversations in which Mr. Minton was in attendance in which the fifth amended complaint, David Miscavige, the allegations, were discussed? A No. Q You heard the testimony of both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton and you have read their affidavits about a meeting which they say took place in your new offices sometime after this hearing before Judge Moody but before you filed your motion on the Sea Org theory in which they claim -- THE COURT: Counsel, this is the longest question I ever heard in my life. I don't know -- MR. WEINBERG: I'll make it shorter. THE COURT: I don't know what the end will be. THE WITNESS: I thought I had some longer ones. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 275 THE COURT: I'm sure you did. And hopefully it was that time of day I stopped you. THE WITNESS: You did. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You remember their testimony, correct? A I remember their conflicting testimony. I remember Mr. Minton first testifying he flew down for a secret meeting in July or August of '99 to add on David Miscavige. Then he corrected himself a couple weeks later saying he flew down for a secret meeting in late October/November of '99 for this adding on David Miscavige. And I remember Ms. Brooks saying there was a big vote taken and she didn't want anything to do with adding on David Miscavige. And I remember Mr. Minton saying she was a proponent of adding on David Miscavige and there was a vote taken. So all that is incorrect. There was no meeting with Mr. Minton. Q Was there a meeting with Ms. Brooks where this Sea Org theory was discussed? THE COURT: Sea Org? Or is it adding Mr. Miscavige? Or is that all part of it? MR. WEINBERG: That is all part of it. A Well, there was a meeting that I recall with Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks and Dr. Garko and I where Stacy -------------------------------------------------------------------- 276 Brooks was the proponent of adding on David Miscavige. I'm sitting there listening to my experts, my consultants, and then nothing was decided at all until I spoke with Dell Liebreich and we mulled it over for a while. And -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, what did you say? We what? A We mulled it over a while. And Dell Liebreich said Fannie said, you know, we'll follow what Fannie wants to do. I said we can do it now because we have the evidence we didn't have before. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q That was the Jesse Prince affidavit? A Not only that, but the documents that we had, command lines of Scientology that all the RTC news that has to be reported immediately to RTC, all of the way up at the very top of Scientology when somebody goes PPS Type III. I mean, I have heard people talk about that, but I never had any documents until that summer of '99 from Jesse Prince and others. Q And this meeting that took place with Prince, Brooks -- Mr. Prince, Ms. Brooks, Dr. Garko and you, you say Mr. Minton was not there? A Mr. Minton was not part of the meeting. If he was there, he might have been somewhere else in the office. That was a huge office. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 277 Q Well, is it your recollection that the day in this period of time, after Judge Moody said what he did -- what he did in October, but before you filed the motion to add David Miscavige, are you saying that on the day of that -- of that meeting, that Mr. Minton was in your office? A No. I don't know. I'm just saying he was never part of a meeting. He was never part of a meeting where I discussed with Dr. Garko, Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks about proceeding any further in adding on David Miscavige as captain of the Sea Org. Q Well, did you ride the elevator down with him after whoever you met with met in which this was discussed? Did you ride it down with him and Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince? A No. I mean, the way they described that, "And don't tell anybody, let's ride in the elevator," that is just ridiculous. That didn't happen. Why would I tell my consultants not to talk about it with anybody? I mean, that is a given. I mean, this is work product. So that is ridiculous. Q Well, if Mr. Minton was there, there is nothing -- no work product about it, was there? A Well, if Mr. Minton was there, which he wasn't, but if he was there, it was still work product. But he wasn't there. Q Well, hold on a second. If Mr. Minton was in a -------------------------------------------------------------------- 278 meeting, even with your consultants and you, discussing the case, there is nothing work product about this meeting? THE COURT: It is always work product unless somebody says it is waived. Anybody can claim work product. Anybody can claim attorney-client privilege. Anybody can claim all kinds of privileges. Sometimes they are waived. It does not change what it was. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Are you suggesting that -- that conversations that you had with Mr. Minton were in some way confidential, privileged? THE COURT: That is unfair. He didn't say he ever had such a conversation with Mr. Minton. All I said to you is that if he had a conversation with his consultant, it would be work product even if someone else were there. Whether or not you could get to that work product because somebody else was there may be true. It does not alter the fact that it's work product. It is whether the privilege attaches to it. If I have a communication with my lawyer, it's attorney-client privilege. If somebody happens to be there, it doesn't alter the fact that it's -------------------------------------------------------------------- 279 attorney-client privilege. The question is whether that attorney-client privilege has been waived because somebody else was there. It does not alter the fact that I had a conversation which is privileged unless it's waived. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: But it doesn't matter because this testimony is he didn't have this conversation with Mr. Minton. Is that your conversation -- I'm sorry, is that your testimony? THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Is that testimony going to change? THE WITNESS: It's not. THE COURT: Are you going to stay with that testimony to the death? THE WITNESS: To the death. THE COURT: There you have it. I mean, it's just different testimony, and you need to get off it and go to something else. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You did go to New Hampshire this year in February to meet with Mr. Minton, correct? A Yes. Q And you went there with Dr. Garko? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 280 A Yes. Q And it was sometime in late February? A Yes. Q Do you remember the date? February 23rd is what he said. A Whatever that Saturday and Sunday were. Q And prior to that meeting, you had offered to meet Mr. Minton at various places, including the Caymans, Nashville, Atlanta, Cleveland, is that right? A Well, it's almost right. Mr. Minton had been calling me, asking to meet with me, without telling me what he wanted to meet me about. And I kept saying, "Why do you want to meet me?" "Well, I can't tell you on the phone." First he suggested Atlanta because Ms. Brooks has a townhouse there. And I was getting ready to come to Atlanta on a Monday and come back the same day. And I just couldn't do it physically. So I said, "Look --" he said, "I won't come to Florida, I can't go to Florida, because I get subpoenaed every time I go to Florida." I said, "Fine. In a week or two I'll be at Vanderbilt University. Mr. Weinberg will be there deposing Dr. Fogo in this case. Would you like to meet there?" He said, "That is great." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 281 I said, "I'm staying at this new hotel." He said, "Book me a room." And he did. Then he called up and cancelled the day before arrival or the day of arrival, one of those two. I said, "I'm going to the Caymans in January of this year? Do you want to meet me about whatever you want to talk to me about? I don't care if you interrupt my family vacation. It won't be that long, anyway, for you to talk to me." He said, "That's a good idea." "Let me know. Let me know where you're staying. Let me know when you get there." The first minute I get to the hotel, I'm sitting there waiting, someone takes my family -- we are sitting there waiting for my room, someone comes and snaps a picture of us, and it wasn't a resort photographer. They ran away after they snapped our picture. I believe I left a message with Mr. Minton about that. Mr. Minton decided not to come to the Cayman Islands. So then I came back. Now it's February. And if there was another deposition I offered to meet him at, I'm not remembering it right now. But finally he said, "Why don't you just come to New Hampshire?" And I did. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 282 Q Well, Mr. Minton had cut off the phones in August, and you say that in January he was calling you to arrange a meeting? A You got that right. Q And you had no interest in talking -- you weren't reaching out for him at this point, trying to get more money? A Well, I think I knew he had cut me off, so periodically, I don't know how many times, once, twice, three times, I sent him an E-Mail because he talked about his European friends always being interested in helping but nothing was happening. And so I did send him a few E-Mails about his friends in Europe. And so I don't know if he was calling me about that or not. He just wouldn't tell me on the phone. But he sounded like a person that -- he needed to talk to me and needed to do it in person. Q What do you mean, you wrote him E-Mails about his friends in Europe? A I wrote him E-Mails -- I think he talked about it at this hearing -- where I said, you know, "We need money. We're taking a ton of depositions. What about your friends that you told me about before? You know, will they be interested, even though you are not interested?" And that is when Jesse Prince came to my office, -------------------------------------------------------------------- 283 in February of 2002, and told me that there were certain conditions I had to meet and he would ask his friends to help me. Q Did you actually send Mr. Minton some E-Mails sometime in late 2001 or early 2002 in which you actually used the words "friends in Europe" -- I'm talking about before this meeting in New Hampshire in February? A I think I used the word "friends." Q Do you have those E-Mails? A No. I'm sure you do. You have got all his other E-Mails. Q And Jesse Prince -- this is long after he had withdrawn from the case -- you say came to your office in January of 2002? A I think it was February. Q February of 2002? But before you went to New Hampshire? A Right. Q And is this just out of the blue he came to your office? A Out of the blue. Q And it was just you and Jesse -- and Mr. Prince? A That is right. Q Can you date it? A Nope. