||||| From: nospam@!.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Dandar Vol 4 part 1/2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 4127 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.29.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1023859734 12.225.29.45 (Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:28:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:28:54 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:28:55 GMT Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!newspeer2.tds.net!HSNX.atgi.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!west.cox.net!cox.net!news-east.rr.com!wn2feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1524953 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 352 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 4 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. _______________________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. DATE: June 5, 2002, morning session. PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding St. Petersburg, Florida. BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 353 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 and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 354 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS PAGE LINE Recess 437 25 Recess 508 18 Reporter's Certificate 509 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 355 THE COURT: Good morning. We've got a couple legal matters. We want to take those up first? MR. DANDAR: Yes. THE COURT: All right. MR. DANDAR: The plaintiff -- THE COURT: Where is -- MR. WEINBERG: He's sick. THE COURT: What -- why can't I think of his name? MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Lieberman. THE COURT: Mr. Lieberman. MR. WEINBERG: He actually was sick yesterday -- THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry -- MR. WEINBERG: -- and he's sick today. THE COURT: All right. Well, tell him I hope he feels better. I have three motions by the plaintiff, request to produce -- two requests to produce. I guess I should ask the defense if there's any objection. MR. FUGATE: Which -- THE COURT: We'll take the first one up, is -- it looks like they're requesting that these be --------------------------------------------------------------------- 356 produced at this hearing, which is why I'm taking them up. We'll take up the one -- the first one is one that requests the videos, including any videos -- I can't really quite figure out the relevance of this to this hearing, but -- MR. DANDAR: Well, they mixed summary judgment motions with this hearing. And they've produced videos of the Lisa McPherson Trust under surveillance. And they had video cameras on the back sidewalk of the hotel where Lisa McPherson, they say, was kept. And this court -- And I think we're entitled to see the security videos -- THE COURT: I'm not saying that you're not. I just am not certain that they're relevant to this hearing. But rather than debate that let's see if there's an objection. MR. MOXON: Your Honor, there aren't any. THE COURT: Pardon me? MR. MOXON: The system that recorded the security videos didn't go in until, I'm informed, about 1998 or thereabouts. So the only video that had a recording on it in the church at that time was at the front door, and there's obviously nothing --------------------------------------------------------------------- 357 there. So -- THE COURT: So there is none. So I guess that's the answer -- MR. DANDAR: All right. THE COURT: -- okay? So we kind of dealt with that. The next one is -- and as a matter of fact, if you want me to sign an order that they responded there weren't any -- MR. DANDAR: No. The transcript's enough. THE COURT: -- I'll sign an order. Okay. The next request to produce, three things: Committee of evidence reports of certain people, knowledge reports regarding Lisa McPherson and routing slips. MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have a written response. It's actually due the 6th, according to the pleading, but I'll file one with the clerk. I went back and checked. I didn't say anything yesterday because, like I said, I'm always going to preface things with "I think," and I thought that we had responded to these early on and in the written response that the -- this was requested sometime ago, it was responded to, and there are none. And the ones that respond to number 3 were --------------------------------------------------------------------- 358 turned over to Mr. Dandar, I believe -- I don't have my copy now in front of me -- in 1998 or 1999. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FUGATE: Those are all the ones that were in existence, and they were turned over then. THE COURT: And if they aren't, you've responded before that there aren't, and you're responding again. MR. FUGATE: To 1 and 2, there are no documents. I have also sent the notice to the lawyers or caused to be sent the notice to the lawyers for the other people. But as -- on behalf of the defendant Flag, there are no documents as to 1 and 2. That's been responded to before. As to 3, that was responded to. There were documents, they were produced and -- they were produced. And Mr. Shaw also verified that in a hearing before Judge Moody in 2000. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DANDAR: And I'd like to be on the record. Brian Anderson -- since this response of 1998 for number 1, Brian Anderson's deposition was taken. Brian Anderson said he was subjected to a committee --------------------------------------------------------------------- 359 of evidence. If they're saying Flag doesn't have the committee of evidence reports and someone else does within the Scientology conglomerate, then I'd like them to tell me that, because I don't want any word games. "Flag no longer has it. Someone else does." MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, A, I resent that. B, the depositions of each of these people were taken and the questions were asked. Mr. Anderson, as I recall his deposition -- I went back and looked -- said he had a committee of evidence on a unrelated matter, long before that, that didn't have -- nothing to do with this, which was asked and answered in his deposition. And I believe that Mr. Kartuzinski said he thought he had had a committee of evidence in this particular case but there was no document produced therefrom, and he testified to that. So what he says is accurate; that they have -- that those two people that I know of have said, yes, one has nothing to do with this. Kartuzinski testified about his. And there is no document, there's no report, there's no document that Flag has. So I have answered that. And we did go back --------------------------------------------------------------------- 360 and check it. THE COURT: I -- I think what he is saying is, is your response that none exist -- MR. FUGATE: None exist. THE COURT: -- regarding if he were to change his wording to say Flag Services Organization or Church of Scientology International and/or -- in other words, no matter who he put in the request as to who might have it, there are none. MR. FUGATE: The answer would be the same. There are none. MR. DANDAR: And never has been. MR. FUGATE: And never has been as far, as I know. That was answered in the deposition. And I have checked, and there are none. THE COURT: I do remember, now that you mentioned it, because I did read Mr. Kartuzinski's deposition -- I didn't know what this was, but now that I think about it, I do remember him talking about it. I don't remember what he said about any writings, but I presume you've looked for them? MR. FUGATE: I have. Actually, as I said, yesterday I would have answered it, but I thought, before I do that, let me go back and check. And I did, and those are the accurate answers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 361 THE COURT: So you don't need to reword this. MR. DANDAR: No. THE COURT: I think what you can assume is there aren't any. MR. DANDAR: Right. And I wasn't -- THE COURT: No matter whose name you would put in it, there aren't any. MR. DANDAR: Right. And I didn't ask that question in a derogatory fashion. I just wanted to make sure we covered the oceanfront. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DANDAR: The other thing I want to bring to the court's attention -- THE COURT: Is this your original or is this my copy? MR. FUGATE: I think I filed the original with the clerk. Did I? That's your copy, Judge. And you can throw that away or keep it. THE COURT: This is a signed copy which is why I worried -- MR. FUGATE: I just signed all of them because I didn't have a stamp. THE COURT: Madam Clerk, this should not be signed as a -- an exhibit in this case. It's just a --------------------------------------------------------------------- 362 pleading. And both of them are pleadings that need to be filed in the court file as a pleading. And this would be the response, right? MR. DANDAR: Yes. THE COURT: So I am going to throw them out because we've dealt with it. MR. FUGATE: Right. THE COURT: Now, the next thing we have is Plaintiff's motion to abate dissemination of any portion of the film The Profit. It seems to me that that is a matter for Ms. Brooks. I see Ms. Brooks is here, but I don't see her lawyer. MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I -- I -- I didn't know what that was until last night, and I read it and I saw -- THE COURT: I didn't either, and I read it. MR. FUGATE: -- and I saw that -- it seemed to me to relate to either Ms. Brooks and/or Mr. Minton. I contacted -- the only person I could get ahold of last night was Mr. McGowan. He had not received a copy of it. I told him that I would have a copy for him today. And he asked that if you would take this up after lunch, I think he can be here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 363 And I'll give him a copy. He had not been served as a copy. THE COURT: He's on the certificate of service, but he may not have gotten -- MR. FUGATE: As of last night, he had not seen it. And he, I think, can come over this afternoon. Is that -- THE COURT: Is that okay? MR. LIROT: That's fine, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. We'll put this off until this afternoon and we'll take it up after lunch. And if you would -- Ms. Brooks, if you would ask Mr. McGowan to come over after lunch. MS. BROOKS: I will, your Honor. THE COURT: And I think that's -- MR. DANDAR: I just want to remind counsel that we're still waiting for Mr. Jonas's notes that the court ordered to be produced, as well as Mr. Rosen's notes on the cases that he discussed the case with Mr. Minton on March 28th. THE COURT: That's right. There was -- Mr. Jonas was going to look to see. And Mr. Rosen apparently had had a list of cases. And I believe he was on vacation or he was traveling or something last week. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 364 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge. I was -- I heard Mr. Jonas -- I think -- I don't have any communication with him. I'll call Mr. Howie about that. I believe Mr. Howie said he had placed a call to him. THE COURT: He did. Maybe he was -- somebody was traveling. There were two. MR. FUGATE: Well, no. No. Well, actually both of them were, as I remember. Mr. Howie said Mr. Jonas was out of town, and he left a phone mail message. And Mr. Rosen was out of town -- and I didn't communicate with him. And I don't even remember now who did -- but as I understood it he was traveling. I'll check on that today and report back to your Honor. I just had totally forgotten about it. THE COURT: Tell Mr. Rosen that if he doesn't still have it, surely he can put it together -- MR. FUGATE: All right. THE COURT: -- and reproduce it, and just state that it may not be what he had, but it's a reproduction. MR. DANDAR: It's the cases with the amounts of money that they spent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 365 THE COURT: Right. MR. DANDAR: And finally, I'd like to have a little case management on this hearing. Because if I am the last witness, or I'm not, I need to know approximately when they anticipate us -- the plaintiff putting on its -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DANDAR: -- case. THE COURT: That's fair enough. Are you planning on putting on any witnesses after Mr. Dandar? MR. FUGATE: We are -- well, first of all, we don't anticipate finishing with Mr. Dandar today. And I think that's already been communicated with counsel. And we are contemplating putting on at least two witnesses, and we will let Mr. Dandar know about those two witnesses. But I don't anticipate -- THE COURT: Who are they? MR. FUGATE: It would be perhaps Mark Bunker, about the videos and the other discovery, and Ms. Liebreich, unless we determine we can put in her testimony and avoid having to bring her here. THE COURT: Okay. I don't have any problem with Ms. Liebreich's testimony. I do have a problem --------------------------------------------------------------------- 366 with Ms. Liebreich having been shown depositions of her sister, and those -- those documents being introduced. Those would not be introduced in this hearing. MR. FUGATE: It would not be that, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FUGATE: It would be for a specific -- THE COURT: As far as her testimony, whatever it was, I have absolutely no problem -- MR. WEINBERG: It would be her testimony. THE COURT: I will tell you this, that there is a benefit needless to say, of seeing and watching and hearing, observing a witness. You know, I see differences, in looking at the bland transcript, and -- and hearing and listening to witnesses. I say that only because I had certain things -- you know, my assumptions about Ms. Liebreich, just kind of assuming that maybe Ms. Liebreich -- well, I really won't go beyond that. I was reading a bland transcript. If either side thinks I would benefit from seeing her, I -- as far as I know, the only time I've ever seen Ms. Liebreich is when this hearing started, and she was sitting at the table. And you know, there was not a thing wrong with her. She --------------------------------------------------------------------- 367 looked like a nice person. I don't have a clue how she testified. If she was looking at the floor, looking at counsel -- you know, I just don't know. So if there's a benefit to her being presented in person by either side, then that's fine. If there really isn't, it's just the questions and answers, I really have no problem with taking the questions and answers, having them read into the record. MR. WEINBERG: We have video too from those depos. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FUGATE: Bear in mind, actually, what you just said -- because I remember from the beginning of the hearing what you said, and I thought -- and frankly, I haven't had a chance to go look at the portions that I think would be relevant to what we're doing. And if the video appears to be sufficient from my perspective, then we would do that. If not, because of the observation you just made, we may ask her to come here. But I haven't been able to do that. Been doing other things. So I'll try to get to that tonight. But I know, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Dandar won't be finished today. So that's the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 368 best I can tell you. THE COURT: Okay. Well, if we're going to have her here, then obviously Mr. Dandar's going to need to know that so he doesn't have to bring her down at whatever the cost is, over, you know, next-day fair, which I suppose is usually more expensive. MR. WEINBERG: I told Mr. Lirot that we'd try to decide something at the end of the day. I didn't know Mr. Dandar was going to bring it up now. I talked to Mr. Lirot before. THE COURT: Would she be fairly brief? Her testimony was fairly brief. I'm not sure why this testimony here is so much longer than before Judge Baird. Frankly, the information that was Judge Baird's hearing is what's fairly relevant here. This seems to be much more lengthy -- MR. WEINBERG: The part that we want to present to you -- THE COURT: -- and -- MR. WEINBERG: -- I think is fairly brief. That's why I was hoping. I had contemplated we were doing it maybe from depositions. I realize there is no video from Judge Baird's hearing. We have transcript from that. But I need to talk to these folks. And we'll --------------------------------------------------------------------- 369 try to have a decision at the end of the day. THE COURT: I'm very leery about putting in piecemeal testimony. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Quite frankly, I find that is not satisfactory to me. When I look at the rest of the depositions I sometimes find changes later. So if you want to put it all in, put it all in. If you're going to do it piecemeal, don't do that. So either put it all in or call -- MR. WEINBERG: I think we would put it all in but highlight for you -- THE COURT: You can highlight in your argument. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: You see what I'm saying? Put it in, refer to whatever want to refer to. I assure you if you put it all in, I will read it all and I will know what she said. MR. WEINBERG: We'll try to talk -- THE COURT: And I don't object if you want to highlight the things you think are particularly important, as to what you want to talk about. But as I said, I don't like piece meal testimony. MR. WEINBERG: It may make more sense to bring her here and just focus on those particular specific --------------------------------------------------------------------- 370 areas that we wanted to focus on in the testimony in front of you. That may be the best way of doing it. But let me talk amongst ourselves this afternoon and try to -- THE COURT: Okay. My preference obviously is unless it's real important that I see her, that she not need to make the trip. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I just don't think anybody ought have to fly from Texas to here. It's an ugly trip. By that I mean, it's long, and it's not a very pleasant -- it's a fairly long plane ride. MR. WEINBERG: It is. THE COURT: So if you can do it with her prior testimony, that would be better. MR. WEINBERG: All right. MR. DANDAR: Judge, the other thing is I have a witness scheduling problem. Peter Alexander is not going to be here next week. He is in town now. He lives in Tampa. So hopefully -- I mean, if we can put him on Friday, that'll be great, whenever the defense -- or the plaintiff gets to start. The other thing is we do want Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling to appear, as we asked before for our presentation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 371 THE COURT: Well, have you subpoenaed them? MR. DANDAR: Well, they're outside the jurisdiction of the court. But they're within the control of the defense? THE COURT: What is it that you expect to gain from having them come? MR. DANDAR: I expect Mr. Rosen, as an officer of the court, to tell the truth as to the conversation he had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks on March the 28th and the 29th. And I expect Mr. Rinder to answer those questions, and Ms. Yingling. And find out why Ms. Yingling, a tax expert attorney, was present during all these meetings. MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, first of all, I think I may file a motion, if that's his position, because I think both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton have testified that there were allegations that began the hearing, as I recall the allegations, that Mr. Rosen was present at a large number of meetings and had made all sorts of threats. It turns out that he was at one, and he -- you've told him he needs to produce his notes as to what the list was he went through. The rest of everything's been testified to by --------------------------------------------------------------------- 372 Mr. Minton and by Ms. Brooks. And I think a lot of what was said did not -- or what was alleged did not come out from their testimony. And I'm not sure what the relevance of calling those folks would be. And I'll be glad to put together a motion. THE COURT: I think it's highly relevant, quite frankly. And I think the relevance is, you've put on two people who've admitted they've committed perjury. Quite frankly, their credibility does not start necessarily on an even keel. I think therefore that that's their business if they want to corroborate their testimony. If they don't, that inures to your benefit. Why you would want them, I have no idea. So you think that through. If they don't want to put them on, then I think that that is -- I mean, if it were me and I were presenting their case, I would put them on. I would put them on because I would want to lend some credibility to people -- to two people whose believability is crucial to their case. If they don't, then that's their business. But why in the world you think I should compel them to bring them for you is really quite beyond me. So you think that through. I don't know that I --------------------------------------------------------------------- 373 have any power to compel them to come. I really don't. But as I said, that's -- that's really up to the two of you all. If you -- I think they should be here and I think they should testify. However, I think that the person that should call them is the defendant. And if they don't, then I think that is something that they'll have to deal with in closing argument. If you want to compel me to bring them and you think it's just crucial to your case and you think there's anything to be gained by it, and they won't produce them voluntarily, then do your motion. But I really kept expecting before this was over that they would produce these people. MR. FUGATE: Well, I certainly will heed what the court has said, Judge. THE COURT: I think you should. I mean, you've got two people that you want me to believe who said, "I've committed perjury. I'm a liar. And I'm a liar under oath." Now, that's something that -- I really don't have to tell you that. MR. FUGATE: No, your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I would think you would know that. I haven't researched the law, but I would certainly think that when the court determines --------------------------------------------------------------------- 374 credibility of one person versus another, one of whom says, "I'm a liar under oath," and one of whom says, "I'm not lying and this didn't happen," well, that certainly weighs on the court's credibility and determination. There's just no doubt about it. Any court in the land would weigh that. So as I said, why you would want me to bring them, I have no idea. I don't understand lawyers and why they want what they want and why they don't do what they don't do. On the other hand, I think they ought to testify. I think that would be beneficial. If -- if you think that it's so important that they're going to come here and somehow or another say that these two people lied, why then, I'll just bring them in for you. But I think you -- I don't know that you're going to -- to gain anything by it. I don't know that you're not going to gain anything by it. I have no idea what these people might say. It would seem that somebody would want to produce -- I'm just amazed that it would have to be you. And whether I have the authority to produce them, I have no idea. MR. DANDAR: All right, Judge. I'll let you --------------------------------------------------------------------- 375 know. MR. WEINBERG: First of all, just so we -- following up what you said, we never said we wouldn't produce them. And frankly, I had contemplated possibly calling them, but then I saw the hearing going so long, so I was beginning to try to look ways to shorten it. But I hear -- I hear you loud and clear. And we never said we wouldn't produce them. So -- THE COURT: No, I know -- MR. WEINBERG: If -- THE COURT: You didn't. MR. WEINBERG: If -- THE COURT: I -- MR. WEINBERG: If Mr. Dandar insisted and -- that he wanted Mr. Rosen down here, Mr. Rosen will come down here and testify, but -- you know, it may well be we'll just put them on. And that's something else we'll talk about at lunch. THE COURT: As I said, I don't want to pull any punches here. Naturally, this court, as I have said from the very outset, takes this matter very seriously. These are serious allegations, a serious motion. You know, both sides better put on their --------------------------------------------------------------------- 376 best case. And if it isn't your best case and you lose or you win, so be it. But I don't want to hear any whining afterwards, "Well, if I had known that --" obviously, you're asking me to take the word of two people, both of whom have said, "I lie, and I lie under oath, but believe me now." And of course, you're naturally going to do the best you to corroborate their testimony as best you can. MR. WEINBERG: By -- THE COURT: But the other side is, obviously, saying, "They're lying." MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: "I have not said I've committed perjury under oath. They are not telling you the truth." Now I have to weigh that, plain and simple. MR. WEINBERG: And I guess, you know, we have a particularly sort of unique position, because it's -- because really, Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks are certainly not our witnesses. I mean, given -- You've seen the whole history of all this. THE COURT: They are your witnesses as far as this hearing. MR. WEINBERG: We put them on, but -- we put them on, but in the traditional sense of our --------------------------------------------------------------------- 377 witness, you know, it is -- these are people that -- that fought long and hard -- THE COURT: You can save that argument. As far as I'm concerned, you put them on. You're going to ask me to believe them, plain and simple. Mr. Dandar, resume the stand. MR. FUGATE: Judge, I also am listening. And here is another notebook, but this one has all of the iterations of the complaints. I think yesterday you asked I've got Number 5, or the current fifth amended complaint, and you were looking for some others. So what I did is have original, first amended, and then a fifth series. If you need them for reference -- THE COURT: That's good. MR. FUGATE: -- they're there. THE COURT: I'm not sure I don't have those in another book of the complaints filed in this case. Is this it? Did I get this -- MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: -- yesterday? MR. WEINBERG: -- why don't we take that one back? THE COURT: You want this one back? MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. 'cause is a more --------------------------------------------------------------------- 378 complete -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: -- that he just gave you. THE COURT: Yeah. I thought you gave me that yesterday. MR. WEINBERG: I did. MR. FUGATE: I was listening. It was something else, then. THE COURT: Well, it was -- he gave it to me and asked me to refer to one tab, and then we got off into some discussion. MR. WEINBERG: Because I think there's been nine or 10 different versions. And you know, it's -- we've all lost track. THE COURT: Well, I've lost track of how many notebooks I have too -- MR. FUGATE: A bunch. THE COURT: -- I'll tell you that. A bunch. So I may have this two or three other places, for all I know. MR. DANDAR: Judge, I do have my graph of the calls between my phones and the LMT phones. THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to -- MR. WEINBERG: Well, I'm going to get back to --------------------------------------------------------------------- 379 that later, if I can. THE COURT: Okay. You might want to use that when it's -- your counsel's time -- MR. DANDAR: All right. THE COURT: -- and you let them use theirs -- MR. DANDAR: All right. THE COURT: -- and you use theirs. MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I'm going to try to go to a few others areas first, which I think will be a faster pace. Because these phone records kind of slow you down. And later on we'll go back to that. MR. DANDAR: What, after 4:00? MR. WEINBERG: Maybe after 4:00. (A discussion was held off the record.) THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Mr. Dandar, yesterday you said that -- in response to some questions, that you were unenthusiastic about -- about Bob Minton's idea of establishing the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Yes. Q You were not in favor of it. And in fact you asked him not to do it, correct? A I -- well, there's several things there. I was un- -- not -- I was asking him not to use --------------------------------------------------------------------- 380 the name of Lisa McPherson in establishing this organization that he wanted to establish. And I wasn't enthusiastic about the picketing. Now, if he wanted to help people who needed help, who wanted to leave Scientology and needed counseling and things like that, that was something that wasn't provided on a routine basis anywhere, so that was all right. But the rest of it, I always expressed to him my -- Q Now -- A -- hesitation. Q Do you recall that on December 4th, 1999, which is right after you had incorporated the Lisa McPherson Trust, that you, Ken Dandar, were the one that made the public announcement of the opening -- of the establishment of the Lisa McPherson Trust? Do you -- A Well, that would have been at the time of the vigil. And that's all -- I don't remember that, no. Q But you remember that -- that on December 4th, you held a press conference where you addressed picketers and members of the media at the Holiday Inn. And that actually was the conference -- was the press conference where we played the clip where you talked about the -- Jesse Prince and the end cycle? Do you remember that? A I participated -- I was asked to be one of the many speakers at this gathering. And I'm not -- and the press was there sporadically, and I did speak. But I didn't --------------------------------------------------------------------- 381 hold a press conference, as you just suggested. Q And do you remember at that gathering, when you were at the microphone -- and there was a press microphone there as well; there was a big banner with "The Lisa McPherson Trust," and you actually made the announcement that -- that Mr. Minton had established the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Well, looks like you got it on video, so I'm sure you're correct. But it's -- You know, Michael Rinder was there as well. MR. WEINBERG: We have a short video. Can we play it? (The videotape was played as follows:) "Also, I am proud to say that the Lisa McPherson Trust has been formed and is comprised of individuals dedicated to serve the wishes of Lisa's mother, Fannie McPherson. The Lisa McPherson Trust, organized by Robert Minton -- who is not a worldwide conspirator, by the way, but who is an extremely gracious individual -- formed the Lisa McPherson Trust to pursue the wishes of Fannie McPherson, which are very simple: Expose the truth and the abuses of the Church of Scientology. 'Tell the world how my daughter, Lisa, died, and help other victims of abuse from Scientology.' And that's --------------------------------------------------------------------- 382 their stated goals, in writing, and that's what that trust is all about." (End of videotape.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, let me just hand up to you -- MR. WEINBERG: We'll mark as -- A Well, is there a question that -- going with that -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Yes, there is a question. A All right. I didn't want to miss it. Q Excuse me? A I didn't want to miss it. I -- Q You -- that does refresh your recollection, that you were the one -- they hadn't even opened their doors yet. You were the one that made the first public announcement of the establishment of the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct? A I can't agree with that. I do not think that's true. I think that was just a press briefing, when I said I was one of the many participants who was asked to stand up and say something. Q And you said that the -- that the purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust was to expose the truth about Scientology and tell the world how Lisa -- Lisa McPherson, Fannie McPherson's daughter, died. That's what you said, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 383 right? A That's partly what I said, right. Q That sounds like -- telling the world about how Lisa McPherson died sounds a whole lot like the wrongful death case, doesn't it? That has to do with the wrongful death case, doesn't it? A No, it doesn't. That would be there no matter if there was a case or not a case. Q Well, in fact -- A That wasn't in the case. Q The fact of the matter is that the Lisa McPherson Trust was used, from that point on when it opened up, until it closed, to be very closely associated and affiliated with the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case, wasn't it? A That's false. Q And not only were there all these phone calls but there were a number of people there working at the Lisa McPherson Trust, associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust, that ended up on your witness list. A Two. Q And -- and for a year -- A Two out of 109. Q And for a year, from June of 2000 until the Lisa McPherson Trust closed sometime in the fall of 2001, your expert witness, Jesse Prince, was being paid full-time by --------------------------------------------------------------------- 384 the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn't he? A Because he was a full-time employee doing work for the trust unrelated to the case. Q Right. THE COURT: Is the answer yes? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And from that time until June of 2000 until whenever it is in 2001, you -- Mr. Prince was working among other things on the wrongful death case for you, wasn't he? A When he showed up for depositions, he was, that's correct. Q Well, I mean, we're going to go into it in more detail when you show me your list, but I think I heard you say yesterday that 56 percent of your calls with the Lisa McPherson Trust were to Jesse Prince. A That's right. Q Right. But -- and many of those calls happened from June of 2000 until -- until the last call in 2001. A That's correct. Q Right. And during that period of time, those calls with Jesse Prince, I assume you're going to say, had to do with the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case, right? A That's right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 385 Q But during the period when these calls were taking place, you weren't paying him; the Lisa McPherson Trust was paying him. A That's right. Q And yet you say the Lisa McPherson trust doesn't have anything to do -- I think you said -- anything to do with the wrongful death case. A That's correct. Jesse Prince does. There's a big difference there. Q Okay. And how did it come about that you suddenly ceded the responsibility of paying your expert witness, the one on which you base the fifth amended complaint on, the allegations about -- about letting her die and -- and end cycle -- how is it that it came to be that you ceded the responsibility of paying this expert witness to the Lisa McPherson Trust in June of 2000? A Well, I never ceded the responsibility of paying for my expert witness to anyone, including the Lisa McPherson Trust. So that's not correct. And number two, I no longer needed Jesse Prince to work with me day in and day out on the case, as he had been doing for a year. Q So was it gratis, now, as far as the wrongful death case was concerned? Ken Dandar didn't have to pay any more for his -- his main witness for the fifth amended --------------------------------------------------------------------- 386 complaint? You don't have to pay anymore as of June of 2000? A He wasn't working for me full-time so I didn't have to pay him for not working. That's right. I don't pay people for not working. Q Well, but you do pay people for working. And he was working on the case. So why didn't you pay him for the time that he was working on the case? A I said that I was not charged for phone calls to Jesse Prince. I was not charged if he showed up at a deposition. I was not charged for that, if he wanted to assist me. And I believe -- I would have to look at the deposition list to see how many took place from June of 2000 to December of 2001, involved staff members of the Church of Scientology. Q Well, you're not saying -- THE COURT: Wait a second. I'm sorry. MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. THE COURT: I know you're on -- you're wanting to continue. Are you saying that your expert didn't charge you for either his own -- I don't know when -- When was his deposition taken? MR. WEINBERG: Jesse Prince's? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 387 THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: The first time it was -- it was taken was in November of '99. THE COURT: Okay. So that was before LMT. If his deposition was taken anytime after LMT was formed, I presume he charged you an expert witness fee for his deposition. THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't -- they took his deposition. They refused to pay his expert witness fee, which is probably a subject of a motion -- THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- before the court. THE COURT: So -- I'm sorry. So they took his deposition. Therefore they would have been responsible -- THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: -- for paying his expert witness fee. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: When he sat with you -- I gather at some of the depositions he sat in to assist you, if it was staff people from the church, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And are you saying that if those --------------------------------------------------------------------- 388 depositions were after this June of 2000 date, he did it free, but if it was before June of 2000, he was on your payroll, so in effect he was being paid? THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And -- THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And -- and is it -- you had an arrangement, didn't you, with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, that -- that as of June of 2000, they were going to take care of paying Jesse Prince for the work that he did in the wrongful death case. A That is false. Q All right. So who did you have the arrangement with? How was it that -- that you -- it came to be that -- that suddenly, in June of 2000, right at the time when the first trial was supposed to begin, that he went off your payroll and went onto the LMT for work that had to do for the case? A Because the trial of June, 2000 was continued by the court, and I didn't need him to be there full-time, so I said, "Jesse, you know, I don't need you here full-time." And then he went and made arrangements with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks -- I mean, I don't know which one -- to work full-time at the Lisa McPherson Trust. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 389 Q Well, did he talk to you about that; that he was going to relieve you of the responsibility of paying him? A I had no responsibility to pay him unless I asked him to help me. Q Well, did he ask you to get paid for the work that he did on the case once he went on the payroll of the LMT? A No. Not that I remember anyway. Q So it was just an understanding that you had with Mr. Prince that you didn't have to pay him anymore, even though he was working on the case? A No. If he would have sent me a bill, I would have paid it, but he didn't say I needed to pay him, that I recall, as I sit here, nor did I pay him for phone calls or showing up to assist me with questions of staff. Q Well, you knew, at the time of his November, 1999 deposition, that the deal that Jesse Prince had was that he was getting paid $5,000 a month, starting at FACTNet. Then we showed you the checks from Bob Minton. And then you gave him $5,000 a month, from Mr. Minton's money, for between June of '99 and May of 2000. And then after that, he was getting $5,000 a month again from LMT, as long as it was in existence. And then you heard in this hearing he got $5,000 a month, up until almost the start of this proceeding, from Ms. Brooks. You knew that was the deal; that he was getting --------------------------------------------------------------------- 390 5,000 bucks a month in his deal with Mr. Minton, right? A No. Q Well, why were you paying him 5,000 a month? Didn't Mr. Minton tell you that that's what the deal was? A No. That's the -- that's the arrangement -- that's what I agreed to pay Mr. Prince when I asked him to come work on this case and educate me full-time, from June of '99 to the end of May, 2000. Q All right. And he told you that prior to that time, that he was getting $5,000 a month from Mr. Minton -- A I don't think -- Q -- right? A -- that -- No. I don't think that's true. Q Well, he told you he was getting $5,000 a month from somebody. A I don't think that's true. I don't think he -- I -- I don't -- as I sit here -- I'm trying to remember as best I can, but I don't remember him ever telling me, "This is what I've been paid in the past." Q Okay. THE COURT: Did -- did -- this, I know; that if I had reviewed the transcripts I would know. Did Ms. Brooks say that she had paid Mr. Prince after LMT closed? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 391 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Or did Mr. Minton pay him? MR. WEINBERG: She said that she cut the checks. It was Mr. Minton's money, but that she had actually written the last check to Mr. Prince -- again, this is my recollection -- I think she said on April 4th or thereabouts of 2002. THE COURT: Obviously, not out of LMT's account, but out of her personal check? MR. WEINBERG: I think it's out of her personal account. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: But it was Mr. Minton's money? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: It was Mr. Minton's money. What I can't recall is -- I don't know whether the check's in evidence or not. I don't remember. THE WITNESS: Check is not in evidence, but that's what her testimony was. THE COURT: Okay. I just couldn't remember whether it was Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. Now, Mr. Prince -- just so it's clear, Mr. Prince didn't just go to depositions; he went to hearings too. There were a number of hearings in front of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 392 Judge Moody that Mr. Prince went to, right? A Before he went to work at the LMT? That's correct. Q There were hearings that he went to after he went to work with the LMT. A Well, Judge Moody wasn't the judge much longer after June of 2000, so I'm not sure. I mean, the records will speak for themself when he was present. Q Okay. THE COURT: Was there some understanding between you and Mr. Minton and/or Ms. Brooks that when Jesse was working -- Mr. Prince was working for you, you'd pay him 5,000 a month, and when he was working for them they'd pay him 5,000 a month, and it just depended on who he was doing the bulk of his work for, or was there no understanding among you? THE WITNESS: No. There was no understanding. There was no discussion about it. I had him for a certain period of time, and then I told him I didn't need him to be there all the time, and that's when he went to work for the LMT. But there was no arrangement from me to have him go work at the LMT. I just said, you know, "You don't need to be here full-time anymore." --------------------------------------------------------------------- 393 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. Well, let me show you -- I'll hand up a document. And we're going to try to refresh your recollection as to how this -- MR. WEINBERG: I don't think there's a need to mark this unless -- it just refreshes Mr. Dandar's recollection. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, Mr. Prince started at the LMT in June of 2000. And the first hearing that I was able to locate was a June 7th hearing in front of Judge Moody that Mr. Prince and Dr. Garko, Ben Shaw, even Mike Rinder -- all kinds of people were there, including yourself, correct? A No. I -- I just had my five-way, bypass, Mr. Weinberg, and the record shows my brother was there. Q Okay. And your brother was there. I'm sorry. A And I'd like to know -- you know, I don't even know what this is about. So anyway -- Q Well, we'll get the full transcript. A But anyway, the record says he was at June 7th, 2000. So -- so -- so what? Q Okay. I'm just saying -- A That's fine. Q -- LMT -- A All right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 394 Q I mean do you remember that Teresa Summers' depo was taken? A No. I took Teresa Summers' depo, so it was before this. Q Do you remember that -- I guess your bypass is going on -- that your brother appeared at Teresa Summers' first depo? A Is that right? Q I'm going to show you. A All right. I thought I took it. Boy, I'm really not doing too well if I don't remember that. Well, that's what it says. I wasn't there. Q Teresa Summers is a -- she's on your witness list. She was an employee of the LMT. Mr. Prince made an appearance at her deposition on June 13th, 2000, I guess, again, done by your brother, right? A That's right. Q Right. But this time Mr. Prince was on the LMT payroll. A That's right. Q But you all aren't being billed for his work, right? A He didn't send me a bill, that's right. Q Okay. Now, let me show you -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 395 MR. WEINBERG: If I can, your Honor -- THE COURT: I suppose it might be a good idea to have these marked. I don't know what -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I don't know how else -- MR. WEINBERG: I will. THE COURT: -- we're going to -- Well, do them all and then we'll make them -- MR. WEINBERG: We'll do them all at the end. A This shows her first depo was June 13th, 2000. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Right. A But -- Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. There's something wrong. What's wrong is this shows Sclafani Court Reporters being the court reporters. Q Right. A And unless we had two court reporters there, I don't use Sclafani. Q I think it's a depo -- A I -- Q -- we were taking. A Pardon me? Q I think it's a depo we were taking. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 396 A Well then -- Okay. Q But we'll get the full transcript. A I thought I took the first depo. THE COURT: Well, maybe you took the -- the first depo and this is their depo. THE WITNESS: That's possible. I can't -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And I'm handing you up another depo transcript, this is one of the church people, Brian Anderson. His name came up today. You were asking for his -- what do you call it -- THE COURT: Confidence report. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The -- A Committee -- Q Goodness gracious -- A -- of evidence. Q -- what do we call it? The committee of evidence. A Right. Q You asked about that today. And his depo was taken on December 6th, 2000, well into Mr. Prince's work at the LMT. And Mr. Prince showed up as your expert at that deposition. And you were there, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 397 right? A Oh, yes. Well, this says what I just told you at the beginning of this questioning. Q And did he bill you for this? A No. Q Okay. A Did he stay for the whole deposition? I don't know. I kind of remember him not staying for the whole deposition. Q Well, you invited him there, right? A Yes. Q He was there for a purpose, right? A Yes. Q Mr. Minton had told you that you needed to increase the -- the participation of Mr. Prince in the Scientology aspects of the case, and this is what you -- this is how you were doing it, right? A Wrong. Q All right. Let me show you the next one. A Mr. Minton had nothing to do with Mr. Prince being there. That was my idea, all by myself. Q Now, you remember Annie Mora's deposition? A Yes. Q You were at that one, weren't you? A January 17th, 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 398 Q All right. A That's correct. Q That's well into Mr. Prince's work at the LMT, right? A That's right. Q And you remember that deposition. There was a -- there was a dispute, I think, if I remember correctly, that took place at that deposition, right, about the 6-foot rule or whatever it was? A Yeah. I remember you and Mr. Shaw behaving so unprofessionally, yelling and screaming -- THE COURT: That's not necessary. Honestly. For heaven's sake -- THE WITNESS: Well, that resulted in the order of Judge Quesada to have Judge Beach show up at all the depositions. THE COURT: So whatever it was, that's the one that caused Judge Beach to have to sit in on the rest of the depositions. THE WITNESS: That's right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, Mr. Prince was there, wasn't he? A He was sitting behind me. Yes, he was there. Q All right. And he didn't bill you for that deposition, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 399 A No. Let me make it easy. He hasn't billed me for any deposition. Q No, but I want to show you this. I mean, it's -- A Okay. Q It's a simple question. A All right. Q The answer is, I'm right, correct? A You're correct. Q All right. And by the way, Annie Mora is one of the staff members in the Office of Special Affairs, working, which Mr. Shaw was part of, correct? A That's correct. Q So she's a Scientologist. A Yes. Q Was the idea, by the way, to bring Jesse Prince to the Scientologists' depositions so that it would -- it would cause some harassment? Was that the idea? A No. I already answered your question. He has the expertise on Scientology matters, that even after all this time, I still don't have as much as he has. Q Okay. You remember Judy Fontana? THE COURT: If you've got just jillions of these -- MR. WEINBERG: No. This is the last one. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 400 THE COURT: All right. A Yes, I do. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And she's another member -- A OSA. Q Part of Mr. Saw's office? Or was at one point? A That's correct. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. My last one, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Her deposition was taken on January 30th, 2001. And I believe you'll see that Mr. Prince appeared -- well, you do remember that he showed up at that depo, right? A Yes. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Your Honor, I'm going to mark these as composite exhibit. And I'll tick them off for the record: The June 7th, 2000 proceeding -- THE COURT: It's all in the record. Just put them in the record. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that I've got them all here. I've got four. How many do you have? THE COURT: I have one, two, three, four -- MR. WEINBERG: Maybe it's five. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 401 THE COURT: -- five. And actually, I've got mine in order datewise, and I suggest you do the same. MR. WEINBERG: That's what I'm doing. THE COURT: And I suggest the clerk staple them together and mark them as a composite exhibit next in line. MR. WEINBERG: I see what I did wrong. THE COURT: What is it, Madam Clerk? THE CLERK: Number 155. THE COURT: LMT, I've forgotten, closed down in December of 2001? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think effectively is -- what Ms. Brooks says is after Mr. Minton cut off funding in August -- THE COURT: I just want a date. MR. WEINBERG: I don't think I have a date. I don't -- THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: I think there's been testimony December, 2001. THE COURT: That's what my recollection was. MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: Sometime toward the end of 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 402 THE WITNESS: Most definitely. MR. WEINBERG: It's definitely in the fall of 2001. THE COURT: Right. MR. WEINBERG: And this is marked as -- THE CLERK: 155. MR. WEINBERG: Defense 155. THE CLERK: A, B, C and D, E. MR. WEINBERG: Just get this off my desk here. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, you also had, while we're on this subject matter, Ms. Brooks, while she was working at the LMT, coming to hearings and to depositions on occasion, correct? A Well, I can't answer that yes or no without looking at the -- I hate to say that, but without looking at the court reporter's transcript like you showed me for these depositions. Q Okay. Well, let me -- before we get there, let me establish something. Ms. Brooks was never paid by Dandar and Dandar in -- once she -- once she became involved in the lawsuit, is that right? A Well, I don't know what you mean by became involved in the lawsuit. Q All right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 403 THE COURT: The question was -- it was just real simple. You've told us she was your consultant at some point in time. He wants to know if you ever paid her. THE WITNESS: I never paid her -- I found one check that was written to her and her husband, Vaughn, and after that it was all written to Vaughn. So the first check was written to her and her husband, and -- and then I never paid her a check jointly or individually. So the answer is, correct, I never paid her. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. And those -- and just so it's clear -- THE COURT: Were they married during -- I -- just so I can establish this, were they married when she was working for you as her consultant at first? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Was there a time when she and he were both working for you, and you just wrote a check to him as opposed to the two of them -- THE WITNESS: Uh -- THE COURT: -- or was his money for him and the one check you gave her was work for her, or do you -- THE WITNESS: I put her on the check by --------------------------------------------------------------------- 404 mistake. All the checks were to Vaughn Young. Because actually, it was Vaughn Young -- he was doing all the work for me, not Stacy, in 1997, when they were still married. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. But in 19 -- starting -- starting sometime in 1999, Ms. Brooks became your consultant in the wrongful death case, correct? A Well, it could have been '98, but definitely '99 she was a consultant, yes. Q Right. A Unpaid. Q Right. She was again working gratis for you. A Yes, she was. But she wasn't working that much. I mean, most of her work was reviewing the PC folders with Jesse Prince. And then after that it was just whenever she would show up. THE COURT: The PC folders of Jesse Prince? THE WITNESS: With Jesse Prince. THE COURT: Oh, with. A Of Lisa McPherson. That was December, I think, we established. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Of '98. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 405 A '98. After that, it was just whenever she would just show up, whenever I would just go to the LMT after something, in Clearwater, and just -- or talk to her on the phone for something. Q But you never got a bill from her. A No. Q And you had an arrangement, did you not, with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton would take care of the responsibility of paying Ms. Brooks for her work as a consultant on the wrongful death case. A False. Q Now -- A That is not true at all. Q -- did you have some understanding with someone that you didn't have to pay her when she showed up at hearings and at depositions? A No. No understanding with anyone. Q Were you just waiting for a bill, but you just didn't get it? A I wasn't waiting for a bill. I just -- if she sent me a bill, I would have paid it. Q Now, once the LMT opened up at the beginning of -- the end of '99 -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. I just have to -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 406 'cause I'll never, ever remember to ask this. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Did, on the PC folders of Lisa McPherson, both Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks assist you in looking at those and giving you information -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- their thoughts on what they meant? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And was she -- Mr. Prince was paid for that. THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: He was not paid for that. THE WITNESS: No. He was not. Not -- I'm talking about December, '98 when they spent a few days looking at the original PC folders, and then Mr. Prince told me which ones I should get copied, which were 1995, at that time. And then after that, Mr. Prince spent a considerable amount of time -- THE COURT: It was after that he -- he became a permanent fixture on your payroll for a while? THE WITNESS: Six months later. THE COURT: And she never did. THE WITNESS: No. THE COURT: But neither of them billed you for --------------------------------------------------------------------- 407 their work on the PC folders. THE WITNESS: Not that December, '98, that's correct. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: That was, I think, two -- two days -- THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- of review. THE COURT: I just wanted to establish that in my own mind. Thank you. MR. WEINBERG: I was going to actually ask the same question -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. WEINBERG: -- so -- THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And they had -- MR. WEINBERG: Actually, a number of questions you asked I was going to ask. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q They spent quite a bit -- quite a number of hours looking at those PC folders in December of '98, didn't they? A I think a total of four to six hours a day, times two. Q Right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 408 Plus they spent time talking to you about their review of the PC folders. Because while they were reviewing them, they couldn't talk to you, because there was a representative from the Church of Scientology there. A That's not true. They were in my conference room alone. I was in there from time to time, talking to them. Q Well, where was Glen Steilo, the representative of the church? A He was sitting across the hall in the reception area. Q All right. Now, Stacy Brooks, once the LMT opened up, she -- she was being paid and was working at the LMT. So beginning in January of 2000, whatever money Stacy Brooks was getting was coming from someone other than you. A You know, I had no personal knowledge of that. Q Okay. But you know that she was supposedly working full-time on the LMT at that point, until it closed. A Well, she was working full-time. Whether or not she's been paid to do that, I have no idea. Q Okay. And during that period of time, from December, '99, January of 2000, until the LMT closed, whenever it was, in the fall of 2001, Stacy Brooks did things on the wrongful death case, as your consultant, while she was at the LMT, being paid by the LMT. Yes? A No. I -- I can't say yes. I mean, if she showed --------------------------------------------------------------------- 409 up at a depo or she showed up at a hearing, then I can say yes, if you show me that. Q Okay. I guess I need -- A Otherwise -- Q -- to show it to you. A -- it was, you know, just talking to her briefly. Q Okay. Stacy Brooks came to Benetta Slaughter's depo, didn't she? THE COURT: Don't have him try to guess. He doesn't know. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I was in the process of walking -- THE COURT: Give him what you've got -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- and let him see it, and then he'll acknowledge if she was there, if she was. Give him all of them at one time. You don't need to drag this thing out for 20 minutes, what can be done in five. MR. WEINBERG: I know I've got them separated, so -- THE COURT: Well, unseparate them. THE WITNESS: I'll do that for you if you want. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I've got them in packages. THE WITNESS: I know. I can answer the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 410 anticipated question, but saying if it says I was there -- THE COURT: Yeah. Well, that's what I said. He says he can't remember who was at what deposition. And I think that's very fair. So I think that you need to show him and then he'll acknowledge. If it says there on the page that she was there, she was there. I presume you will. THE WITNESS: I will. And my memory serves me, is Jesse and Stacy were both there, but Stacy left. She didn't stay for the whole thing. That's my -- what my memory tells me. THE COURT: For what? THE WITNESS: Benetta Slaughter's deposition, or the other two employees of Benetta Slaughter, Katie Chamberlain, Brenda Hubert Spencer. THE COURT: I still can't even remember when LMT opened. Was it November, '99? MR. WEINBERG: No. It was -- the office actually opened on January 4th or 5th of 2000, but the organization was incorporated in November of '99, and so they were setting it up between November and when the actual office over in Clearwater opened at the beginning of 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 411 THE WITNESS: They were looking for office space in November, December, '99. THE COURT: Did you say it opened in January of 2000? MR. WEINBERG: The building opened, but the LMT had already opened. They were operating -- at first they said they were using Mr. Dandar's office, and then they were looking for space. And they found a building in Clearwater. THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: They said they were using his office to look for a building. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: They never really said they operated out of it, was my recollection, but -- THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE COURT: -- the record will speak for itself. MR. WEINBERG: Here's -- THE COURT: Thank you. MR. WEINBERG: I'm still separating -- THE WITNESS: So according to the Benetta Slaughter -- THE COURT: Wait a second. MR. WEINBERG: I don't have my copy yet. We --------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 had them neatly organized in stacks -- THE COURT: Until I screwed you up. There's that word, "screwed," in transcripts again. Oh, well. MR. WEINBERG: I try to leave that out. What was that other -- THE COURT: I suppose it could be worse. "Get a hat." MR. WEINBERG: "Get a hat." THE WITNESS: Now, where does that come from? THE COURT: I don't know. It's just an expression I've always used. "Take a hike." "Get a hat." There's a vulgar way of expressing it that people should not use, certainly, in court. THE WITNESS: Right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. Now, December 7th, 1999, Ms. Brooks made an appearance at the Bennetta Slaughter deposition. Which obviously we know who Bennetta Slaughter is. You brought Mr. Brooks and Mr. Prince. But at this point, Ms. Brooks was affiliated with the LMT, and you didn't pay her for this work, is that right? A And the notice says it's only a half-hour long, so -- I don't understand that. I think that's when Bennetta Slaughter got up and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 413 walked out. Q Okay. Now December 14th, '99. That's the hearing -- I think you will agree that's the hearing in front of Judge Moody. THE COURT: I don't have that one. MR. WEINBERG: Here. We might have left this out. THE COURT: I hope I don't have two of them or -- MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: Okay. I got it now. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, that's the hearing -- that's the big hearing that was in front of Judge Moody, in which the Sea Org argument about adding David Miscavige was argued, right? A December 14th of '99? No. Q That's when -- that's when it was. A No. Q Yes. THE COURT: No sense in arguing between the two of you all. I don't want to hear it. THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me think. Let me think. THE COURT: Just get -- A It's possible. How's that? I mean, it's --------------------------------------------------------------------- 414 possible. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. Well, this is a hearing that you brought both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince to, in any event, right? A Well, you know, I -- I probably asked Jesse to be there, but I'm not sure I asked Stacy to be there. Q In any event, she was your consultant at that point, and you didn't pay her, right? A Right. Q December 22nd, 1999 hearing in front of Judge Moody, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince and Vaughn Young shows an appearance. A Isn't this a deposition of Vaughn Young? Q I'm sorry. No. I don't think so. A Right here, December 21st and 22nd of '99. THE COURT: I think you're looking at the wrong one. MR. WEINBERG: December 22nd of '99, which is a hearing. THE COURT: It was my next one. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. All right. THE COURT: Mine was out of order. The next one really is the 21st and 22nd. MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 415 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm not sure what that was about, but she's there. THE COURT: Just go through these, all of them. Just say what they are and he'll say that she was there, and then you can ask your question. A Okay. So she did show up for a time or two at the two-day deposition of Vaughn Young on December 21st and 22nd of 1999. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. A They hadn't seen each other for a long time, and it was very emotional for both of them. Q But she was there as your consultant in that -- in that -- in that deposition, wasn't she? A No. She was there because Vaughn was there and she wanted to support him. THE COURT: Well, Vaughn Young was -- was another one of these anti-Scientologists, right? I mean, he didn't need her to help you -- THE WITNESS: No. They were -- THE COURT: -- with his testimony. THE WITNESS: They were separated. They were divorced. THE COURT: I understand that. THE WITNESS: Right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 416 THE COURT: He was on the same side at that time that Ms. Young was on. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And Mr. Young was your expert witness. You had told Judge Moody that he was dying. You had announced that you needed to take his deposition to preserve his testimony for trial, correct? A Yes. That's all true. Q Right. And at this deposition, we were allowed to do a discovery deposition, and then you took a trial testimony in January, correct? A Yes. Yes. And fortunately, he's actually still alive. Q All right. What's your next -- what's the next one there? 'Cause mine are all out of order. THE COURT: The one I show next is January 21st, which is a videotaped deposition of Robert Young. MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: And I do not see Ms. Young -- Ms. Brooks there. MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I see -- you can take that one out. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 417 THE WITNESS: Page 65, Mr. Weinberg just announced -- She must have walked in. MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I see what it is. Page 65, "For the record, can we note that Mr. Young's ex-wife, Stacy Brooks, is now present at counsel table?" BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you didn't pay her for that appearance, correct? A No. And I don't know how long she stayed. Q Okay. And what's the next one on your list? THE COURT: March 15th, 2000, deposition of Bennetta Slaughter. MR. WEINBERG: Right. BY MR. WEINBERG: And that was the full deposition of Bennetta Slaughter, correct? A Yes. Q And you brought both Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks as your consultants and they're listed as consultants there, right? A Yes. But I only really brought Jesse Prince. Stacy just showed up. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 418 Q Well, I know you say that. A Well -- Q But she didn't just show up. You asked her to be there? A I don't think so. I asked Jesse to be there. THE COURT: You know, the truth of the matter is, she was there. You didn't ask her to leave, did you? THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: And you didn't pay her. THE WITNESS: Right. THE COURT: And at that time, she was acting from time to time as your consultant. THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: So don't make this difficult for us, Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: Well, Judge, I'm not. When I say -- I asked -- I mean, I have to be accurate. I didn't ask -- THE COURT: You don't know whether you did or not. THE WITNESS: No. I'm pretty sure I didn't. THE COURT: "I'm pretty sure I didn't." "I don't think I did." You don't know. The deal is, she's there. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 419 THE WITNESS: That's right. She is there. THE COURT: You let her stay. She was your consultant. If you hadn't wanted her there, you could have told her to get out. THE WITNESS: Correct. I never told her to leave. THE COURT: Right. And she was your consultant. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And you were free to consult with her, if you needed to, before, after or during, right? THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: And you didn't pay her. That's all this is trying to establish. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Whatever work that was. Okay? THE WITNESS: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And the last one -- THE COURT: -- is a transcript of a proceeding before Mr. Moody -- I'm sorry -- Judge Moody on May the 3rd of 2000. And of course, I don't know what it was, but it's a -- some proceeding, May of 2000. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 420 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And Ms. Brooks shows again and -- in addition to Mr. Prince and Mr. Haverty, who's -- THE COURT: And Dr. Garko. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And -- and Dr. Garko, who are all your consultants, right? A Yes. MR. WEINBERG: All right. If we can mark those as the next exhibit? Because mine are screwed up. THE COURT: Well, Madam Clerk, if you would put these in order by date, A, B, C, D, E, whatever it is, by date. And it'll be the next in order -- THE CLERK: 156. THE COURT: -- 156. MR. WEINBERG: All right. Can I take yours, Ken? THE COURT: I'm out of paper clips, Madam Clerk. MR. WEINBERG: I have a ton in my desk. THE COURT: Wait. My clerk here -- Oh, if you've got some there -- MR. WEINBERG: I've been pulling them off. THE COURT: And the clerk and I can share. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 421 MR. WEINBERG: Here's a few. THE COURT: I've got some here now. Thanks. All right. MR. WEINBERG: Got a few more, rather than throw them away. THE COURT: Well, mine are all packed at home, so I may take these. At home, all these boxes are packed up and I can't find anything. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, in that clip that we played, you certainly, in December of 1999, which is right after you incorporated the Lisa McPherson Trust, it certainly didn't sound like you were unenthusiastic about the Lisa McPherson Trust, did it? A Well, I guess that's subject to interpretation. I mean, it is what it is. Q And is there a particular reason why you at this press -- at this -- at this proceeding or whatever it was, where the press was invited, were the one that actually announced the formation and creation of the Lisa McPherson Trust? THE COURT: I think he's explained that. I think he says -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- he just remembers -- now, I don't know, but his remembrance is he was one of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 422 several speakers who were asked to speak, and that was what he said. THE WITNESS: There's no question about that. I just was asked to speak, one of many people. Other people were talking about the trust as well. THE COURT: But this was an opportunity to sort of show off the trust or announce the trust for the benefit of the community and/or the press, right? THE WITNESS: That's right. Even though they had no office space, no place to go. THE COURT: I mean, the press was invited, I take it. THE WITNESS: Yes. And again, I had nothing to do with that. I think either the trust or Mr. Jacobson, who had organized pickets before, before I ever even knew about the Church of Scientology in downtown Clearwater -- he may have -- I'm pretty sure he's the one that organized that whole thing. THE COURT: Okay. I'm on my last page. I take it you're going to a new topic. MR. WEINBERG: Had a couple more questions -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: -- about the LMT. THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm going to change --------------------------------------------------------------------- 423 books here, but I've got another one. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, in addition to utilizing for free the services of Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince while they were employed at the LMT, you also, at a particular point in time, served as counsel for the LMT, right, in the wrongful death case. A Well, my answer to that -- THE COURT: That's a very -- A -- is no. THE COURT: -- confusing question. You served as -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I'll make it -- THE COURT: -- counsel for LMT in the wrongful death case. MR. WEINBERG: I'll -- THE COURT: Clarify it. MR. WEINBERG: I'll make it -- I'll make it clear. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q It's true that you appeared as counsel for LMT. A The answer to that broad question is no. There may have been one time I went to Judge Penick because they --------------------------------------------------------------------- 424 didn't have a lawyer and they needed someone desperately for the injunction suit. And I may have been there, but I don't remember -- unless you show me something, I don't ever, ever remember representing LMT in the wrongful death case of Lisa McPherson. Q Well, let's start with the wrongful death case and -- let's do that. MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach? THE COURT: You may. If you've got more than one -- MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is -- this is -- THE COURT: Let's -- MR. WEINBERG: -- a little different, Judge, procedure. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, this Judge Penick appearance had to do with -- This was on March 24th, 2000, right? A Yes. Q And you're shown here as the attorney for the McPherson Trust. And you actually appeared in court that day and said, on page 4, "Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Ken Dandar, and I represent the Lisa McPherson Trust, Incorporated." --------------------------------------------------------------------- 425 A Well, that's what it says. Q All right. A That's what I just told you. My memory is -- Q Right. And that had to do with the picketing? A Well, according to this, it had to do with the picketing and -- and OSA, Richard Howd filing suit against Mr. Minton to get Mr. Minton and anyone associated with him to stop picketing. Q And did you bill the Lisa McPherson Trust for that? A No. Q Mr. Minton asked you to appear for the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Somebody did. I can't -- I don't know if it was him or Stacy or -- Q My specific question is, do you recall that it was Mr. Minton, since this had to do with -- with an incident that involved Mr. Minton -- was it Mr. Minton that asked you to appear in behalf of the Lisa McPherson Trust? A I don't think so. I don't really know the answer to that. Q And -- and the reason you didn't bill the Lisa McPherson Trust is that Mr. Minton was already paying you in the wrongful death case? A No. Maybe. I mean, really, there's lots of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 426 people I don't bill for things. I mean, as strange as that sounds. But I didn't bill for it. THE COURT: Well, it's certainly possible, since he was your benefactor, that you thought it might be offensive to him if you had billed him for some small appearance. THE WITNESS: That's right. THE COURT: Well, then say so. THE WITNESS: Well, I -- he -- he didn't ask me why. I just said I don't remember -- I know I didn't bill him for it. But that would be the reason why. It would be offensive. It would be picayune. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What -- THE COURT: Somebody -- THE WITNESS: It would be -- THE COURT: Somebody was giving me all that money and I made a little appearance, I don't think I'd send them a bill. On the other hand what counsel's trying to show is here you are appearing for LMT, probably at his request, free. THE WITNESS: It could be at his request; it could be at Stacy's request. It was at the request --------------------------------------------------------------------- 427 of the corporation. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Right. There were a number of things that you did for Mr. Minton: This appearance, incorporating the Lisa McPherson Trust, other things that you did because he asked you to do it, and you didn't send him a bill for it, right? A Those two were the only things. If he was involved in this hearing, asking me to come, that would be true. Q Well, also utilizing the services of Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, that he was paying for. He asked you to do that and you did it. A No. Q Didn't bill him for it. A No. That's not true. Q All right. MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor -- A How would I bill him for using the services of Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks? I don't get that part of your question. Is that what you meant to say? THE COURT: Save it for argument. Move on. MR. WEINBERG: I'm handing to the clerk what I just -- the March 24th, 2000 cover -- the three pages of this Penick thing. We'll mark it as our next exhibit, which would be -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 428 | | | -===+=====_/(T)\_=====+===- | |/.\| | `-|\_/|-' WWJD? -- Best Regards, Keith ====================================================================== http://n6jpa.home.attbi.com/ Win32 Freeware & NW OR Radio Page ====================================================================== ||||| From: nospam@!.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Dandar Vol 4 part 2/2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 4420 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.29.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1023859762 12.225.29.45 (Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:29:22 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:29:22 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:29:22 GMT Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!newspeer2.tds.net!HSNX.atgi.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!west.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1524951 THE CLERK: 157. MR. WEINBERG: -- 157. So what we just went over was 157. THE COURT: Oh. I called it 155. It's 157, Madam Clerk? THE CLERK: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: 156 -- THE COURT: I was putting some stuff in order and I put 154 on top. What is it? 157. MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEINBERG: 156 was the Stacy -- THE COURT: No, I got it. I just put -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- another one down on top. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you were also, in April -- March, April, early May of 2000, representing the Lisa McPherson Trust with regard to discovery matters in the wrongful death case. A No. Q Weren't you? A No. Q Well, let me show you two letters that I'll hand up, that you signed, or two memos that you signed, and ask --------------------------------------------------------------------- 429 you to look at those and see if that refreshes your recollection of what you were doing. Now, these are two memos that you sent and signed and faxed to Rick Moxon, correct? A Correct. Q One is on 4-21-2000 and one is on 4-24-2000, right? A Correct. Q And these have to do, among other things, with the discovery involving the Lisa McPherson Trust, don't they? A Correct. Q And you are the lawyer that is communicating with a defendant in this case's lawyer concerning a Lisa McPherson Trust deposition. There wasn't anybody else other than you, right? A But I am not representing the Lisa McPherson Trust. And both these memos do not even come close to saying that. Q No. But you're just making representations for the Lisa McPherson Trust counsel. A I'm relaying information given to me by Stacy Brooks that, number one, on the first one, 4-21-00, no one's going to appear for the LMT, Incorporated deposition. Better reschedule it, because there's a conflict in the scheduling. That's number one. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 430 And the other one, dated 4-21-2000, I'm relaying to the -- you know, the judge asked me -- Judge Moody asked me to contact the LMT and see if they're going to produce these videos of witnesses, and so I'm relaying to Mr. Moxon, pursuant to Judge Moody's order, what I've been told by the LMT. And as you know, Mr. Leipold appeared for the first deposition of the LMT, representing the LMT. Q He appeared for the deposition of Robert Peterson. He didn't appear for the LMT, did he? A He appeared for the LMT. Mr. Peterson was the corporate designated representative of a corporate deposition. Q All right. So -- so -- Mr. Moxon was to take this as not a suggestion that you were speaking for the LMT; you were just acting as a go-between between the defense and the LMT? A Yeah. I was relating information I received, maintaining my position only as the attorney for estate. Q All right. And the LMT at that point didn't have a lawyer, did they, on April 21st and April 24th. A Well -- Q 'Cause if they did, the lawyer would have been doing these memos, right? A No. They did have a lawyer. Mr. Leipold. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 431 Mr. Merrett was coming into the picture, maybe. But it was Judge Moody who asked me to do this. Q Well, you remember that you appeared in front of Judge Moody on April the 10th -- THE COURT: Are you introducing these or not? MR. WEINBERG: Well, I was going to follow your instructions. And there's one other thing that goes with these two. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Or several other things that went with these two. So I was going to do it all at once. THE COURT: All right. I thought you said you were just going to do a couple more things here. Sounds to me like you've got a lot of stuff -- MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: -- and you're into another area. MR. WEINBERG: We can stop for a break now. I can pick up. THE COURT: It isn't a break. I told you I wanted to get a new pad. I had one page left. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I'm sorry. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. Keep going. I was trying to start and finish in one area, and I thought perhaps we were at a good stopping point, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 432 and you said, "No, I've got one or two questions." MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: Here we are. MR. WEINBERG: Here I am. THE COURT: Here you are. Go on ahead. MR. WEINBERG: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You -- you, Ken Dandar, was the lawyer that was in court doing the argument with regard to the production of tapes from LMT before Judge Moody, correct? A In April, 2000? Q Yes. A Yeah. Because I was already getting clued in onto how abusive this was going to be, and I didn't want to have to spend time and time and time on these depositions. Q But there was a hearing on April the 10th in which Judge Moody essentially ordered that -- that a representative be produced, and that -- that tapes be produced. A A very limited order, which Mr. Moxon was going well beyond his order. That's what these two -- this second memo of 4-21 talks about in the last paragraph. Q Well -- A Or the last two paragraphs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 433 Q Let me just hand up -- THE COURT: It really doesn't matter what all this was. Whatever it is you've got there, if he was there representing LMT, that's the issue, that's the question -- MR. WEINBERG: It is. THE COURT: -- let him explain it if he wants to. MR. WEINBERG: It is. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I'll show you what page to go to. If you go to page -- well, it's the -- page 13, 14, 15, 16 -- A 13. Q -- 17? A Yeah. 13, line 3. I talk about why -- the explanation for the first memo, is because Mr. Moxon went ahead and set this deposition, even though you and I and everybody else involved in the case sat down together to go over our calendars. He just throws out a date that wasn't cleared with anybody. Q Okay. Go to the bottom of 14. This is your argument to Judge Moody. And you're making an argument in behalf of the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct? A No. I'm making an argument on behalf of the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 434 estate, because he's scheduling depositions of people who are not on my witness list, had nothing to do with the Lisa McPherson death case whatsoever. And I am going to make a bet that in this transcript here or somewhere in here we talk about who I'm representing. And I -- I'm pretty sure this is the one where I say I do not represent the LMT. Q Then, on 23, you say, "The only --" I mean, we're talking -- the argument is about this tape. I mean, remember, the tape we're talking about, Mr. Dandar, is the tape that we played a clip from when Ms. Brooks was on the stand, where she and Jesse Prince and Bob Minton and Mark Bunker and someone else was talking about end of cycle. Do you remember that tape? A I saw that tape at this hearing. Q Right. A That was the first time -- Q And that was the tape -- A -- I saw that tape. Q That was the tape that was the subject of this hearing, that you were making an appearance, arguing about. And ultimately that tape, a week or so later, was produced by you from the trunk of your car, or you had it in the trunk of your car at the deposition of Robert Peterson, and shortly thereafter you turned it over to the -- to the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 435 church, pursuant -- to church counsel, pursuant to Judge Moody's order, right? A Judge Moody's order said they had to pay for it first. They refused to do that. That's why I didn't hand it over to them. I'm listening to Judge Moody's order. Q And to make a long story short, you were the person, you were the go-between, you were the representative -- you were the representative that dealt with the Lisa McPherson Trust and their employee over there, Mark Bunker, with regard to turning over this tape that had been ordered pursuant to discovery hearings that had taken place, right? A I was the go-between. Right. That's about the best way to classify it. Q And were you paid for that work that you did, by the Lisa McPherson Trust, Bob Minton or anyone else? A No. Because it all happened at the deposition, where I had to be anyway. Q Okay. And then you did go to -- to Mr. Peterson's depo, right? A Yes, I did. Where Mr. Leipold appeared by phone. Q For Mr. Peterson. A To represent the LMT. Q All right. Let me just hand up to you, if I can, page 22 from the Peterson deposition, April 24th, tell you --------------------------------------------------------------------- 436 to look at page 22. And tell me if that reflects the time of the deposition when you told us -- told the church that you had this tape, that we now know is the tape with the end of cycle, Jesse Prince, on it, in -- in your car. A You know, I can't -- I have no idea what tape I had, all right? You tell me it's the end of cycle video. I don't know that. Q Okay. You had a video of witnesses in the case that had been ordered to be produced by the LMT in this case, right? A After it was paid for, which Mr. Moxon or your client refused to do. We had to go back to court, tell Judge Moody about it. He said, "Pay for the tape that I ordered you to do before." And when, then, the check was presented, and then the Church of Scientology got the video after they complied with the court order. Q Okay. A Wait a minute. All right. Q Okay. MR. WEINBERG: So I'll mark as our next composite exhibit, your Honor -- THE COURT: Mm-hmm. MR. WEINBERG: -- the 4-21-2000 memo from Mr. Dandar to Mr. Moxon, the 4-24-2000 memo from --------------------------------------------------------------------- 437 Mr. Dandar to Mr. Moxon, the transcript of the April 10th hearing, and this few pages from the April 24th, 2000 videotaped deposition of Robert Peterson, which I have not handed to you, but -- THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: You want to look at it real quickly? THE COURT: No. But if you're going to make it part of this exhibit -- are you going to make it -- MR. WEINBERG: Yes, we will. We have to pull it out. And that will be Number 158, composite exhibit. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: At the break, we'll hand you up a -- a copy of -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: -- of the Peterson. THE COURT: Well, it's time to take a break so we'll take it now. My exhibit is not complete. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: We'll be in recess until a quarter till, or at such time as I finish jillions of calls that are on my desk to be returned. (A recess was taken at 10:32 a.m.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 438 (The proceedings resumed at 10:56 a.m.) THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed. MR. WEINBERG: This is the last one, 158-D. It's the last attachment on that 158. THE COURT: Okay. Next week is trial week, so I'll probably have that awful chair back. I imagine Judge Lenderman will -- MR. WEINBERG: What you do is you just put it in your office during the weekend -- THE COURT: Or something. MR. WEINBERG: -- and maybe he won't find it. THE COURT: Right. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I don't understand it. You know, I was the chief judge for six years. You'd think I would have some priority over these chairs. But they just snatch my chairs away. I get no respect anymore. Once you're the past chief judge, nobody cares. Gone. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q What I've just shown you, Mr. Dandar, is part of a transcript before Judge Moody, dated March 22nd, 2000. And refer you to page 97 of the transcript, and refer you to what you said there to Judge Moody. "Okay. I mean I'm here silently thinking that --------------------------------------------------------------------- 439 this is outrage, but I need to speak. I don't represent Mr. Minton. I do represent the Lisa McPherson Trust. Mr. Prince is a volunteer for that trust. I represent him in Pinellas County." That's what you told Judge Moody on March 22nd, 2000. And that is true, that on March 22nd, 2000, in the wrongful death case, you were the lawyer for the Lisa McPherson Trust, right? A I don't think that's -- I think that's out of context to be honest with you. I think -- Where was Judge Penick -- when was his hearing? I mean, we were talking about another case on page 96, trying to put somebody in jail. If you look at 96, 3 through 7 -- I'm not really remembering what that was all about. THE COURT: The long and short of it is you don't dispute the accuracy of the transcript. THE WITNESS: Right. But I think it was talking about Judge Penick -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. I'm going to -- THE WITNESS: -- and the injunction. I mean, I'm not going to read the whole thing -- MR. WEINBERG: All right. Well, we can get the full transcript. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 440 I'm going to mark this, your Honor, as the next exhibit, which is -- THE CLERK: 159. MR. WEINBERG: -- 159. THE WITNESS: What I said is, "I don't represent Mr. Minton. He has no control over the litigation." I don't know what we were talking about. MR. WEINBERG: Now -- now, for the record, your Honor -- and I'll move on to the next subject -- I wanted to mark as my next exhibit the full transcript of Mr. Dandar's speech, snippets of which we have played, one this morning and one earlier when Ms. Brooks was on the stand. And that's the December 4th, 1999 speech to the -- where the media was present, announcing the Lisa McPherson Trust, among other things. And the other snippet we played where Mr. Dandar talked about Mr. Prince and the end of cycle. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: So I'm going to mark that as an exhibit and I'll hand everybody a copy. THE COURT: Mr. Lirot, I presume if you ever have an objection, you'll speak up. This is just coming in. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 441 MR. LIROT: Judge, these all seem to be court transcripts, and we'll just let them speak for themselves. THE COURT: It's not that I'm trying to ignore you. I just assume if you have an objection to anything, you'll let me know. MR. LIROT: I'm here, Judge. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: That'll be the next exhibit, Judge, and then I'll go on. THE CLERK: That's 160? MR. WEINBERG: 160. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, yesterday when we went through those witness lists, we talked about a witness on the witness list named Frank Oliver, who is on your current witness list, correct? A That's correct. Q And -- THE COURT: Would somebody tell me? What do you call him for? THE WITNESS: He's a former OSA member, to talk about his -- how OSA operates. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 442 THE COURT: For what? For what? In the -- in the wrongful death case? THE WITNESS: OSA would have been extremely involved in the Lisa McPherson isolation watch. THE COURT: Okay. So that this is, in other words -- THE WITNESS: And it reports all the way up the line to the very top -- THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: -- which includes Mr. Miscavige. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, I asked you about Mr. Oliver. I asked you if he was connected with the LMT. And I believe you said that you didn't know much about him because he was from Miami. You remember that? A That's not what I said, but -- I said I don't think he had any official position with the LMT. He has a business in Miami that does graphic arts. And I know that for some of the pickets, he did some banners or signs or something. Q Now, what you didn't say is -- A Oh. Q -- is that you, Ken Dandar, actually represented Mr. Oliver in -- before the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, the PSTA, on February 24th, 1999, in a public --------------------------------------------------------------------- 443 hearing involving anti-Scientology bus signs that had been purchased by Mr. Oliver and placed on city or county buses in Pinellas County in the fall or in December of 1998. THE COURT: That sounds like a speech to me. THE WITNESS: Whew. THE COURT: Do you have a question? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is it true -- A What -- Q -- that you represented Mr. Oliver as well as other anti-Scientologists on February 24th, 1999, in a public hearing, with regard to anti-Scientology signs on buses? A Number one, I was not asked that question, if I represented him, in another question. Q Well, just answer that question. A I am. Number two, I believe I represented an organization called Former Scientologists Speaking Out, FSSO, of which Mr. Oliver was a principal. Whether or not that's a corporation or -- or what, I don't know what that is as I'm sitting here today. But I did go and represent that interest, FSSO, for the illegal removal of free-speech banners from chartered buses, which actually resulted in the Pinellas County Bus -- Transit Authority removing all --------------------------------------------------------------------- 444 noncommercial signs from their buses afterwards. THE COURT: Is the answer to the question yes? THE WITNESS: Whew. I'm sorry. THE COURT: That's your explanation, but we don't have an answer to the question. You did represent him at that hearing? THE WITNESS: I did represent him at that hearing, yes. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Yeah. The -- do you remember that the signs -- at that hearing, you were in behalf of this organization and Mr. Oliver, objecting to the removal of the anti-Scientology banners or signs from the buses, correct? A Yes. Under First Amendment rights, that's right. Q And you took the position that under the First Amendment, or whatever amendment, that -- that it was completely appropriate for anti-Scientology signs to be on city or county buses. A Absolutely. Q And you were being paid for this appearance by Mr. Minton? A No. I wasn't paid at all. Q So this was another free appearance? A I felt very strongly about the First Amendment, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 445 yes. Q And -- A The answer is yes. It was free. Pro bono. Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about this? A No. Q The other anti-Scientologists that were part of this group were -- include -- included who? Mr. Prince? Ms. Brooks? A No. No. The only one I recall it includes was Mr. Oliver. There was somebody else. Right now I can't remember who that is. Q Okay. Let me show you -- A It could have been Jeff Jacobsen, but -- No, he's not a former Scientologist. So I don't know who it was. Q And after this Mr. Oliver became not only part of your witness list but part -- became affiliated with the LMT. A What was the date? Q After this, I said. This is -- A No. What was the date of the hearing? Q February, '99. A Well, a year later? Okay. Q Well, so you know when Mr. Oliver became affiliated with the LMT? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 446 A Oh, no. I mean, you said that he -- he was, so I'm assuming you're telling the truth. But that's a year later. Q Let me -- MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, if you'll flip through these signs, can you identify these as the signs that you were objecting to the removal of from the city or county buses? A No. Q Do you remember that these were the signs? A No. Q Well, did you know what signs there were when you appeared for Mr. Oliver at the hearing insisting that they be put back on the buses? A I'm sure I did at the time. Q Do you think these signs are appropriate -- Did you believe that these signs were going to -- to generate the kind of negative publicity that you were looking for to assist in the wrongful death case? A I was never looking for negative publicity in the wrongful death case. As you know, the case was pending in Tampa, Florida at the time, so this would have nothing to do with the case in Tampa, Florida until you moved to bring it to St. Petersburg. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 447 Q So the answer to my question is no, right? A The answer is no. I don't think -- I don't -- I can't say under oath that these are the signs. I see FACTNet, and I don't -- I don't recall FACTnet being involved in this case. Q Well, FACTNet.org is Mr. Minton's company, right? A No. It's a nonprofit. Q That's -- A It's not anybody's company. Q By this time, Mr. Minton has essentially taken over. A Not to my knowledge. Q Well, when did you learn that -- that he took over FACTNet? A I have never learned that he took over FACTNet. THE COURT: You know, if the Church of Scientology is a nonprofit corporation, now, do you want me to start thinking that David Miscavige is -- MR. WEINBERG: No, of course not. THE COURT: Of course not. MR. WEINBERG: And I'll -- THE COURT: And that's why you can't, in fairness, start saying -- MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question differently, because it wasn't a very well-worded --------------------------------------------------------------------- 448 question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q When did you learn that Mr. Minton had become affiliated with FACTNet? A When he gave me the Person of the Year award. Q And that was -- A I have no idea. Q -- in 19 -- at the end of 1998, right? A I have no idea. Whatever it says. Q Or '97, I guess. All right. Well, look at the next to last page of these photos here, of the buses. A Okay. Q "Who really reads your confidential PC folders?" Now, at this point in February of 1999, the only person that you're aware of that was reading confidential PC folders, that were not in the Church of Scientology, was Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks, right? A You know, that's -- you can't connect that to this sign. I mean, come on. Q Well, do you think these signs are appropriate? "Want to leave the Sea Org? We can help." "Don't walk, run." "Quit Scientology," with a dollar sign. A You know, my opinion on what's appropriate is just irrelevant to anything I can think of. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 449 Q Well, I think -- but you know, Mr. Dandar, you're the one that appeared in a public proceeding for a person trying to get these signs back up on buses, at the very time that you were suing Scientology, right? A So what? This is a free-speech issue, that Scientology proclaims that it adheres to and supports. And here they were getting these signs taken down, violating someone else's free speech. Q And it just happened that -- that the free speech in this particular case went hand in hand with what you're doing in your lawsuit? A Not at all. It has nothing to do with Lisa McPherson. As you'll note, there's not one mention of Lisa McPherson on here. Q Okay. Let me -- MR. WEINBERG: Can I approach, your Honor? THE COURT: What was the date of this hearing? MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to show you. It's February 24th, 1999. THE COURT: And where was the lawsuit pending at that time? MR. WEINBERG: Where was it pending? THE COURT: Mm-hmm. MR. WEINBERG: It was in Tampa. THE COURT: Were any of these signs on the bus --------------------------------------------------------------------- 450 in Hillsborough County? MR. WEINBERG: They were in Pinellas County. THE COURT: All right. Then I think that to try to connect these two is a little farfetched. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess, your Honor, it is not exactly a big community. I mean, it's not -- we're talking Pinellas County is -- is -- whatever it is -- THE COURT: Pinellas County is the third largest county, or close to it, in the state of Florida. Hillsborough County is the next largest county. Or it may be just vice-versa. These are both very large counties. And the fact that somebody lives in Hillsborough County does not mean that they've ever seen a Pinellas County bus. MR. WEINBERG: It doesn't. But you know, your Honor, the -- the point really is, is that Mr. Dandar was there, representing people to try to get -- people that were anti-Scientologists to try to get put signs put back up -- THE COURT: I don't think there's any question about that Mr. Dandar did not, at that time, and does not now, have much use for the Church of Scientology. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. But yesterday --------------------------------------------------------------------- 451 when I asked him about Mr. Oliver -- and I can refer to the transcript -- THE COURT: I understand. I'm just simply saying I don't know what the relevance is between signs on a Pinellas County bus trying to influence jurors, when the case was pending in Hillsborough County and all the jurors would be pulled from Hillsborough County. MR. WEINBERG: Well, really, the point was the activities of Mr. Dandar, and particularly the point today was with regard to Mr. Oliver. Which, you know, the transcript is what it is. But my recollection yesterday is Mr. Dandar expressed some lack of knowledge of who Mr. Oliver was, and yet turns out he was representing him in a very public way. THE WITNESS: No. I don't think I ever said I don't know who he is, but the record will speak for itself. THE COURT: If you're trying to introduce these bus pictures, I'm denying them. Basically saying they have no relevance to this case at the time when it was pending -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- in Hillsborough County. I mean, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 452 I realize that Mr. Lirot didn't object. But I've got to tie these -- I just can't have these things stacked to the sky. We just can't have a record that goes on and on and on. MR. WEINBERG: Well, Judge, I understand that. But you know, there's been a lot of very negative stuff that's been put in the case that I certainly don't think has any relevancy to this hearing. THE COURT: He can't identify them, first of all. MR. WEINBERG: Well, that's -- THE COURT: He said he can't say these are the same signs. Secondly, these signs are Pinellas County buses and the case was pending in Hillsborough County. Thirdly, you asked him the question specifically regarding this as whether or not he wanted these signs on the buses to negatively impact the jury. He said no. At this point these have no relevance to this hearing, and therefore they will not be admitted. Maybe later you can tie them up, but you can't now. MR. WEINBERG: What I'd like to do is mark them as an exhibit and put an exhibit number on them. And you've ruled as far as their admissibility. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 453 THE COURT: All right. Number 161. Madam Clerk, those are not in evidence, as are several other things that have been marked -- MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: -- by sides. MR. WEINBERG: And then I've just handed up the official meeting notice and minutes of that hearing, and particularly as it relates to page 12, where the tab is, and 13, which reflect the appearance of Mr. Dandar and what he said. THE COURT: I have no problem with that, based on the fact that he was representing this -- this anti-Scientologist -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- but that the bus pictures have just no relevance -- MR. WEINBERG: That's fine. THE COURT: -- as you referred to them in your own questioning. MR. WEINBERG: All right. And we'll mark this -- we'll have this marked as the next number. THE COURT: Number 162. MR. WEINBERG: And I move that into evidence. And I guess you've received it. THE COURT: Right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 454 MR. LIROT: No objection. THE COURT: Well, hello. By the way, I don't know where these buses were running. I don't think I ever saw them. Of course all I ever do is just pass by the Williams Park, which is where the buses meet. But I don't recall seeing them. MR. WEINBERG: It was controversial at the time, but I don't recall seeing them either. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, again, yesterday, we talked about Jesse Prince and the PC folders -- we actually talked about it again this morning a little bit, in reference to a matter that we talked. And you said he had -- he had done the review for free or for gratis. Now, my question to you is, do you recall that, in Jesse Prince's November 17th, 1999 deposition that I took of Mr. Prince, that he was asked questions about his billings and his billing practices with regard to his activity in the case, from the first involvement, which he said was the PC folders in the fall, until the deposition about a year later? THE COURT: That was an awfully long question. What is your question? Shorter? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 455 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The -- THE COURT: About -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The question is do you remember that Mr. Prince was asked about his billing practices? A Yes. Q And do you remember that Mr. Prince said that he prepared bills and billed you for his time? A I don't remember that. Q All right. Can I play -- A If you need to, if that -- Q Very short. A -- has something to do with -- THE COURT: No. You don't need to play anything. Read it. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, you can play it if you want to, but I'd just as soon you read it if you've got a transcript. MR. WEINBERG: I'd rather -- it's really not that long, and I'd rather -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: I'll do whatever you want. THE COURT: It's hard for my court reporter to --------------------------------------------------------------------- 456 take stuff down. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I was going to give her the transcript. THE COURT: Do whatever you want. MR. WEINBERG: I'd like to play it if possible. THE COURT: All right. (The videotape was played as follows:) Q Other than prepare the two affidavits, review the PC folders, read the amended complaint, attend a few hearings, testify today, what else have you done in the Lisa McPherson case? A You've kind of basically described what I did. I guess I can only say, in addition to that, I have gone through numerous Scientology policies, orders and directives, to discover which ones are applicable to this case in particular, and interpreted them for Mr. Dandar to see if he wants to use. Q Since the fall of 1998, how many hours would your records indicate that you have spent on the Lisa McPherson case? A Just give me a moment. I'm going to answer that. I'm going to say -- this is just a total rough estimate -- maybe 150 hours. Q Okay. A Maybe less. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 457 Q That -- is that reasonably -- is that your best estimate, right as you sit here today -- A As I sit here today. Q -- that you've spent on the case? A Yes. Q Now, how much of that 150 hours have you billed Mr. Dandar for? A Oh, gosh -- (Unknown speaker on the tape, inaudible.) THE COURT: Was that an objection? (On the videotape:) A I'm sorry. I was distracted. Would you please -- (Tape continues to play in the background.) MR. WEINBERG: I don't think so. THE WITNESS: No. Someone was just announcing, I think, Stacy Brooks was in the room. THE COURT: Oh, okay. I couldn't tell what was going on. (The videotape continues as follows:) Q How many of those hours did you bill Mr. Dandar for? A Probably three quarters -- this is just a guesstimate -- Q Right. Well, does he require precision from you as to what he owes you, or do you just sort of make it up as --------------------------------------------------------------------- 458 you go along? A You know, we talked about this earlier. And we have a relationship based on trust, because he appreciates the work that I do. I work very diligently to provide the facts as opposed to opinion and things like that. I think he respects my work. Q So the answer to my question is, he doesn't require precision from you as to how much time you spent on -- on the matter? A The answer to your question is, is he trusts me well enough to when I tell him how much time I'm spending on it, that he doesn't question it. (End of videotape.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is that your recollection of the arrangement that you had with -- with Jesse Prince -- A Yes. Yeah. I trusted. Q -- that he would submit -- I'm sorry. A Yeah. Q -- that he would submit bills to you for his time? A No. That didn't refresh my memory at all about that. What did refresh my memory is that I didn't question him when he said he worked on the case and he needed to be paid, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 459 because I trusted him a hundred percent. THE COURT: How much -- but he was being paid $5,000 a month. THE WITNESS: Well, that's how it came out. That's right. I didn't -- I don't remember seeing a bill, but if you show me something, please, I'll -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, you never produced them. And remember there was a hearing in front of Judge Moody where Mr. Prince was called as a witness, and that very thing came up. And we asked him about his billing, and he said he had the records, but he couldn't find them? Do you remember that? A He had a yellow pad where he wrote down everything that he did, which I have never seen. But that's what he said. But I just paid him 5,000 a month. Q Right. So he didn't break out his time for you. A No. He wrote -- he wrote down his activities of what he did. Q Right, but -- A I didn't require him to submit that pad to me to get paid. Q Right. But when we took his deposition, you announced him as -- as -- as -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 460 THE COURT: If you're trying to do something here to impeach Jesse Prince, it's the wrong time. MR. WEINBERG: I really wasn't trying to do that. THE COURT: Well, it sounds like it. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Because it's very clear he paid him 5,000 a month. If you want to talk to Mr. Prince about it -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- please talk to Mr. Prince about it. MR. WEINBERG: I'll go to the next subject. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, you told the court on a number of -- you've told the court on a number of occasions during this proceeding, Mr. Dandar, and in questions that you've asked to the witnesses, that Vaughn Young, Stacy Young's -- or Stacy Brooks's ex-husband, was actively involved in the first amended complaint that was filed in early December, 1997, correct? A That's right. That's right. Q You said he helped you draft the allegations in that complaint, right? A Concerning Scientology, yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 461 Q And that he sent you drafts of the complaint in the summer of '97? A Well, he sent me drafts of paragraphs of the complaint. Q And then you sent him drafts of the amended complaint before it was filed, correct? A Well, the work product letter that you obtained from Stacy Brooks in May of '97 shows I sent a draft of a amended complaint in May of '97. Other than that, I'm not sure. Q Okay. Now, let me show you -- THE WITNESS: Judge, when something was brought up, may I ask you a question? Do I have to wait till I question someone to find out how they really got that letter? THE COURT: Yes. Well, because you're on the witness stand now, and you can't ask the witness questions, so -- THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: I would think, however, if it's work product, you can continue to object to it. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The first -- I'm going to show you the first amended complaint. And we're going to go over it, some of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 462 it. MR. WEINBERG: And your Honor, you have, I think, in your notebook, the first amended complaint. And I'm going to hand Mr. Dandar a notebook, if I can, and pull out -- I think it's -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And what I'm handing you, Ken -- THE COURT: I'm going to use my old notebook of compendium -- MR. WEINBERG: Right. The one I'm handing Mr. Dandar is number 2. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Just look at it and make sure that's the first amended complaint. I think it is. THE COURT: You give me a minute to find the first amended complaint. MR. WEINBERG: It actually should be the second -- there was only the complaint and the first amended complaint. So it should be number 2. THE COURT: I have it. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, are you able to fairly quickly, flipping through this, tell us what paragraphs Mr. Young drafted for you or shaped for you or whatever it was that he was doing? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 463 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't think that's appropriate. MR. LIROT: I was going to object to that one, even, Judge. THE COURT: Good. I'm glad to hear somebody piping up. That's sustained. That's work product. MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, he -- THE COURT: I sustained it, Counselor. MR. WEINBERG: Can I -- THE COURT: Move on to your next question. MR. WEINBERG: Can I -- THE COURT: No, you may not. It's work product. The objection's been made. It's sustained. MR. WEINBERG: Except that Mr. Dandar testified, when he first appeared in this proceeding, that Vaughn Young helped him draft the complaint -- THE COURT: Counselor, if you didn't object to it, he didn't object to it, I don't care. It's objected to now. It's work product. He does not have to tell you what his consultant did in this case. MR. WEINBERG: But this consultant is a trial --------------------------------------------------------------------- 464 expert that he designated as a trial expert, that we've already taken his trial -- THE COURT: Counselor, do you know the way to Lakeland? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Well, then, go there. I've made my ruling. You know, you just can't have everything your way. And we do the best we can. And we make rulings. And sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. And when we're wrong, take it someplace else and have them tell us. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: I don't want to hear any more about it. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Paragraph 38, on page 15. A I'm looking at it. Q In that paragraph, this is the first time the word "murder" appears. And you say that, "The introspection rundown, even according to L. Ron Hubbard, must be followed strictly, and by Scientology-trained personnel, as defined by Scientology. Otherwise, it can be extremely dangerous, and to those who wish to abuse the introspection rundown, according to L. Ron Hubbard, can be used to murder that --------------------------------------------------------------------- 465 person or cause a person to go completely and utterly insane or to commit suicide." Now, in that complaint, where you said that the introspection rundown can be used to murder that person according to L. Ron Hubbard, can you tell us what proof, evidence you had anywhere in December of 1997, when you -- when that appeared in your complaint, that the introspection rundown, according to L. Ron Hubbard, can be used to murder? THE WITNESS: Is that not work product? THE COURT: I would think so. THE WITNESS: And I also -- I believe we answered umpteen interrogatory answers when you asked for facts to support that. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Can you just answer that question? A Well, I think the court just said it's work product. MR. LIROT: Well, I'll make the objection, Judge. Work product. THE COURT: I mean, this is a first amended complaint. We're dealing in this trial with the fifth amended complaint. Your motion for summary judgment needs to go to the fifth amended complaint. MR. WEINBERG: Well, it does, your Honor. But -- but this is -- he made such a big point when --------------------------------------------------------------------- 466 he was on the stand and cross examining Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton. And Mr. Minton had absolutely nothing to do with the first amended complaint or any of the other complaints in this case. It was Vaughn Young and -- and -- and you know, and -- and these allegations of murder appear for the first time in December of '97. And the question is simple: What's your evidence that the introspection rundown in December of 1997 could be used to murder? THE COURT: And he's objected, and I've sustained the objection. This is the first amended complaint. Has nothing to do with the motion for summary judgment. MR. WEINBERG: It has to do with the misconduct in this case. This proceeding -- THE COURT: What, the lies? This is -- this is -- this is a perjury for Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks? This is a -- has something to do with the agreement between him or Mr. -- he and -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Minton and the estate? Or this has something to do with the money or the loan to Mr. Dandar? Those are the three areas. MR. WEINBERG: That -- those are three general areas. But it has to do with -- with misconduct or --------------------------------------------------------------------- 467 abuse in this case. And if allegations -- I mean, look, the Church of Scientology has spent -- THE COURT: Don't tell me to look. Don't -- MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. THE COURT: Don't ever refer to me in that -- MR. WEINBERG: I obviously didn't mean to -- THE COURT: You do it again -- MR. WEINBERG: I -- THE COURT: -- I will be absolutely furious with you. I won't put up with it. I won't tolerate it. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: The -- the church has spent an awful lot of money fighting allegations from the -- virtually -- from December of 1997, right after Mr. Minton got involved in this case, until today, allegations of murder and misconduct and all of that. And the position that -- that we're taking -- have taken all along is that there never was any evidence of things like, "The introspection rundown can be used, according to L. Ron Hubbard, for murder," or the end of cycle -- THE COURT: I'm interested in the end of cycle. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 468 I think that has some bearing on this case. MR. WEINBERG: Well, but this is -- this is where it first appears, in -- in -- THE COURT: I don't see "end of cycle" in there, Counsel. MR. WEINBERG: No, but it says -- your Honor -- but it says, "The introspection rundown, according to L. Ron Hubbard," can be used to murder that person. That's what it says. THE COURT: We're not on that complaint. We're on the fifth amended complaint. I'd be interested in knowing what he has to prove the fifth amended complaint, not the first one. MR. WEINBERG: Well, let's go back to Mr. Young again, your Honor. THE COURT: Or the second one or the third one or the fourth one. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Vaughn Young -- THE COURT: And that may all have something to do and some bearing, if you get to trial, on your counterclaim. That may be relevant. And if that's relevant, then it's not fair to put him on the stand and have him help prove your case here in court. So that's -- you're not going to get into -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 469 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: You can get into the agreement, you can get into the money, you can get into all these things. You cannot ask him for his work product on a complaint that doesn't exist and a counterclaim that doesn't exist against that complaint. MR. WEINBERG: I -- but -- but your Honor -- THE COURT: I understand you have a difference of opinion with me. MR. WEINBERG: Well, yeah. THE COURT: But I get to make the call. MR. WEINBERG: I -- THE COURT: It's real simple. MR. WEINBERG: And I understand that. But we do have a difference -- I do have a difference of opinion as to when it's work product. This is a civil case and each side is entitled to know the evidence on which the allegations are based. THE COURT: And I understand that. And you get to do that through all kinds of different ways. We're in a long proceeding here, that's taking up an awful lot of my time. I'm on day 17. This is not the way, and I don't have to preside over that. You may do that through some other fashion. You may not do that in this hearing, which is to dismiss the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 470 fifth amended complaint -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- and to remove Mr. Dandar from -- the lawyer, from the fifth amended complaint. I don't care about the first amended complaint. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You attended Vaughn Young's deposition that I took in December of 1999, correct? A Yes. Q And this was after you had announced to the court that he was going to be one of your testifying expert witnesses, right? A Yes. Q And you told the court that he was very ill and it was necessary that you preserve his testimony for trial, even though a trial wasn't scheduled at that point, right? A That's true. And it's still true today. Q And -- A He's still very ill. Q And the way it worked is, first, Judge Moody allowed me to take his deposition for discovery, and then, a few weeks later, you were allowed to take his deposition for trial purposes, correct? A That's correct. Q And you remember in the deposition that I took of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 471 Mr. Young, that I asked him about the work that he had done on the case, including his participation if any with regard to drafting parts of the amended complaint, participating with regard to discussing the addition of David Miscavige or anything like that, right? A I assume that. I -- you say it, I assume you're correct. Q Okay. I'm going to -- A I don't know. Q -- play now -- I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm going to play now what Mr. Young said, and then I'm going to ask you how you can square what Mr. Young said, when you were there as -- as your trial expert, at -- against what you have testified under oath in this proceeding. THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think that's appropriate either. THE COURT: I don't either, but I'm not -- I told you you can't do the objecting. You're the witness. (The videotape was played as follows:) Q Well, what -- tell me about the -- the next conversation that you remember you had with Mr. Dandar. A Well, he first -- he came -- he flew up to see us --------------------------------------------------------------------- 472 and met with us. Q He flew to Seattle. A Yes. Q Was anybody with him? A No. Q Did he send anything before he came? A No. Q Did he send you a copy of the complaint? A No. Q Did he send you a copy of any proposed amendments to the complaint? A No. Q Excuse me? A No. Q Did he send you any records that -- from the case? A No. Q Did he give you any discovery from the case? A No. Q When he came to Seattle, did he show you a copy of the complaint? A No. Q Did he review with you any documents from the case? A No. Q Did he review with you any proposed amendments to --------------------------------------------------------------------- 473 the complaint? A No. Q Did Mr. Dandar -- in his telephone conversation that you had prior to going to Seattle, did he speak with you about the prospects of adding David Miscavige as a party defendant to the case? A No. Q Did you receive any communication from Mr. Dandar, before his visit to Seattle, with regard to potentially adding David Miscavige as a party defendant to the case? A No. Q As far as you know, did Stacy have any such communication or correspondence from Mr. Dandar with regard to adding David Miscavige to the -- to the case as a party defendant? A As far as I know, no. (Videotape playing in background.) THE COURT: Of course we know that's inaccurate. (Videotape:) Q Do you remember receiving -- (Live court:) THE COURT: I'm tired of hearing this. Turn it off. This is ludicrous. This is putting in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 474 deposition testimony into this hearing from a witness who's not here, who may be here later. Ask him questions, and you may impeach him from something he said. You can't just keep playing these depositions. MR. WEINBERG: This does impeach him, first of all. And secondly, this is his witness, his expert. Our position is that throughout this case, Mr. Dandar has elicited false testimony from a variety of people. And in this case, this is his expert witness. And what you're going to hear on this tape is that -- is that Vaughn Young says exactly diametrically opposed to what Mr. Dandar swore under oath here. He said, "I had nothing to do with an amended complaint. I didn't -- I didn't do any --" THE COURT: Then bring Mr. Young here. If you think for one minute that I'm going to take the deposition testimony -- some little blip that you pulled out of the deposition testimony and introduce it somehow into this record as impeachment of him, ain't gonna happen. MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor. It -- it is twofold. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 475 Number one, we -- we have said that in this case Mr. Dandar participated in the elicitation -- in the -- in the -- in eliciting false testimony from a variety of people, not just Mr. Minton. This is his trial expert. That's number one. THE COURT: What are you saying, he elicited false information from him? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I am. THE COURT: Oh, all right. THE WITNESS: Not in any motion. THE COURT: No. MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: I guess that's something for another day. MR. WEINBERG: You know, Judge -- I mean, this is -- this is a proceeding where we -- where we sat and listened to a lot of cross examination of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, and now we have Mr. Dandar. We have suggested -- and you've said that we have -- we have a very heavy burden. You have suggested -- I mean, we have suggested that Mr. Dandar should be disqualified for his misconduct in this case. And part of his misconduct, I would say in his case -- and when you see this. And we can give you --------------------------------------------------------------------- 476 the entire deposition. But when you see what Mr. Young said, with Mr. Dandar sitting there and Ms. Brooks sitting there, and no corrections from Mr. Dandar, it is completely the opposite -- the opposite -- what Mr. Dandar has said under oath. And so they both can't be right. Somebody is lying, and somebody is -- is -- is possibly telling the truth. But they're both not -- they're diametrically opposed. And -- and for Mr. Dandar to -- to -- THE COURT: And that might mean that Mr. Dandar is doing something wrong in this hearing. That would have nothing to do as to whether there's an agreement between these parties; it would have nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Dandar suborned perjury; it would have nothing to do with whether or not there is a loan to him or a loan to the estate and whether there's anything wrong with that; and it would have nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige, who wasn't added till the fifth amended complaint, was done by some inappropriate means. MR. WEINBERG: Our -- THE COURT: I mean, it's your motion. I'm --------------------------------------------------------------------- 477 trying to deal with the motion that you filed. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I understand. But we also -- I mean, we also, I believe, are -- are allowed to impeach Mr. Dandar's credibility. He's gone to great lengths to impeach the credibility of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, and I'm sure anybody else that we call as witnesses in this case. And if we call Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling, he will be allowed to try to impeach their credibility. In this case, on the first day of the proceeding, he took the stand, and in that first hour, he said, among other things, Minton -- Mr. Minton didn't have anything to do with the first amended complaint. He said it. He brought it up. It was Vaughn Young. Vaughn Young did all this and Vaughn Young did all that. THE COURT: You didn't object. I can't help it. MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, I don't think I have to object when Mr. Dandar is saying completely opposite from what Mr. Young said. What I was planning on doing, which I am doing, is impeaching him. And I think I'm allowed to do that. I mean, it -- it is -- his credibility is -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 478 is -- is at issue in this case. And we say that he has, A, committed misconduct in the case, but B, I say he's testified falsely in the case. And I'm showing -- THE COURT: He's not supposed to be a witness in this case. He's a lawyer in this case. You're trying to disqualify him as the lawyer, not as an impeachable witness -- MR. WEINBERG: But he's the one -- THE COURT: -- in this case. MR. WEINBERG: Remember -- I'm sorry, your Honor. He's the one -- THE COURT: No, you're not. You're just continuing to go on and on, and apparently want to have your way. And it isn't going to happen. I have said this is inappropriate at this time and for this hearing. It isn't going to happen. MR. WEINBERG: He took -- THE COURT: You're not going to play it anymore. It's done. Move on. I mean, I heard Mr. Dandar say Mr. Young's going to be a witness. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: So if you want to get down -- let's --------------------------------------------------------------------- 479 see what Mr. Young says. And if Mr. Young says something different from what he said in his deposition, you may impeach Mr. Young from it. You cannot impeach Mr. Dandar from Mr. Young's deposition. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess that's where -- THE COURT: Well, take it up. Go somewhere else with it. I've made a ruling and it's time to move on. Just real simple. THE WITNESS: Judge, let me tell you about Mr. Young. He does have a lot -- THE COURT: I mean, if he can't come -- if Mr. Young -- I mean, I'm assuming Mr. Young is coming. I've been told Mr. Young is coming. He is going to be a witness. I'm not going to hear Mr. Young's deposition now, then hear from Mr. Young, then have some more of his deposition. If Mr. Young doesn't come as a witness and you want to put his deposition in because he's an unavailable witness, you may put his deposition in at this time. Right now what I have simply ruled, you cannot impeach him by playing a deposition in this courtroom of some other witness. It ain't gonna happen. MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, a second. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 480 THE WITNESS: I am -- THE COURT: There's nothing more to say. Move on. I get to make rulings. I've made one. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Mr. Dandar, is Mr. Young coming? A The best of my ability, he is coming. He does have cancer. It has progressed tremendously since this deposition. He's still alive, and he did tell me that he is coming. As soon as I figure out when. Based upon -- THE COURT: Is he the one you wanted to be able to come at some special time or is that somebody else? THE WITNESS: No. That's someone else. Peter Alexander I'm trying to get this week, because he's gone next week. THE COURT: Well, we'll see if he comes. If he comes and you want to play his deposition, then, as a separate witness, to show impeachment or to show some contrary testimony to this witness, you may do that. You may not impeach this witness from the deposition testimony of another witness. And don't try it in the trial either. If we get to trial. You can't do it. You can't do it. THE WITNESS: Judge, if you want just a point of reference, that paragraph 38 in the first amended --------------------------------------------------------------------- 481 complaint, that language, the entire paragraph, is not in the fifth amended complaint. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. This is a letter that you spoke of a few minutes ago, the letter -- A This is one I object to on work product. That's right. Q The letter to Mr. Young. All right. THE COURT: Well, it's already in the record, is it not? THE WITNESS: You admitted it, Judge, I objected. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q It's Defendant's Exhibit 73. And what I'm going to do is show you a series of documents about how this -- about -- MR. WEINBERG: And this has to do with Mr. Dandar, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q -- series of documents where -- where we requested -- Oh, let me just ask you specific questions. You understand that when an expert witness is designated as a trial testifying expert, that each side is --------------------------------------------------------------------- 482 required to produce communications between that testifying expert and counsel. And we've done that through the case, whether it's Dr. Spitz or -- or Dr. Baden or Dr. Wecht or Dr. Coe. We've produced all the communications between counsel and the witness prior to the deposition or at the deposition, correct? A You -- Q Yes? A You say so. I mean, I don't know -- Q Well, you don't disagree with that statement, do you? A I don't know if you produced all of it. I know you don't have to produce work product, mental impressions. You produce facts that the expert is relying upon, but not everything, though. Q Well, we have -- you produced, for example, in Dr. Bandt and Dr. Coe's deposition, various documents that they prepared just for you with regard to issues in the case, and we did the same -- A Yeah. Q -- as far as Dr. Wecht and Baden. A I'm sorry. That's different than this letter of May 2nd. Q How is that different? A Well, this is my letter. This isn't prepared by --------------------------------------------------------------------- 483 the expert. Q All right. Well, let me show you -- let's go through these. A I'd still like to know how you got it. Q Let me go through these. Okay. Now, you recall that the first deposition of Mr. Young was taken by me on December 21st and 22nd, and the trial deposition was taken by you on January 20th and 21st of the next year, which was 2000, correct? A I assume you're right, yes. Q Okay. And do you remember that prior to that deposition, Mr. Young or you, in behalf of Mr. -- Mr. Young, but on you, were served as a subpoena duces tecum for -- for various documents. Do you remember that? A No. But I'm sure that's right. Q And do you remember that there was an emergency motion with regard to that concerning the production of all those records, including communications and agreements between you and Mr. Young and/or Ms. Young. Do you -- do you remember that? A I'm sure that's right. I don't remember it, but I'm sure you're right. Q And do you remember that as a result of the subpoena and that emergency motion, you faxed to me responses to expert interrogatories -- this is the day --------------------------------------------------------------------- 484 before the deposition of -- your trial deposition of Mr. Young -- and all the communications that you supposedly had with Mr. Young. Do you remember that? A No. But I assume you're correct. Q And do you remember that at the deposition on January 20th and 21st, we actually talked about, on the record, you and me, about this fax, and your response to the subpoena. Do you remember that? A I assume you're correct. Q All right. A That's all I can say. Q Let me -- A I don't doubt you. Q Okay. Well, what I'm going to do is hand you up a series of documents. And we're going to go through them. And my question is going to be, in light of all that, why didn't you produce the May, 1997 letter, first letter, between you and the Youngs? A I'm not sure this is the first letter. I can't say that under oath. Q Well -- A And number two, I can't say -- although this is a letter from my office, for sure, that's work product, I'd have to see your request, and then I would have to actually go back to my office and see if a copy of this letter is in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 485 my file. Q All right. Well, we're going to go over it. A I -- THE WITNESS: I still would request the court to make them tell us right now on the record how they got this letter, since Ms. Brooks kind of wavered on it. But I'll -- I guess I'll have to call Mr. Moxon to the stand then. THE COURT: Well, I think what Ms. Brooks said is that she -- they had the letter. I already told you that it appears to me -- she says she didn't give it to them, my recollection. THE WITNESS: She said at first she did. In fact, she said she flew to Atlanta to get it. THE COURT: The testimony will speak for itself. My -- my thought was that she was implying that they had gotten it in some illegal or inappropriate fashion. That's what I thought she was implying. THE WITNESS: That was the second thing she said. That's right. THE COURT: Well -- THE WITNESS: You started to question her how could she possibly give over a work product letter to the opposing side, and then she backed off and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 486 she said that they already had it and -- THE COURT: Now, what does this have to do with? Is this like a motion for sanctions or what? You think I'm going to terminate the case because he didn't send you something? MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor -- THE COURT: I mean, for goodness sakes, there've been a jillion, skillion motions to compel or discovery of all kinds of things by either side. Are we going to go through a whole host of things and then determine whether or not he should have sent you this or not, in a motion to terminate; sanctions? MR. WEINBERG: There's a few things -- And yes, this is an important thing. When -- when you see what the record is -- this is the last thing -- and what Mr. Dandar has said, what he said at the time and what he said on the record, yes. THE COURT: All right. Well, I do see something in here about Mr. Miscavige, so that does have some bearing on the fifth amended complaint, so I'll have to read this. It's been a while since I've seen it. THE WITNESS: Of course, the fifth amended --------------------------------------------------------------------- 487 complaint wasn't filed then, but -- MR. WEINBERG: Well -- MR. LIROT: Judge, where are you reading? THE COURT: I'm reading some letter that came from Mr. Dandar, that the -- that he didn't provide to the Church of Scientology. I don't believe Ms. Brooks said she did -- that the Church of Scientology has and is using regularly. MR. LIROT: And the date on the letter, your Honor? THE COURT: May 2nd, 1997. MR. LIROT: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Well, should we not then ask it to be removed from the file, since it's inappropriately obtained by the Church of Scientology? THE COURT: I don't know if it's inappropriately obtained or not. THE WITNESS: Oh. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. Now, just quickly through here, the first document -- THE COURT: I mean, I don't even know. Did you object when the letter was -- THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 488 THE COURT: -- introduced? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Mr. Dandar -- THE COURT: Then it's in the record. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: If you objected and I let it in the record, then it's in and it'll stay in. THE WITNESS: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The first document is a subpoena duces tecum asking for all documents, communications with regard to any letters, facsimiles, Internet postings, written agreements and e-mails. Do you see that? A Yes. Q And that is dated January 20th, 2000. A Yes. Q Right before the deposition of Mr. -- your trial deposition of Mr. Young, correct? A Yes. Q And -- A So you -- Q -- the next time -- A You didn't ask for this before his discovery deposition? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 489 Q Could I just -- A I'm sorry. Q -- go on? A I'm sorry. I just need to get a reference point. Q The second document is a defendant Kartuzinski emergency request for expedited production of documents, that was filed on January 19th with regard to, among other things, communications and/or agreements with -- with the Youngs -- do you see that -- including letters, facsimiles et cetera. A Yes. Q You see that? And the next document is a fax from you to me which has your responses to Mr. Young's expert interrogatories. This is dated the day before the deposition on January 19th, 2000, is that right? A I -- I missed that one. Which one's that? Q The next document. That's your fax here. A My fax -- I think you gave me two of the Kartuzinski's emergency -- Q Okay. A -- requests. Q I didn't give you the fax? A And I have the fax. Answers to interrogatories -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 490 Q And you attached -- A Letters. Q -- letters. And the letters start, if you go in the back -- the first letter is June 30th, 1997; August 1, '97; August 13, '97; August 20, '97; September 8th, '97; October 2nd, '97; October 30, '97; November 7, '97; December 10th, '97. And in that letter you say, "Church of Scientology just released the attached notes. You can see that Lisa was in isolation, baby watch, apparently in June, July and August of '95 and then in ethics. Her chiropractor put her in treason for going to another doctor without telling her first. That doctor is --" (The reporter asked counsel to repeat.) THE COURT: I have no idea what he's saying. You're going so fast and rattling so fast that absolutely -- my court reporter can't take it down. I have no idea what you're taking about. If you could slow down a little, it would be helpful to all of us. THE WITNESS: I apologize. That was OT8. MR. LIROT: What are you referring to? MR. WEINBERG: I'm referring to the exhibits. (A discussion was held off the record.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 491 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q "You can see that Lisa was in isolation, i.e., baby watch, apparently, in June, July, and August, 1995 and then in ethics. Her chiropractor put her in treason for going to another doctor without telling her first. That doctor is OT8. Attached also is some items of interest which I gleaned from these notes." Well, wouldn't you consider that work product? A No. These are documents you produced. Q Then there's a January 5th, 1998 letter, an April 3rd, 1998 letter, in which you asked him for advice as to his thoughts. And that was turned over to us, right? A Sure. Q Before the depo. A There's nothing work product about any of these letters. Q Okay. And then we go to the depo. Which is -- THE COURT: I don't think I even see what -- whatever it was you were reading from that included notes. THE WITNESS: December 10th. MR. WEINBERG: I was reading in reverse order, but it was the December 10th letter right here. It would be toward the beginning. He put them in reverse order so the -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 492 THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: And that's OT8 at the end of the paragraph. THE COURT: The doctor is OT8. MR. WEINBERG: OT8. THE COURT: That must be some -- THE WITNESS: That's as high as you can go. THE COURT: As a doctor. THE WITNESS: No. As a Scientologist. MR. WEINBERG: It's on the bridge. It's a -- it's a -- it's an advancement. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And then let me refer you to Mr. Young's deposition. THE COURT: The OT8 has nothing to do with the doctor, then, I guess. That's just a person who is -- MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: It could be a doctor, it could be somebody else. This person just happens to be a doctor. MR. WEINBERG: Dr. Minkoff happens to be a Scientologist who has achieved OT8. THE COURT: Okay. A Well, this is a chiropractor, this is someone --------------------------------------------------------------------- 493 else. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. Whoever you were talking about. A Jeanne Decuypere. Q Let me refer you to the transcript of the Vaughn Young deposition, page 669. And this section I'm going to go over with you is where we discussed what we just went over here. And on page 669 -- and I'll read slowly. "Okay. And then we got a fax with 13 pages, including the cover page, that was a one-page response to interrogatories that was handwritten out. And is that -- this is the response to the expert interrogatories. That's what it is. "Mr. Dandar: That -- that's correct, signed by me, notarized. "Mr. Weinberg: Okay. I guess it came in this afternoon, right around 3. "Mr. Dandar: Okay. "Mr. Weinberg: And then there are 11 letters. "Mr. Dandar: Right. "That go from June 30th, 1997 until April 3rd, 1998, which purports to be correspondence between you and your office and the Youngs, is that correct? "Mr. Dandar: I think they're mostly Vaughn Young, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 494 but they speak for themselves. Those are all the documents in the world that exist between my office and Robert Vaughn Young. And if you want to throw Stacy Brooks into this, the former Stacy Young, that would include her too. Because I don't think that unless something says it's addressed to her, there wouldn't be anything to her. "Mr. Weinberg: My question to you is, was there any correspondence between May of '97 between your office and either of the Youngs or both of the Youngs? "Mr. Dandar: If it's not in front of you, it doesn't exist, never was. "Mr. Weinberg: So you're not withholding anything. "Mr. Dandar: Oh, no, no. "Mr. Weinberg: If somebody did a search of your records -- "Mr. Dandar: Yeah. We have a file called Robert Vaughn Young. That's where everything is kept. "Mr. Weinberg: Because my recollection is, that the testimony indicated that the communications were earlier than June 30th, 1997." That's the date of the first letter you gave us. "And that there was some communication in May. And so my question is, are you sure? "Mr. Dandar: Well, here's one on June 30th. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 495 Let's just say to the best of my ability at this moment in time, this is it." Now, if you turn to -- Wait a minute -- okay. If you turn to 674, line 7. Me: "I'm handing you a subpoena which calls for the production of documents, including the ones that we just -- "Mr. Dandar: Is this something new? "Mr. Weinberg: Yeah. It's something new, since this is an emergency and we've got to go forward. And if I give you, Ken, a subpoena for Stacy Young, will you accept it? "Mr. Dandar: Sure. Go ahead. Just expedite everything." And then on 675, Mr. Weinberg, line 9: "Ken, again, it's been a while since I looked at Mr. Young's testimony, but I just want to make sure, is it your representation that there is no -- that you never -- that there is no correspondence where you sent Mr. Young or Ms. Young -- in 1997 time period I'm talking about -- copies of a proposed complaint in order to -- I mean, a proposed amended complaint to add parties? "Mr. Dandar: If it's not here -- "Mr. Weinberg. But I'm asking you. And I see --------------------------------------------------------------------- 496 that it's not there. "Mr. Dandar: Well, then, I didn't do it. I mean, I'm -- I'm sure not testifying today, but I would respond to you that if it's not here, no, we didn't do that." Mr. Weinberg, on 676: "And is it your testimony, Mr. Young, that you never got a proposed amended complaint --" THE COURT: I don't want to hear from Mr. Young. MR. WEINBERG: Oh, this is Mr. -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's -- "Mr. Dandar --" then there's an exchange. And I just didn't want to leave that out. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: "Mr. Dandar: And also --" this is on line 6. "And also, you know, make sure we're clear. That was a totally different question. "You just asked him if I sent him a proposed complaint in the '97 time frame. "Mr. Dandar: To add Miscavige? "Mr. Weinberg: Right. "Mr. Dandar: Right. No. But that was a different question than you asked. "Well, I'll ask you the same question." All right. Well, that just sort of -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 497 A Well -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And these are questions -- so the rest is Mr. Young. A Do you have a question? Q My question to you is, when you indicated to me at the deposition that you weren't asserting any privilege, you weren't withholding any documents at that time on work product or anything else, so why didn't you produce the May 2nd, '97 letter, which is apparently the first communication you ever had with Mr. Young? A I don't know. I mean, I'm assuming -- I'm pretty darn sure the May 2nd, '97 letter, which you obtained somehow, is from me to Stacy and Vaughn Young. I said we went and looked in the Vaughn Young file, and we've produced everything that was in the file. Had I known you were going to question me about this today, had you told me yesterday, I would have went back to my office to see where this May 2nd, '97 letter is, if I do have it. Things do disappear from my office from time to time. But this amended complaint that you asked Mr. Young about on 676 -- you asked him if he had a complaint that had Miscavige on as a party. And Miscavige was not on as a party in the first amended complaint. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 498 Q But you intended -- I mean, remember, we entered in this agreement. You told us you were going to add him as a party in 1997. And that was -- that resulted in the agreement which is the subject of the breach of contract which was entered literally on the day, or signed on the day that the first amended complaint was filed. Otherwise you would have added him as a party, correct, in '97. A That was my intention. But there's no complaint that was sent, as far as I know, to Mr. Young or Stacy Young in '97, that showed David Miscavige as a defendant. Now, granted, if you can show me something from me that refreshes my memory to the contrary, I'll look at it, but I'm looking at the May 2nd, '97 letter; I'm looking at this deposition, page 676, of Mr. Young. And I think he answered your question, if I'm not -- did he? Q Well, I -- I wouldn't -- THE COURT: I'm not interested in Mr. Young. I'm interested in what you did or didn't do. THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. THE COURT: You seem to suggest that this letter, May -- if I understood that -- although he was going too fast, but he finally slowed down -- that this letter was not included as one of the letters that you were suggesting existed in this --------------------------------------------------------------------- 499 case. THE WITNESS: That's right. I'm looking at his fax -- my fax to him. It's not there. I'm looking at the Young deposition, page 669, where I say that I went and looked and I've given him everything that's in the file. And I also said that, "At this time, that's the best I can do," on page 670, 671. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q But you also said -- just so it's clear, because you've accused us of having your work product -- as of January the 20th or 21st, 2000 when Mr. Young's deposition was going forward, you weren't asserting a work product objection to withhold any documents between you -- communications between you and Mr. Young, correct? That's what you said in that record -- A Well -- Q -- that we just went through. A -- yeah. Just in the record we went through, that's correct. Q All right. So -- THE COURT: Of course, this wasn't part of -- I think what he's trying to say and what you're trying to say, he's saying he's not including this. So either he had it and didn't disclose it to you or it wasn't in his file when he went to get it and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 500 therefore he didn't even remember he had it. It's one of the two. MR. WEINBERG: All right. That may be. Except -- THE WITNESS: That's -- MR. WEINBERG: -- it's the first communication that he had with the Youngs. It has Mr. Miscavige's name in it. That was a big issue in -- right after -- right at this time, in early January of 2000, late 1999. Because in the fall, your Honor, of 1999 -- THE COURT: Well, this is in 2000, right? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. It's January, 2000. And -- THE COURT: And presumably this fax or whatever -- When was that? MR. WEINBERG: January of 2000. THE COURT: Okay. So I mean -- MR. WEINBERG: Well, I -- THE COURT: -- there really isn't any big deal here. Either Ken wasn't giving you the straight story and he had this and he was lying about it or you stole it from his office, and he didn't have it. It's just one or the other. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 501 MR. WEINBERG: Well, we didn't steal it from his office. THE COURT: Well, somebody stole it from his office. MR. WEINBERG: All right. We didn't steal it from his office. And -- THE COURT: I'm -- I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean you. Don't misunderstand that. MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, the -- THE COURT: I hope you know I -- MR. WEINBERG: I know you're not accusing me of that, but -- THE WITNESS: Well, there's a third option. MR. WEINBERG: Could I -- THE WITNESS: The third option -- MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Could I -- THE WITNESS: -- is I lost it. MR. WEINBERG: -- address -- your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, it has to be one or the other. He's lying about it and he didn't give it to you, and that's why it's not in here, and he intentionally kept it and didn't disclose it to you all, when he should have. Or he should have said, "There is something else I'm not giving to you. I'm going to do a privilege log because it's -- it's --------------------------------------------------------------------- 502 work product," or whatever he thought it was. "So yeah, I have more, but I'm not giving it to you." MR. WEINBERG: Right. THE COURT: So that -- MR. WEINBERG: That's his obligation. THE COURT: That's his obligation. MR. WEINBERG: And -- THE COURT: So either he lied to you, he knew he had this and he did not give it to you and he's intentionally lying, or when he went to do this and looked in his file, he didn't have this. Which means that it was either A, lost, or B, taken by someone, or C, shredded or somehow or other it was missing. Those are the only explanations. MR. WEINBERG: I understand. And I don't believe he was -- I believe that he was not telling the truth intentionally. You know what -- A And the reason is, your Honor, in the fall of 1999, regard to the fifth amended complaint, first time around he wasn't able to add Mr. Miscavige because of the contract. The second time around, which was argued on December 14th, 1999, in front of Judge Moody, Mr. Dandar used -- THE COURT: What was that meeting, December of '99 -- the second time around it was argued in front --------------------------------------------------------------------- 503 of Judge Moody. This is backing up from this 2000 thing. MR. WEINBERG: It is. But I want to explain -- THE COURT: What was being argued? To add Mr. Miscavige? MR. WEINBERG: Under the Sea Org theory. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: And that's -- and what emanated from that was the fifth amended complaint that was actually filed -- THE COURT: The one we're dealing with. MR. WEINBERG: -- on January 20th. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: They actually filed, as it turns out, date-stamped, on the very day that we're taking Vaughn Young's depo, okay? Now, that -- what happened in that hearing, my recollection is -- and I'll ask him about it, but I want to tell you why this is important -- is that -- is that Mr. Dandar -- after Mr. Miscavige wasn't allowed to be added in October, Mr. Dandar said that this was all new to him; that he had found out new stuff -- new stuff about the Sea Org and the organization, the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology, that would allow him to add --------------------------------------------------------------------- 504 Mr. Miscavige under this different theory. And he said the new information that he had was -- was -- was Jesse Prince. Well, the truth of the matter was -- is that -- is that, according to Mr. Dandar's testimony, Mr. Young, back in 1997, had already gone over that stuff with him. And there was a letter in May of '97 where Mr. Dandar was already talking about adding David Miscavige. And what happened was -- is that it was -- it would have been very uncomfortable for Mr. Dandar, in -- with Mr. Young's depo, which was being taken out of turn because of his cancer thing, for Mr. Young to be saying right at the time that Mr. Dandar was being allowed to add David Miscavige under this so-called new information, to -- for us to have learned that in fact there was nothing new about it and that he already had this information. And it should have been brought out, if it was going to be brought out, a long time before. And so my belief is -- is that this was intentionally withheld; it was intentionally withheld because it would have -- it would have been -- it would have been very illuminating to know that, as early as May of 1997, they were talking --------------------------------------------------------------------- 505 about Mr. -- that there were complaints going back and forth between Mr. Young and Mr. Dandar, and they were talking about adding Mr. Miscavige. And there would have been a lot more questions that we would have been asking Mr. Young about if in fact we had -- we had known that. Or we'd have gone to Judge Moody. But we didn't. THE COURT: Counsel -- MR. WEINBERG: So that's not fair. THE COURT: -- was not the basis for adding Mr. Miscavige at the fifth amended complaint stage that he had just learned about this or was it he had just learned about the Sea Org theory? MR. WEINBERG: He said he had just learned about the hierarchy, including the Sea Org. THE WITNESS: Well -- MR. WEINBERG: That's what he said. THE WITNESS: I -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Right? Is that correct? A I'm sorry. Is that a question? Q Yes. A Thank you. No. First amended complaint -- take a look at the first amended complaint and you will see Mr. Miscavige named --------------------------------------------------------------------- 506 in the paragraphs 12, 16 and 18. But I didn't name him as a defendant at that time. And I guess I should have went ahead and just did it. But I didn't do it until I met with Jesse Prince, and then I got a lot of more evidence than I ever had before. THE COURT: Well, it doesn't really answer the question. The question that he is trying to suggest is that this -- this -- and as I said, the options are still exactly the same as they were before: You had an obligation either to produce this or to say, "I've got some other stuff and I'm not producing it because it's privileged." THE WITNESS: That's right. I agree with you a hundred percent. THE COURT: Right. So either you knew you had this and you deliberately withheld it and lied when you were talking on that deposition, or you didn't have it, and when you went through your stuff, it wasn't there, and you forgot about it, since it was dated May 2nd of 1997. It's one of those. THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: If you didn't have it, your office either lost it, somebody stole it, or you threw it --------------------------------------------------------------------- 507 away deliberately. I mean, there are just very few options here that exist. THE WITNESS: Or it was misplaced. THE COURT: Or it was misplaced. THE WITNESS: The lying part is not an option for me. There's no need to lie about this letter. So that's not an option. It's either it was in a different file or it was somewhere else; it was gone from my office, it was misplaced or it was thrown away. But lying is not an option for me. THE COURT: Well, no. It is not a very good option for you, that's for sure. But you understand what he is saying as to why it makes sense that you are lying about it. THE WITNESS: Why -- it doesn't make sense, though. I'm just saying -- THE COURT: Well, then you didn't understand him. THE WITNESS: No. I understood him. THE COURT: All right. And so you've made your point, and I think it's time that we go have lunch. MR. WEINBERG: And I was going to a new area anyway, so that's perfect. THE COURT: What's that? MR. WEINBERG: I was going to a new area --------------------------------------------------------------------- 508 anyway, so that's perfect. THE COURT: All right. It's time for lunch. And it's 10 after. And we'll be in recess until 1:30. And I really need to go. I don't need anymore. I got to -- I need to take some time. What do you want? MR. FUGATE: I just want -- THE COURT: Make it quick. MR. FUGATE: I just want the copy that you put in the trash of the motion -- or the response that I filed because I found I gave you my courtesy copy. That's it. THE COURT: This? I'm not giving it back. MR. FUGATE: Never mind. I'll get -- THE COURT: Can you get another one? MR. FUGATE: That's fine. I'll just -- (A recess was taken at 12:13 p.m.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 509 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, 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. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 6th day of June, 2002. ______________________________ DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR | | | -===+=====_/(T)\_=====+===- | |/.\| | `-|\_/|-' WWJD? -- Best Regards, Keith ====================================================================== http://n6jpa.home.attbi.com/ Win32 Freeware & NW OR Radio Page ======================================================================