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 284 Q And it was in your new office? A My new office. My current office, yes. Q And what did -- was this -- and what happened in this meeting? Who said what to whom? A Jesse said, "Bob will help you get money if you do some things." The only thing I can remember right now is -- as crazy as this sounds and as silly as it sounds -- I wasn't allowed to talk to Patricia Greenway any more because apparently Bob and Stacy had a falling out with her and Peter Alexander. And Bob was real upset about all of the criticism on the Internet about him, which, you know, I didn't know about. It turns out it was two people. I said, "Well, this is kind of, you know, immature. But if his friends will help me, if that happens, you know, if I get these two people, asking them to quit saying nasty things on the Internet about Bob Minton, since that upsets him so much, and quit talking to Patricia Greenway," I said, "That is an outrageous request, you know, who I can talk to." But I said, "If that will help get your friends to give me money, you can tell him okay, I can do that." THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was writing as fast as I could and listening. This is one of the times my -------------------------------------------------------------------- 285 brain might have stopped. You said there were two things he wanted you to do: One, stopping talking to Patricia Greenway. What was two? THE WITNESS: Two, to get these critics of him to quit criticizing him on the Internet. Because that was two people. THE COURT: It might be getting on to four o'clock. Sure enough, because my brain doesn't work as fast. THE WITNESS: I will talk slower. THE COURT: Talk slower for me. But it is going awfully slow. (A discussion was held off the record.) THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So Jesse Prince was supposed to be speaking for Mr. Minton when he appeared at your office one day? A That is right. Q That is what he said? A That is what he said. Q Now, you had had some previous experience with Jesse Prince trying to speak for Mr. Minton, hadn't you? A Once. Q And hadn't Mr. Minton said, "Mr. Prince doesn't -------------------------------------------------------------------- 286 speak for me as it relates to my affairs, particularly money"? A Actually, that is a true statement by Mr. Minton. Q He said it? A Yes. Q And when -- A Yes, he did. Q And when was that? A I have no idea. Q Sometime before Jesse Prince appeared in your office, though, in this year. Right? A It was probably -- well, I don't know. I would just guess. It is 2001. Q Did you pick up -- did Mr. Prince say anything else at this meeting, and did you say anything else to Mr. Prince? A No. That was it. I may have begged him to come back and be my expert. I'm not sure. But he wasn't having any of that. Q I thought you said a few minutes ago that Mr. Prince and Mr. Minton were not close, to your knowledge. Didn't you say that? A Yes. Q But -- A They were not as close as I thought they were. I -------------------------------------------------------------------- 287 thought they were really close. Q But you say that Mr. Prince showed up speaking for Mr. Minton -- A Yes. Q -- as far as -- A Yes. When he told me he was speaking for Mr. Minton and he told me these two conditions, I assumed -- and I assumed correctly, by the way -- (A discussion was held off the record.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q How long did this meeting take place, last? A Fifteen minutes or less. Maybe fifteen. Q And you don't remember anything else at the meeting? A No. That was it. Q And did you pick up the phone and call Mr. Minton -- A No. Q -- after Jesse Prince left? A No. Q Why not? A Mr. Minton -- I don't know. I just didn't do it, you know. Q Well, did you type out an E-Mail to Mr. Minton saying, "Your emissary appeared and I meet the conditions," -------------------------------------------------------------------- 288 or something to that effect? A No, not nothing at all. Q Did you have any communication, either directly or indirectly, following Mr. Prince's visit, about the subject matter that Mr. Prince discussed with you? A No. The only thing that I recall next happening is Mr. Minton calling me and telling me that -- come to New Hampshire -- asking me to come to New Hampshire. Q So you weren't begging him, he was begging you? A He wasn't begging. He was asking me to come to New Hampshire to talk to him. Q So that he could give you money? Was it -- A Honest to God, I didn't put the two together. I didn't put Jesse's visit to me and him asking me to come to New Hampshire together. I thought coming to New Hampshire was something else that was far more pressing on him. Q Like what? A I don't know. He wouldn't -- when -- Q I mean, something personal? A Listen, we always talked on the phone about money. I mean, he said, "Do you want some money? Do you need some money?" But this time it was, "No, I need to talk to you in person. Please, you know, you need to come see me." Q Right? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 289 A And I think Stacy Brooks may have been part of the call. Q And you knew that you were going to be talking about the case. Right? A No. Q So that is the reason -- so the reason you brought Dr. Garko, your trial consultant, on your first visit to New Hampshire in February of 2002 was not to talk about the case? A No. I brought Dr. Garko because Dr. Garko asked to go. Q To see the mountains? A Just to go. He thought it would be good to have a witness, because he didn't -- you know, we did not have a good relationship anymore, you know, with Mr. Minton. So he didn't know what was going on, and I didn't know what was going on, so I thought it was a good idea to have him with me. And it turns out I might be right. Q What do you mean, you didn't have a good relationship with him any -- A He cut off funding. He always promised to see the case through to the bitter end, no matter what. Q But Mr. Prince just visited you, saying if you agree to these two conditions, which were not actually that onerous, cut off the critics and don't turn talk to Patricia -------------------------------------------------------------------- 290 Greenway, he'll give you more money? THE COURT: That isn't what he said at all, Counselor. He said he would get his friends to give him money. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And in December, early December of 2001, regardless of whatever the relationship with Mr. Minton, you had called up his lawyer, find out about -- about -- or called up Mr. Minton to -- to discuss the subpoena for his bank records, and had ultimately provided an affidavit. Right? A True. You shouldn't take my kindness as a sign of weakness. I mean, I just did that because I was tired of all of the abuse of discovery. Q I won't ask any more questions about this except this last time. Your testimony is that Dr. Garko went on this trip, not to talk about the case, but just because he wanted to be there? A Right. We had no idea what the topic was. THE COURT: And it wasn't just to be there. That isn't what he said. He said they weren't sure what was going on. He thought it might be good to have a witness. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 291 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Had you done that before, in your meetings with Mr. Minton, brought a witness with you? A Not intentionally. Q Now, while you were in New Hampshire with Mr. Minton, you did go over the 80 or so questions with him that he had been ordered to answer that he'd previously taken the Fifth Amendment on, right? A Yes, I did. I think it had been my idea. Q You mean your idea to go over the questions? A Right. Q So he -- A I thought he was -- I thought he was being ridiculous in pleading the Fifth Amendment. Q Did you think that that was better left to Mr. Minton and his lawyer to discuss whether or not -- or how he should be responding to questions that he had taken the Fifth Amendment on? A Well -- well, sure. But he asked me -- well, he didn't ask me anything. He told me that, you know, he was concerned about the judges' hearings coming up. And I said, "You know, you are causing that concern all by yourself. I don't know why you pled the Fifth Amendment. What do you have to hide? As far as I know, you have nothing to hide. Who cares how much you paid -------------------------------------------------------------------- 292 Stacy Brooks? I mean, who really cares? Just answer the questions." And so we sat down on the sofa. Stacy Brooks was there sitting next to me. Bob Minton was sitting in a chair. Michael Garko was there sporadically -- no, he sat there too, on the sofa, on the other sofa. And we went over all of them. I said, "Just answer the question. This is stupid." Q What did he say? A I think he was convinced. I mean, I think at the end of the day -- or end of that session, you can call that a meeting, I guess, he said okay. I mean, I just said, "Look, this is all silly. I mean, you have nothing to hide." Q How long did that meeting last where you went over these 80 or so questions? A I am just being facetious when I called it a meeting. Q So it wasn't a meeting? A No. I was at his house. I was a guest. I slept in his daughter's bed upstairs, for heaven sakes. It wasn't a meeting. It was a visit. But, anyway, that lasted maybe a half hour, forty-five minutes. Q And did you tell his personal lawyer -- whether it -------------------------------------------------------------------- 293 was Mr. Merrett or Mr. Jonas or Ms. Ricci -- did you tell his personal lawyer that you were going to go over these questions with him? A No. Q Were you his lawyer at this point? A No. Q Did you talk to him at all that weekend -- at all that weekend about the $500,000 UBS check? THE COURT: Are you talking the one he got in May? MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000. A I don't think so. I don't think so. Now, at this time, by the way, March -- or February of 2002, we had a stay in effect, talking about any money from any source, so that is why I don't think we ever talked about it, because there was a stay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you talk to him about the LMT transfers during this -- whatever you want to call it -- session with him where you went over the Fifth Amendment questions? A You mean the -- the Clambake and the anonymous $500,000? Q Yes. A No. Q Weren't those some of the questions? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 294 A I don't -- well, you have to show me, then I'll tell you. I mean, if it's a question, then we talked about it. Right now, I don't remember talking about it. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 30A. Actually, this is a good thing to mark. This is what he used. THE CLERK: 154. MR. WEINBERG: This is 154, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, if you'll look at 154, Defense Exhibit 154, is that the document that you used to go over the questions with Mr. Minton? A Well, I should -- I don't -- I don't know. Isn't there an order? Q Well, the order refers to this document. I'll show you the order. Do you want to see the order? A No. THE COURT: Does the order have questions in it? MR. WEINBERG: No. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Particularly starting on Page 10, you'll see the questions start appearing. Then from Page 10 to the end -- A So Page 10 at the bottom, Number 1, that is the first question, "Alone with Mr. Dandar?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 295 Q Yes. A "You pled the Fifth to that, right?" THE COURT: All of these are questions he pled the Fifth to? THE WITNESS: Yes. I told him, "What are you doing this for? This is crazy." A Yes. This is probably it. This is probably the document. THE COURT: Was it a document that Mr. Minton had at his house, whatever it was? THE WITNESS: It was like this. Yes, I'm pretty sure this is it. THE COURT: This is not something you took with you and left there? THE WITNESS: No. I didn't pay any attention to this. THE COURT: So what did Mr. Minton say? I don't remember. MR. WEINBERG: That is what he said. THE COURT: Was it this document, or something like this? MR. WEINBERG: He said it was this document. THE COURT: I'm surprised it hasn't already been produced if he said it was this document. I don't know what he said. The deal is it doesn't -------------------------------------------------------------------- 296 really matter. He has the questions. This has the questions. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q My question to you is if you look at Page 11, you'll see Question Number 5, "Was any of this money that was paid to you from LMT later transferred to Mr. Dandar?" Then Question 6, "Did you use any of this $300,000 --" THE COURT: Don't go so fast, Counselor. You are driving my court reporter crazy. MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q "Did you use any of this $300,000 from Mr. Lund to make any payments to Mr. Dandar? "Number 7. Do you know what the source of the Operation Clambake funds?" Do you see those? A Yes. Yes. Q That means you would have -- you did go over those questions and that subject matter with Mr. Minton? A Yes. Q And you also went over the concept of the loan? The first question? A Yes. Q And -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 297 A I -- I can tell you, though, that -- now that you refreshed my memory, Number 6, Mr. Lund, his answer to that was: "Friends in Europe." Then there is another one, I think, in here, if I'm not mistaken, $500,000. And he said that was anonymous. I said then, "Just tell them. Who cares?" THE COURT: So, in other words, he stated the $300,000 was from Mr. Lund? THE WITNESS: Right. THE COURT: The $500,000 was from friends in Europe? THE WITNESS: Friends. Well, $300,000 was anonymous, as far as he knew. And the $500,000 -- well, one way or the other. One was from friends he apparently knew, and the other, when I met with him, he said was truly anonymous. Well, we find out that is not true. THE COURT: So he didn't say either of these were from Mr. Lund? The money from Operation Clambake? THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: I thought Mr. Lund was Operation Clambake? THE WITNESS: He is. But, you know, I think he said that was either anonymous to Lund so -- to the -------------------------------------------------------------------- 298 LMT, or friends. He talked about the 300, he talked about the 500. Never did he say it was his money. THE COURT: So the source of the $300,000, even though it may have come from Lund, from Operation Clambake, the source was from friends or anonymous? THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: Was there anything else, your Honor? THE COURT: No. I'm sorry. I was just trying to -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q If you look at Number 8 on Page 11. A Yes? Q "Mr. Minton, at your last deposition you testified you had given Mr. Dandar $1,050,000 for the Liebreich case as of that date." Then he goes on. My question to you is did you discuss with Mr. Minton, while you were up in New Hampshire, his prior testimony about $1,050,000 and the fact that that did not include the $500,000 UBS check? A I don't think so because that wasn't from Mr. Minton. But there was also a stay in effect, so you wouldn't have been allowed to ask that question -- or Mr. Moxon would not be allowed to ask that question. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 299 Q Well, whether we were or not, my question is do you have a recollection of talking to him about it? A Not about this UBS check. Q Now, after -- THE COURT: You really need to kind of move to the issues. What the law -- MR. WEINBERG: I think we are getting there. THE COURT: One is a $500,000 check and who it came from. Two is the agreement. And it seems to me you covered just about all you need to cover, except whatever you can draw from the inferences you are going to draw from arguments as to whether or not Mr. Minton directed this case. But you need to get to the money and you need to get to the agreement, and then you need to move on to your next witness, if you have one. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q After the meeting, you had your investigator, Rick Spector, direct a telephone encryption device to be sent to Mr. Minton, didn't you? A At his request, that is right. Q At Mr. Minton's request? A Right. Q Let me just hand you up -- this has been previously marked as 95 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 300 THE COURT: We don't need to go over that, do we? What do you need to do, make sure he can identify it? MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, this is a very important document as to the issues in this case, I believe. A I never saw this until -- THE COURT: It's a letter from somebody else. THE WITNESS: Rick Spector. I was really upset with the language of the letter. THE COURT: Who is he? THE WITNESS: My private investigator, my videographer. Sometimes you see him sitting over here. THE COURT: Is he the fellow with the mustache? THE WITNESS: Yes. He likes to -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q This March 1, 2000 letter was after the meeting in New Hampshire, correct? A Yes. Q And in the second paragraph of this letter, Mr. Spector said, "Ken has asked me to forward the enclosed telephone encryption device to your attention and request that it be used for future conversations between you and other members of the trial team. While I cannot guarantee -------------------------------------------------------------------- 301 this to be 100 percent solution, I do expect it to go a long way toward keeping their noses," in quotes," out of our business." Do you see that? A I sure do. Q And he says in here that you asked him to do this. Is that true? A I just asked him to send him the encryption device, period. I didn't ask him to pretend to be a lawyer or whatever in this letter. Q Well, is it also true that you -- that you intended for these devices to be used for future conversations between Mr. Minton and other members of the trial team? A No. Q Was Mr. Minton a member of the trial team? A No. Q Well, who was a member of the trial team at that time in March of 2002? A Mmm, Dr. Garko, Tom Haverty and, of course, my office. Q And Mr. Spector? A Mmm, well, he's an independent contractor. But he's -- when he's working for me, he's part of the trial team. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 302 Q Well, when you sent -- had this telephone encryption device sent to Mr. Minton, what was it for? Conversations with whom? A Me. Mr. Minton was extremely nervous and worried about Scientology bugging his phone. He would call me -- if he wanted to talk to me about something that he didn't want them to hear, he would get in his truck on his farm and drive up to the tallest mountain and call me from his cell phone. Q Now, who else got these encryption devices? THE COURT: What good is that? THE WITNESS: Well, hopefully, the cell phone is not -- you can't bug a cell phone. THE COURT: Does it matter if you are on the tallest mountain versus somewhere else? THE WITNESS: There is no reception in his house. He has to get up to the top of the hill. THE COURT: I see. THE WITNESS: He's down at the bottom of the hill. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Who else got the encryption devices? A Me. That is it. Just between him and I. Q And who paid for the encryption devices? A Well, I did. He never paid for this one. In -------------------------------------------------------------------- 303 fact, he was so excited about it, he tried it out with me and it didn't work and he sent it back to the company and I had to send mine back to the company, and we both got new replacements. Q Now, Mr. Spector says, "Ken," that is you, "has also asked me to find out from you," that is, Mr. Minton, "how many of the individuals on your end will be needing these devices and to facilitate their distribution." Is it true that you asked Mr. Spector to find out from Mr. Minton how many other people needed these devices on his end? A No. That is not exactly true. What I told him to do is to see if he wants to buy any of these for his other lawyers. Q And then there is -- this whole thing is stamped confidential. Did you instruct Mr. Spector to do that? A No. Q And then the second page is an invoice. And it looks like Mr. Minton is being billed for the encryption device, right? A Yes. Too much, also. Q What do you mean, too much? A Well, it was just too much. Q You mean this is all the encryption devices? They didn't cost this much is what you're saying? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 304 A No. A single one, I think, is 700-something. But they are being billed way too much for it. And Bob Minton told me about that. And I said -- because it's on the Internet. You can buy this. And I said, "Well, then reduce it to whatever you can buy it for on the Internet." That could be what the 59135 is at the bottom. I'm not sure. Q Then Mr. Spector writes, "You may wish to use money order to preclude trace." Do you see that? A Yes. I -- that is Rick Spector. Q Was that a suggestion you made to Mr. Spector that these funds not be traced in some way? A No. Q Well -- A It is going to Rick Spector. It's not coming to me. Q Well, were you concerned about tracing funds from Mr. Minton to you? A No. Q Were you concerned -- I mean, was that one of the reasons for the $500,000 and $250,000 UBS checks, because you were concerned about trace? A No. In fact, I wish Mr. Minton would have just written a check for $5 million and I could show it to you. But he didn't do it that way. Of course, I didn't want to -------------------------------------------------------------------- 305 show it to you, any money. That is why we appealed it. Q Now, five days -- or a few days after Mr. Spector sent this telephone encryption device with the note about trace to Mr. Minton, he sent you a second UBS check. Correct? A The second UBS check was somewhere around March 9. Q It is dated March 7 for $250,000. But you got it a few days later? A Yes, it is probably even later than that then. It is probably the 12th. Q All right. And was -- did you have any discussion, during this New Hampshire weekend with Mr. Minton, about a second UBS check? A Not -- no. Nothing that said about UBS check. I had a discussion with him at the dinner table Saturday night about money. Q Well, what do you recall he said and what did you say back? A He said, "I have no more money for you." And I said, "I understand that." And, you know, "I appreciate everything you have done so far." He said, "However, I have my friends in Europe, as you know, and we'll call him the 'Fat Man.'" I said, "Is that because he's fat?" He said, "Some people think so." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 306 And -- and then he brought up these things, "If you quit talking with Patricia Greenway and if you get these Internet critics to stop criticizing me, and if you write this letter," which he now calls the suck-up letter that he asked me to write, Mmm, "then my friends in Europe will know that you're sincere and I can ask them to send you money." So he confirmed everything that Jesse Prince told me right then and there. Q Jesse Prince hadn't said anything about the "Fat Man," right? A No. Nor did he say -- I don't think Jesse mentioned the letter, so that is something different. Q Had the words "Fat Man" ever crossed Mr. Minton's lips before to you, before this February 2002 dinner meeting? A Not that I remember. I think that was the first time. Q And did you tell him that that was preposterous, that it sounded ridiculous? A No. That is when we went over these questions. The next day he brought up the name "Fat Man." Q The second time? A Yeah -- yes. Q So with regard to what did the "Fat Man" come up on the Fifth Amendment questions? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 307 A Somewhere in here he talked about the "Fat Man" for Clambake or the $500,000 transfer, if the $500,000 transfer is in these questions, and I'm sure it is. THE COURT: Transfer meaning the money paid to LMT? THE WITNESS: Yes. And that is when he brought up the "Fat Man." And that is when I told him, you know, the Judge is not going to listen to that, and that is an appropriate response. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q But you did tell him that in relation to you getting more money? A On the Saturday night? No. Q I mean, did you quiz him as to who these people -- who this "Fat Man" was? A I did. I tried. Q What country he was from? Did ask you him that? A Mmm, you know, I may have. I'm not sure. I remember Switzerland and Germany figuring in this picture, but I can't tell you what he said. Q Did you ask him what his relationship was to this "Fat Man"? A He said friends. THE COURT: I think he said -- so I can -------------------------------------------------------------------- 308 understand this weird discussion -- but I think what he said -- Mr. Minton said was, "I have friends," plural, "in Europe. Let's call them the "Fat Man." THE WITNESS: Exactly. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Why don't I ask. So there was more than one person? A No. I understood he had friends in Europe who was interested in giving me money. But then he only mentioned -- he said, "Well, let's call him the "Fat Man." Q Call him the "Fat Man"? A Yes. I don't think he was talking about a group of friends, calling all of them singular the "Fat Man." He talked to me about one person. Q All right. And you took it, the next day when you were going over the Fifth Amendment questions and went over the LMT money, that this was the same "Fat Man" that was providing money to the LMT was someone that Mr. Minton would talk to about providing money to you? A Right. Yes. Yes. Q Okay. A But I just told him he couldn't say the "Fat Man" in a deposition, or -- Judge Schaeffer would not appreciate it. "You are going to have to start identifying people. You need to identify them." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 309 Q Did you tell him that it was necessary for you, in order to take money, to know who this person was? A No. Up until Mr. Minton met with the Church of Scientology after this, although we had an arm's length relationship, he was -- he trusted me 100 percent. Q Now, when you -- when Mr. Minton handed you the $500,000 check -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, I have to stop you. And I apologize. When you were talking with Mr. Minton at the dinner table and you said he verified everything that Mr. Prince had told you except write the letter, did he say you had to stop talking with Ms. Greenway? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: So he mentioned stop friends from talking on the Internet, stop talking to Patricia Greenway? THE WITNESS: Well, to get the two critics to stop talking -- writing about him on the Internet and stop talking to Patricia Greenway. THE COURT: The last thing was write me a letter. He didn't say, "Write me a suck-up letter." What did he say? THE WITNESS: He said, "Write a letter that -------------------------------------------------------------------- 310 expresses what you think about the support I have given you in the past. So I will show that to my friends in Europe and they'll see that you are not out there attacking me like these other two people are." Because when I got there, as I think either I testified about this already or -- I mean, he was in this -- well, while Ms. Brooks is cooking dinner Saturday night, he's in the kitchen going through this emotional breakdown again that I saw only once before. And it scared the heck out of me. Now he's in his house doing this. And I go up to him and I said, "What's happening?" You know, "Why are you looking like this?" And he's crying profusely and he's saying, you know, "I thought you didn't like me anymore. I thought you weren't my friends anymore. And I'm just beside myself. Why are you acting like this? Why do you think that?" It was because of all these attacks on the Internet by these two people that he thought I was behind. And I wasn't. But I did get them to stop because I put the word out that, "Please stop this attack." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 311 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. This is about Miss Greenway. MR. WEINBERG: Anything else? THE COURT: No. Nothing from me. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, when Mr. Minton handed you the $500,000 check at the Bombay -- whatever it is -- Cycle Club -- A Bombay Bicycle Club, which is now out of business. Q At the Bombay Bicycle Club, when he handed you that $500,000 check, the UBS check, back in early May of 2000, who did he say it was from? A Friends in Europe. Q He didn't say the "Fat Man" back then? A You know, I don't think so. I don't think so. Q And you didn't ask him back then to identify who the source of the funds was? A No. He said friends in Europe. I knew he had wealthy friends in Europe because of his background, so I didn't question it. Q Now, shortly after the meeting in -- or the visit in New Hampshire -- we're back in 2002 now -- when you got back to -- back to Tampa, you did get in the mail Exhibit 93I, which is the March 7, 2002 $250,000 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 312 THE COURT: By the way, tell me why we're going into that check at all? What does that have to do with this case, this issue before me? There are no lies about that. It is not subject of any -- MR. WEINBERG: He asked Mr. Minton a number of questions about it. THE COURT: Pardon me? MR. WEINBERG: He asked Mr. Minton a number of questions about it. THE COURT: Okay. So I guess we're just going to hear about it because both sides have an interest in it? I'm going to tell you now, I have not an interest in it unless it might relate to the $500,000 check. MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is essentially what I'm doing, your Honor. That was really going to be my next question. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You got this in the mail from him, correct? A It came in the mail while I was out of town. Q Is what he said while you were asking him questions true, that it was sort of tucked in either paper or affidavit of Carol Letkeman, who was going to be your -------------------------------------------------------------------- 313 expert? A That is partially true. THE COURT: Did he say it was in an affidavit? I thought he said it was something she wrote, some essay. A You are right. That is true. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Was it in an essay he sent you? A Yes. Q What was partially true about that? A I didn't ask him to put it in an essay, to hide it on Page 23 or whatever he described. That is like cloak and dagger. He's sending it to my office. My secretary will be there to open it up. I mean, there is no cloak and dagger. But what is interesting about all of this -- and I still don't know the answer to this -- is that he was extremely concerned that I hurry up and deposit that check. I don't know -- I took it to mean that, you know, something was going on wherever this check came from, because we had a couple of phone calls about that. Q You and Mr. Minton had a couple phone calls about it? A About something going on in Switzerland, and he was really, really, really concerned about -- Q Did he say what he was concerned about? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 314 A Well, it was after this check came, I deposited the check, he calls me up and asks me, "Did the court in Florida send something out to the Swiss banks, like a letter interrogatory, a subpoena for documents?" I said, "Not as far as I know." I asked him, "Why are you asking me this question?" He said, "Because something is happening in the Swiss banks. And there is a new prosecutor in Switzerland, there is a new judge. They had a hearing about me." And he suspected Scientology was behind all that because they were behind the false accusations in Nigeria -- at least he told me they were false. But he was extremely concerned. And that is when he said I need to hurry up and deposit the check, because somehow his friends and he were somehow implicated in whatever was going on in the Swiss bank. Q Well, did you take it, from that conversation, that this was really Mr. Minton's money that -- A No, I thought -- Q -- that he was concerned about? A No. Remember now, he won't tell me everything. So what I took from the conversation was his friends were now getting implicated somehow, and he was worried. And he used the name the "Fat Man" again on the telephone. And he -------------------------------------------------------------------- 315 said the "Fat Man" is extremely upset because now he's going to get implicated by this Swiss prosecutor, whatever he's up to. And he told me to hurry up and deposit the check. Q Which you did? A Well, I did. Sure. Q Now -- A The reason why he was calling me is because I was out of town when the check arrived at my office, and I'm the only one that could deposit the check. Q Weren't you calling him about the check, where it was? A No. No. Q That is what he said. A No, that is not right. It was just the opposite. He was calling me about the check. I said, "My secretary said it is not there yet." He said, "I tracked it down. It's a -- it's a postal service. I got the tracking number. It's sitting in your post office box. Go get it and deposit it as soon as you can." Q Did -- A I was out of town on a deposition in this case. Q Well, when you got back, you saw the check, you're the one that would have had to do whatever you did to it? A Yes. I deposited it in a local bank, not in the -------------------------------------------------------------------- 316 Cayman Islands. Q And when you got -- when you looked at the check, it looked virtually identical to the $500,000 check you had gotten in May of 2000, correct? A Well, I had no clue. I mean, I don't remember the check from May of 2000, to be honest with you. Q You don't remember it? A No. I don't remember it being a UBS check, you know. I didn't look at the check and look at the numbers on it, like Mr. Rosen insinuated I could figure out it was Minton's money. I mean, I didn't do any of that. It's impossible to do that, by the way. Q But you remember getting a $500,000 -- you'd never gotten a $500,000 check from Mr. Minton prior to May of 2000, right? A That is true. Q And that was the first check that didn't have his name on it -- A True. Q -- so you certainly would remember that, right? A Not really. Not in March of 2002, I didn't remember that. Q The first foreign bank check you'd gotten? A As I said, until this all hit the fan, I did not know -- or remember, I should say, that the $500,000 check -------------------------------------------------------------------- 317 was a UBS bank check. I just knew it wasn't a Minton check. Q But it's your testimony that at this point in time in March of 2002 you did not suspect that the moneys that you had received from Mr. Minton in May of 2000, the $500,000 check, and the moneys you had just recently received in March of 2000 (sic) in the UBS checks, was Mr. Minton's money? A That is correct. THE COURT: I have a question, if you don't mind. MR. WEINBERG: Sure. THE COURT: Did you and Mr. Minton, in all your conversations, have any conversation about the fact he had money in Europe? THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. THE COURT: Did you ever have discussions about the fact he knew that this could create tax consequences if he brought money made in Europe into this country? THE WITNESS: Mmm, we had several conversations. Again, though, he held back on details about he had tax evasion concerns. Money laundering, no, because, to me, money laundering is dirty money. And I never thought for a second he had anything to do with dirty money. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 318 That was Mr. Moxon's allegations. But bringing money into the country that you haven't paid tax on, because I think the ceiling is $80,000 annually you can make without paying taxes on it if it is outside -- offshore. But once you bring it in, you have to declare it, you have to pay tax on it. So his problem always has been he didn't pay tax on the money in Europe. THE COURT: So when you were having these conversations with Mr. Minton, granted you were not his lawyer so I presume he didn't give you confidential information, but you were aware that Mr. Minton had concerns about bringing this money, apparently a lot of it, that he had in Europe into this country? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: For tax consequences? THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. When you got this $500,000 check that, for all intents and purposes, was nontraceable, and when you got this $250,000 check that was, for all intents and purposes, nontraceable, didn't it ever occur to you that Mr. Minton was doing this, not telling you that it -------------------------------------------------------------------- 319 was his money, because he was trying to avoid paying taxes on it? THE WITNESS: Honest, it never occurred to me. THE COURT: Well, for God sakes, I mean -- THE WITNESS: I had no reason -- THE COURT: -- weren't you thinking? You really thought this came from some "Fat Man" or some screwball -- I mean, you couldn't put two and two together? THE WITNESS: I thought -- I thought -- I didn't have any reason to suspect Mr. Minton was lying to me. Never. THE COURT: Well, maybe Mr. Minton didn't want to tell you because you were not his lawyer. Therefore, you could be subpoenaed. Right? THE WITNESS: That's right. THE COURT: Well, couldn't you think that far in advance as a lawyer, for goodness sakes? THE WITNESS: No, I didn't, Judge. THE COURT: You knew, though, he was concerned about bringing his money into this country because he had to declare it and he had to pay taxes on it? THE WITNESS: Well, that is the only two checks I knew about that came in that were not in his account. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 320 THE COURT: That is a lot of money. Do you know how much taxes you have got to pay on $750,000? THE WITNESS: But I was certain, in my mind, that it was not his money. He had other money he was concerned about. THE COURT: Well, I'm sure he does. I'm sure he has got a lot of money. But when you got this money, this nontraceable money, it never dawned on you, after having these conversations with Mr. Minton, that Mr. Minton was, in fact, dodging taxes by bringing this money in untraceable and giving it to you to assist you in your -- in your pursuit of this case? THE WITNESS: No. But let me say one thing. I never thought it was untraceable, either. To this day I don't think it is untraceable. I think if you had a private investigator to go out and track down UBS Bank, I think you could probably figure out where this money came from. THE COURT: I suppose that is true, Mr. Dandar. And I suppose if the IRS, once they found out about this -- and I have no doubt that they will -- that they will, indeed -- they don't have to go very far, they only have to go as far as this transcript, and I assume Mr. Minton will be paying his just taxes on -------------------------------------------------------------------- 321 this money. But you knew he had a concern about bringing money in this country because he had to pay taxes on it. And that is why people keep money in a Swiss bank account, right? THE WITNESS: I would think so. THE COURT: Yes. And so I'm just trying to say you are a lawyer, for heaven's sakes. You are getting something from the "Fat Man" and you are getting something from "my friends in Europe" and you are getting a conversation saying, "Hurry up and deposit money, there are problems going on," and this never dawns on you, a lawyer, for heaven's sake, a man with God knows how many years of education, that this money came from Mr. Minton who didn't want to tell you about it because you weren't his lawyer and, therefore, it wasn't confidential. Is that your testimony? THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You thought it was coming from somebody else? THE WITNESS: Honest to God, I did. THE COURT: Well, you are one naive lawyer. I hope that in the future, whatever happens to your career in the process of this case, that you will -------------------------------------------------------------------- 322 not be so naive as to think that the "Fat Man" would send you $500,000, or $200,000 or $300,000 or whatever it was, and some friends -- some friends in Europe of somebody are going to anonymously donate to you whatever the other one is. It is outrageous for you to sit there and tell me that you just thought these folks over there could send you three-quarters of a million dollars. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds, Mr. Dandar? THE WITNESS: Well, after what Mr. Minton had given me out of his personal accounts, it wasn't that farfetched. THE COURT: Well, you knew why Mr. Minton wanted to give you money. Mr. Minton wanted to give you money because Mr. Minton believed in this lawsuit at that time. THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: No question about it. THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: And he said, "I'll stand by you to the end, I'll see you through this"? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: The "Fat Man," as far as you knew, had no interest in this case? THE WITNESS: No -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 323 THE COURT: Friends in Europe had no interest in this case? THE WITNESS: I believe they did. I believe they did. I also know there were other people in Europe who wanted to give money to the LMT, but the LMT was not -- it was a for profit. They wanted a nonprofit. And they wanted to give it to a nonprofit entity. And so they did not give it to the LMT because of that. There were people in Germany and Switzerland who were very interested in the LMT and this case. THE COURT: And what are you trying to tell us, that they wouldn't contribute in their own name because they were afraid of the Church of Scientology? Is that it? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And -- and, therefore, you just thought that it would be okay -- I mean, I don't get it. I don't know -- if you had to go to all of the trouble to write the Bar, to take a $100,000 check, and had to go through all this rigmarole with the Bar, write letters, all this sort of stuff that you thought, what -- what, you could take $750,000, not even know who it came from? THE WITNESS: Well, I knew -- well, I knew that -------------------------------------------------------------------- 324 I would be paying this money back. I knew it was all loans. THE COURT: Who were you going to pay it to, pray tell? THE WITNESS: Well, I suspected -- not suspected but expected Mr. Minton to tell me who to write the check to when it was time to pay it back. THE COURT: Well, as I said, it is hard for me to believe -- and I am no genius here, and I am no mental giant or anything of the sort. But once you have a conversation with somebody, once you talked to somebody who maybe isn't a good friend but somebody you sit down and chat with, and you say, "Boy, I have all this money --" you knew Mr. Minton was a very rich guy? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And you knew he had money over in Europe. I don't know if you knew it was a Swiss bank, but you knew he had money? THE WITNESS: Offshore somewhere. THE COURT: He made a lot of money over in Nigeria with whatever was going on there? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And to get into -- in the country, he had to either pay taxes on it or get it in -------------------------------------------------------------------- 325 slippery somehow. Right? THE WITNESS: Well, I would assume that. THE COURT: Well, you have to assume that, you either pay taxes on it or you hide it? THE WITNESS: I assume there is a certain amount he paid taxes on and a certain amount he didn't pay taxes on, just from what I could pick up from Mr. Minton and other people. THE COURT: You put it your way and I'll put it my way. And you knew this. And you were getting money Mr. Minton either handed you in a restaurant or sent you in the mail for a half a million dollars and a quarter of a million dollars. These are big moneys. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Even to you. Right? THE WITNESS: Yes. Even to me. THE COURT: And you knew Mr. Minton's situation. And it didn't occur to you, rather than drawing this out of his own check -- his own account in this country, that he might get that money offshore and get it to you and not to have to pay taxes on it? THE WITNESS: Never. Because he was writing personal checks before and after. So I didn't think -------------------------------------------------------------------- 326 that all of a sudden this one check in May, he has to do it differently because of taxes. And the one in March, he has to do it differently because of taxes. That is why -- THE COURT: You were listening to these depositions of LMT, right? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: You knew about another $500,000, I guess, from European folks to support LMT? THE WITNESS: Yes. I was convinced that was an anonymous donation. THE COURT: It never dawned on you somebody is bringing money in this country without paying the government? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Well, all right. That is fine. THE WITNESS: I had no reason to suspect him of not telling the truth. THE COURT: I don't get it, Mr. Dandar. When somebody says this is coming from the "Fat Man," for goodness sakes. Come on. What did you say? "What do you mean, the 'Fat Man'? Who in the world is the 'Fat Man'? Who are you talking about?" THE WITNESS: I did ask him that question. THE COURT: What did he say? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 327 THE WITNESS: He said, "That is a friend of mine in Europe and that is as far as I'm going to go." THE COURT: At least you did say who? THE WITNESS: I did say who because I wanted to know if he would tell me. And he wouldn't. THE COURT: And he said, "I'm not telling you"? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And that was good enough for you? THE WITNESS: That was good enough. THE COURT: And these friends in Europe, you just figured that was a bunch of folks who just happened to give you, which one was it, $500,000, a half a million bucks? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Whew. Well, boy oh boy, I'm going to sell you something one day. Continue. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The $500,000 in May of 2000, was that a loan to you? A Yes. Q It was not a loan to the estate? A No. Q And there was no written document anywhere about -------------------------------------------------------------------- 328 that $500,000 loan, correct? A Correct. THE COURT: Can we lump all these things together? Is there going to be -- MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: I mean, all these checks? Let's get on -- MR. WEINBERG: Particularly in light of some of the testimony, I wanted to focus on certain checks. But -- THE COURT: I wonder how he knows what these pals -- these friends in Europe expected this to be. MR. WEINBERG: That is what I was going to ask him. THE COURT: You ought to just argue this stuff to me. I mean, I don't know what -- what did you think? I'm curious, too. THE WITNESS: I thought it was all the same terms as the original $100,000. THE COURT: How did you know? You couldn't even talk to them. You didn't know who they were. THE WITNESS: I trusted Mr. Minton. He tells me it is from his friends, when this is over with and I have money to pay it back, I tell Mr. Minton, "Who do I make the check out to?" I had at least -------------------------------------------------------------------- 329 that type of trust relationship with him. THE COURT: When he said, "I'm not going to tell you," what are you going to do then? THE WITNESS: I don't know what I'm going to do. THE COURT: You're going to keep the money? THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: Who are you going to make it out to? You try to make it out to him, he'll say, "I don't want it. For goodness sake, I was trying to avoid paying taxes on it the first time." THE WITNESS: I anticipated him telling me who to make it out to. THE COURT: Why didn't he give you the name then? THE WITNESS: They didn't want to be known then. THE COURT: Do you think they would want to be known to be paid back? THE WITNESS: I think I could keep it confidential when I pay it back. THE COURT: I'm sorry, I just get -- MR. WEINBERG: It is all right. THE COURT: It is just amazing to me. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 330 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Were you concerned, Mr. Dandar, either in May of 2000 or March of 2002, that this was dirty money? A No. Q Did you call the Bar -- THE COURT: Let me ask you this. When you use the term "dirty money," are you referring to laundered money? MR. WEINBERG: I'll make it clear. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The Judge already asked you, were you concerned whether Mr. Minton or whoever it was was evading taxes. And I think you said no. Right? A Repeat that. Q Well, I'll break the question down. Were you concerned, when you got the money in May of 2000 and March of 2002, that somebody was trying to avoid taxes? A No. Q Were you concerned, in May of 2000 or March of 2002, that these funds from this -- according to you -- anonymous source was illegal moneys? A No. Q And that is what I mean. Do you understand what I mean by dirty money? Money from illegal sources? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 331 A No. THE COURT: Either from drugs, or from some sort of -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Fraud scheme? THE COURT: -- fraud schemes? A No. Never. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q It never occurred to you? A Never. Q All right. Did you call the Florida Bar, in either May of 2000 when Mr. Minton handed you that $500,000 check in the Bombay Bicycle Club, or in March of 2002 when you got it in the mail, did you call the Bar and say, "I got this seven hundred, plus five hundred, plus $250,000 from an anonymous source from Switzerland"? A No, I already had the Bar's reply from October of '97. Q Well, did it occur to you that -- that the Bar might have questions about -- about that size of money from offshore -- from an anonymous source? A No. Not at all. THE COURT: Does it occur to you now that they might have questions about it? THE WITNESS: Not the way they talked to me in -------------------------------------------------------------------- 332 October of '97. They said it was between me personally and a third party. The Bar is not interested in it at all. I could go borrow as much money from anybody I want to. THE COURT: Did they ever suggest you need to know who it was? How in the world would you even know, if you didn't know who it was, that somebody wasn't controlling the case and giving you money? THE WITNESS: They said as long as that person doesn't have control over the case, confidential information, I could go borrow as much as I wanted to. THE COURT: What if the money had been coming from Jesse Prince? I mean, the deal is the Bar would not have given you the same letter or the same discussion -- did you really believe that over $750,000 worth of anonymous money that they gave you, over $100,000 from a very definite person who had a very definite purpose, did you believe that? THE WITNESS: Judge, I believed that none of my witnesses were connected to this money. I believed that Mr. Minton knew who this person was and this person was as genuine as Mr. Minton was. THE COURT: But, for goodness sakes, it was doubling the amount that your friend, Mr. Minton, -------------------------------------------------------------------- 333 had ever given you. THE WITNESS: Well, the one in May of 2000, I can speculate it was that much money because we were going to trial in June. THE COURT: Well, I mean, it was an awfully generous friend. Mr. Minton who had been your friend, right here, Mr. Big Shot at the LMT, Mr. Carry The Signs, Mr. Shout It Up On The Internet, Mr. Rich Fellow, had given you a lot of money but he'd never given you a check bigger than $250,000? THE WITNESS: That is correct. THE COURT: So all of a sudden these friends in Europe, these pals, gave you double the most you'd ever received from him? THE WITNESS: In May of 2000 I thought that was a one-time deal from whoever these people were. THE COURT: And -- and this $250,000 from the "Fat Man" who you assumed to be a friend -- THE WITNESS: A friend. THE COURT: A friend. What did you think that was all about? THE WITNESS: It was someone else that believed in the Lisa McPherson case as strongly as Mr. Minton had. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 334 THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did it occur to you that if this was going to be, as you call it, a loan -- an official formal loan to you, that, at minimum, you needed to know who it was that was loaning the money to you? A No, because it was not that formal. Q Well, we've heard a lot in this case about documenting agreements and that there is no agreement unless it is documented. I think, you know, you have asked questions about that, the bulk of the proceeds. Remember? A Right. Q But in this case you say that this $500,000 and the $250,000 was loans to you? A Right. Q Right? But you don't have any agreement? A No. Q Nothing in writing? A No. It goes back -- THE COURT: Counselor, there is no documents, I mean -- MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: -- this agreement is not in writing. This business from these folks in Europe is not in writing. I have never seen such things. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 335 MR. WEINBERG: Right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So did you think that you had any obligation to pay it back if you didn't have anything in writing? A Yes. Q What was that obligation? A My word. And that note from Mr. Minton in October of '97. And his deposition which explains the understanding between he and I. Q But the note from Mr. Minton had to do with the first $100,000 from him? A Everything -- Q Right? A Sure. But everything -- Q Right? A And everything was on that note. Everything was explained to him in the January of '98 deposition. I operated under those two things. Q Even with regard to these anonymous moneys? A Yes. THE COURT: You can say, can you not, Mr. Dandar -- trust me, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you any more than I picked on Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton because everybody seems to have some fairly outlandish testimony in this case -------------------------------------------------------------------- 336 -- but you can understand how, based on just that testimony alone, the fact you assumed all this money was under the same auspices of the letter given to you by Mr. Minton, it's hard for me to sit here and think that you didn't know -- suspect, at the very least, that that money came from Mr. Minton under the same terms you got from Mr. Minton way back when you got the money? THE WITNESS: No, Judge, I did not suspect those two checks came from him because he told me they didn't. I had no reason to believe he was telling me a lie. I'm sitting here now thinking why would he want to lie to me about it? THE COURT: Well, you know, you do and you did, and that is why I'm saying it is so hard to believe you are so naive. If what you're telling me is true, then you are very naive. It's as obvious to me as the man in the moon. The reason he didn't want to tell you, you were not his lawyer and there was no privilege and he was trying to hide this money from the Internal Revenue Service. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to put those three things together. You just assumed that this man didn't want to -- to avoid paying taxes, he was just too -------------------------------------------------------------------- 337 honorable for that. I don't know what you assumed. THE WITNESS: I didn't put it together. THE COURT: You didn't tie those three things together? That is your testimony and you're going to stand by that? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: And the proof is in the pudding of the checks before and after. If it was his money, then just pay me with his personal check like he did before. THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, if it was his money and it was in his bank account -- you don't get it yet. THE WITNESS: I guess not. THE COURT: The government gets to go there. If the money is in his bank account, the government says, "Where did it come from?" And if you can't tell them where it came from, guess what? You pay taxes on it. Because they assume it's income. He couldn't put it in his bank account. THE WITNESS: But apparently he did. When the money came in, from the records that we now see, and now I know, when the money came in from the Clambake and the anonymous $500,000 into the LMT accounts, the LMT wrote a check to Mr. Minton. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 338 THE COURT: Well, yes, they did, didn't they? THE WITNESS: And Mr. Minton wrote checks out of that. So if that is all his money -- I don't know why -- THE COURT: You don't get it, Counselor, yet. THE WITNESS: I'm not a tax lawyer. THE COURT: The money coming in was coming into the country. When the money comes into the country, you have got to pay the taxes on it. THE WITNESS: That is what I assume, right. THE COURT: That is what you are hiding. That is what he's hiding is the money coming in from some account over there, would be my guess. And then that is just from my old days of being an agent. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: I mean, you get pretty suspicious about things like that. And, honestly, in fairness, maybe that is why it was fairly obvious to me. I mean, I would have known this if I was sitting in your shoes. Whether I would have cared, I don't know. But I would have known. I would have said, "Oh, right. The "Fat Man." Sure. You know, oh, dear, friends in Europe? Oh, my, have I got a story for you." But I would have known it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 339 THE WITNESS: But, see, I knew he had a business partner who was in Europe and who is just as wealthy as Mr. Minton. And I also know his friend, because of Scientology investigators, had to go pay taxes that he owed. I mean, I -- I knew that Mr. Minton was wealthy and he had a circle of friends that he -- I assumed, were as wealthy as he was or even more. So I had no reason to suspect that he was pulling something off or lying to me. THE COURT: But you know what I have seen is that everybody who wants to support this anti-Scientology movement, as far as I can tell, with money is fairly proud of it and wants to be known, wants to toot their horn. Certainly Mr. Minton did. He wanted to bang his chest and toot his horn. All of a sudden you see a little different person in court and, "I don't want to toot any horns," and he doesn't want to be on any internets. But -- boy, we've seen a 180. But I would assume, if I'd been sitting in your shoes, the same thing: Somebody wants to support LMT, somebody wants to support the Lisa McPherson lawsuit, they would have been quite proud of -------------------------------------------------------------------- 340 themselves. THE WITNESS: But, no, wait. This is what -- now I -- now I see what is missing, I think. THE COURT: Well, maybe you do. The light bulb just came on now? THE WITNESS: Well, there is a lot to cover here. But in May of 2000 the discovery against the LMT and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks was heating up. It had just started, I believe, in February of 2000. Mr. Minton, prior to May of 2000, went on the Internet and told everybody how much money he gave me, to my dismay, which I didn't want him to do, but he did. And we turned over all of the checks, up to January of 2000, because that is what the court order was. And only from Mr. Minton, because Mr. Weinberg said to Judge Moody, "I'm only interested in Mr. Minton." So that is what we did, we complied with all of the court orders. So when he's getting discovered, like he was, in May of 2000, I can understand then and now why he might have people in Europe who have similar thinking as him as to supporting the case but did not want their names disclosed because they did not want to have this discovery go on about their -------------------------------------------------------------------- 341 finances. And Mr. Minton was being subjected to this -- this discovery of his personal finances. And then it went on in the year 2001. So I get another check in 2002. I can understand -- and I had already gotten a stay entered by the Second District. And I can understand why no one in Europe, if he had anonymous friends like he said he had, wouldn't want me to know who they were so I wouldn't have to disclose it to the Court. They didn't want Scientology to know who they were, they didn't want to be subject to all this discovery. I mean, that makes sense. But Mr. Minton was the only individual I know who was proud and bragged about -- until he started to plead the Fifth -- THE COURT: Mr. Minton is also the only one who gave them this kind of money, too, isn't he? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: There weren't any pals in Europe, there wasn't any "Fat Man." THE WITNESS: Well, now I know that is right. THE COURT: So once again, when people give this kind of money, I don't know of a soul who gives this kind of money very often that doesn't like to brag about it. Take it from somebody who knows. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 342 THE WITNESS: He stopped bragging about it, though. THE COURT: Well, that is when they have a change of heart. Most people are proud when they give money -- it's very hard for people to do anything gratuitously and keep quiet about it. There are people in this world who do; they give money to cancer foundations and charity. MR. WEINBERG: Charity. THE COURT: They do it anonymously. I'm always amazed, there are people that do that, and -- and that could be one of the reasons. But there are lots of people who do that. There are many more people, however, who -- who like for it to be known that they're being generous donating their money. Mr. Minton was clearly one of those at the outset of this case. You know what, if you can wrap up something real fast -- are we done with this money? MR. WEINBERG: We are not done with the money. THE COURT: Why not? What else more are you going to talk about? I mean, this is what Mr. Dandar believes. This is what -- MR. WEINBERG: I had a few other questions. THE COURT: Well, try to finish it up. I'm -------------------------------------------------------------------- 343 going to stay until you finish up a bunch of money. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q In March of 2002 when you got the check from Mr. Minton, I think I heard you say there was already a stay in place? A Yes. Q Well, what was your concern about people -- what was any concern at that point of people's names being identified, given the fact that there was a stay in place? A I didn't say there was, did I? Q Well, I don't know. Why would there need to be anonymity at that point? A Well, March of 2002 my belief was that I was not getting any more money from Mr. Minton, for whatever reason he would never tell me, and I was now getting it from a third party again. Q Did you discuss with your CPA or your accountant how to treat this what you call loan, we're talking about the $750,000 now, for tax purposes? A Privilege. THE COURT: I'll sustain that privilege. Doesn't Florida recognize the CPA privilege? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: I think he can ask you whether -------------------------------------------------------------------- 344 you -- MR. WEINBERG: I just asked whether he had a discussion, yes or no. I wasn't going to go into the details. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q From -- A Well, wait a minute. Maybe I did. I may have. I can't -- I can't really answer yes or no. Q The last three checks you got, the May 1 $500,000 UBS check, the May 25, 2001 $250,000 check made out to you personally, and the March 7, 2002 UBS check, that is a million bucks, those were the last three checks you got, right? A I can't say if that is true or not. THE WITNESS: Actually, I don't want to answer that question, Judge. THE COURT: What is that? I'm sorry? THE WITNESS: What are the last three checks that I got. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The ones that are in this record right now, of the checks in the record, the last three, total one million dollars, May 1, 2000, May 25, 2001, and March 7, 2002? A I can't tell you and I don't want to tell you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 345 THE COURT: He's asking you specifically about the last three checks in evidence in this hearing. A Okay. So, I'm sorry, what is your question? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Those total a million dollars. And each of those checks is made payable to you personally, Ken Dandar, not to the firm but you personally, right? A Yes. Yes. Q All of the other checks in evidence in this case were made payable to Dandar & Dandar? A If that is what it shows, I'll go by the record. Q Okay? A I can't actually answer that. Q And you testified in front of Judge Baird that those last three checks, the ones you say are loans that were made out to you personally, were put into personal accounts? THE COURT: That is an unfair question, an unfair question here, and it won't be answered in my courtroom. And whatever it was he answered in Judge Baird's courtroom will not be part of this record. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: And that is based upon the ruling of the -- you're just not -- I mean, frankly, you weren't to have the $500,000 check and you weren't -------------------------------------------------------------------- 346 to have the $250,000 check pursuant to the ruling of the Second District Court of Appeal. Mr. Minton gave those to you and that is how you have them. Beyond that, you are not to ask him any questions until such time as you get some reversed ruling from some appellate court. I'm not interested in where it went. I'm not interested in whether it went into his personal account. I'm not interested in whether it went into his business account. And I'm not going to let you ask those questions. If you want to ask them, take it up to the Second District Court of Appeal. You are not going to ask it in this courtroom. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me ask you a few questions and you tell me if these are appropriate. THE COURT: No, you're not going to ask it. I made it clear. What accounts it went into -- MR. WEINBERG: That is not my question. THE COURT: You are not going to ask what he spent it for and how much he has left. MR. WEINBERG: I have no interest in that. THE COURT: All right. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 347 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q My question is did you ask for personal checks from Mr. Minton in order to hide the money? A No. Q Did you -- THE COURT: That was ruled on. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you ask for personal checks made out to you personally from Mr. Minton to hide it from the IRS? A No. Q To hide it from your staff? A No. Q To hide it from us, the Church of Scientology? A No. Q Well, what was the reason that the last three checks that are in evidence were made out to you personally, as opposed to Dandar & Dandar? A I have no idea. Q Did you discuss that with Mr. Minton at any time, that the checks should be made out to you personally, as opposed to Dandar & Dandar? A No. THE COURT: All decisions on how the checks were made payable, is it your testimony, were Mr. Minton's decision? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 348 THE WITNESS: Yes. I -- it didn't matter to me. MR. WEINBERG: Now, I have a whole another category that is going to take longer than -- than a few minutes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: That sort of touches -- THE COURT: Is this a good time to break? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it's a good time to break. THE COURT: We'll stop. We'll be in recess until six (sic) o'clock. Even though you are on the stand -- I'm not going to put Mr. Dandar under the -- whatever it is for a witness testifying. He may speak to Mr. Lirot, anybody from his staff. He's still a lawyer in this case. Okay? MR. WEINBERG: Fine. THE COURT: I don't think there will be a problem with that. MR. LIROT: Judge, I -- MR. WEINBERG: Could I interrupt? You said six, but you meant nine tomorrow morning, right? THE COURT: I sure did. If I said six, I definitely didn't mean it. I definitely didn't. MR. WEINBERG: Because I knew one thing, I wasn't going to be here at six. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 349 THE COURT: I'm not, either. MR. LIROT: I filed an original, that is a courtesy copy of a motion. I have some additional concerns. I wasn't here last Thursday. I was out of state. I guess the additional testimony about that motion picture, The Profit, had come up. And, quite simply, we don't want to fall into a trap -- I would like to bring this up tomorrow morning. I would like you to look at that copy. I would like to debate any further dissemination. And I have given opposing counsel a copy of that memorandum. THE COURT: I will take this home and read it tonight. I will take home this exhibit. I don't know if I'll bother with it tonight because I know we'll discuss it tomorrow. MR. WEINBERG: And there was that -- well, you didn't need to look at the -- at that E-Mail pleading. THE COURT: We're -- can we go off the record? MR. DANDAR: Well, I just want to put on the record I delivered to Mr. Moxon the amended two requests to produce at hearing from the Church of Scientology. THE COURT: Okay. Did you give me copies? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 350 Yes, they are up here. MR. DANDAR: Are those the bad ones, or the good ones? THE COURT: These are the good ones, "Hereby request the Church of Scientology --" MR. DANDAR: All right. THE COURT: So we'll take that up in the morning. We'll take up -- well, either in the morning or after lunch, one or the other. Is that it? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: We're at ease. Everybody may be at ease. (WHEREUPON, Court stands in recess at 5:00 p.m.) _____________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 351 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. DATED this 5th day of June, 2002. ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR