From: nospam@!.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Dandar 5-30-02 vol5 (reformatted) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 7664 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.29.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1023843699 12.225.29.45 (Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:01:39 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:01:39 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:01:39 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!central.cox.net!cox.net!news-east.rr.com!wn2feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1524924 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 510 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 5 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., Defendants. _______________________________________/ PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. CONTENTS: Testimony of Kennan Dandar. DATE: June 5, 2002. Afternoon Session. PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building St. Petersburg, Florida. BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR. Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 511 APPEARANCES: MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorneys 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. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. MR. BRUCE HOWIE 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. Attorney for Robert Minton. MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 512 THE COURT: Okay. I said we would take up in plaintiff's motion to abate dissemination of any portion of the film The Profit. And I was handed shortly before I came into court Stacy Brooks' opposition to motion today. Mr. Howie, are you here for Mr. Minton on this? MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. I have just read the motion to abate. And I'm here on behalf of Mr. Minton, because he's named as a potential injunctee in that case. THE COURT: Okay. I show that you were served. But it may be that they were served by mail, is that right? MR. LIROT: Judge, they should have had a copy faxed to their offices. I haven't been there all day. I wasn't able to check on that. THE COURT: But I see Mr. McGowan is noticed. Yes, Bruce Howie, so I guess it is en route. MR. McGOWAN: I have not seen it until lunch. I -- I have not seen it -- THE COURT: Okay. We'll make this fairly brief. I have read the motion. MR. LIROT: We can, Judge. I think that you are aware -- just to give you a little bit of historical statement here, this issue first came up --------------------------------------------------------------------- 513 before Judge Beach. There was a subpoena that was issued to Ms. Greenway, who I know you know, and Mr. Alexander, seeking a variety of records and things showing the funding. And what we asserted was privileged trade secret, that was important to ensure the commercial vitality of the film, if you give all of the information out, somebody that doesn't want you to be successful in distributing the film. We filed a motion for protective order. We had a hearing in front of Judge Beach, and Judge Beach issued the order, which I had already attached to a similar request made by Mr. Moxon of Ms. Greenway, that she provide copies of checks that were given to Courage Productions by Mr. Minton for the production of the movie, and a variety of other requests that were made, copy of the movie, and I think that we had provided that to you in camera. I had, after -- THE COURT: I don't think I received anything in camera. MR. LIROT: Well, I just say generally we gave you a copy of the movie. You watched it on your own. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 514 THE COURT: The movie? I thought you meant the documents. MR. LIROT: No, ma'am. Not at all. THE COURT: The movie? Yes. MR. LIROT: And I think relative to the documents you said what Judge Beach says still stands. Now, what Judge Beach did is he precluded -- and I attached a copy of my order to that particular motion. Essentially what he had done, he just put -- and I'll just read the portion out of his order -- it says: "The Court orders that the subject film not be shown prior to the trial on the complaint," and then he handwrote in, "Or the counterclaim." And what we had done is we filed a motion for rehearing, asking that that be simply the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. We didn't want the whole movie stopped, but we just wanted it stopped for purposes of the State of Florida. Well, that was then. This is now. A whole lot has happened since then. And from our perspective, it looks like the -- THE COURT: I don't know what you are speaking for, the plaintiff in the wrongful death case? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 515 MR. LIROT: I think Judge Beach's order is for anybody to show the movie. Obviously, the presumption then was that my clients, Courage Productions -- or at least, you know, back when Mr. Minton and Mr. Alexander were still speaking, I suppose, I had appeared on their behalf as a representative of Courage Productions, to try to keep any harm from happening or occurring as it relates to the vitality -- or at least the commercial viability of this movie in the future. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. Today you are appearing as co-counsel for the plaintiff, and this is -- the plaintiff in the motion before me -- MR. LIROT: That is -- THE COURT: -- is the estate of Lisa McPherson. You are appearing for that, for this? MR. LIROT: That is exactly correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LIROT: The reason I say that, it came to our attention that on the Lisa McPherson Trust site a number of so-called snippets of the film -- I think I was given information that about ten minutes of the film had been shown, and there was concern here is a snippet, there is a snippet, eventually --------------------------------------------------------------------- 516 the whole film is out and the commercial vitality of the film is lost. But the reason I make this motion is as the testimony from Mr. Minton came out last Thursday, I believe, his statement was that -- in answer to a question posed to him, he said: "I funded production of a movie about Scientology, The Profit. I invested 2.5 million to have two anti-Scientology critics produce the movie along with me, Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks and other LMT staff. Mr. Dandar also had an acting role in the movie. Mr. Dandar played an FBI agent. And then it was Mr. Dandar felt the movie would help generate a negative view of Scientology with potential jurors in the area." Obviously this has become a more critical issue. It seems no good deed goes unpunished in this case. So in an abundance of caution, we would like this Court to eliminate whatever potential -- shall I say -- sword-like effort is utilized by the defendants in this case to say, "You guys let all of this stuff out on the Internet and you have contaminated the jury pool on the eve of trial, we're going to ask for change of venue. Something bad is going to happen if we don't put a stop to --------------------------------------------------------------------- 517 whatever is being done." Now, it is certainly our position, and we respectfully submit to the Court, that Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, while they may be wanting to get out of the anti-Scientology business or whatever their testimony, continuing to put this out doesn't really say that unless what is being put out over the Internet will come back to be used against the estate. And it's our concern that it's not going to be good for the estate. We think that it's within the province of this Court to certainly stop any additional dissemination. The federal suit I filed is for copyright infringement. There was a response filed that since there is an operating agreement that says before you do anything for Courage Productions, the limited liability company, there has to be full agreement of the two members of that company, Mr. Minton and Mr. Alexander. Well, what had happened was once this started to go out into the -- to the public in the way these snippets, as I said, they just add up and up to eventually what we feel will be putting an end to the commercial viability of the film, I filed a --------------------------------------------------------------------- 518 lawsuit, in an abundance of caution, based on Mr. Alexander's right, and I attached this as an exhibit to my motion. He has the right to act in the best interests of the LLC. He's not trying to do anything to hurt Mr. Minton. He's trying to protect the only asset the LLC has. THE COURT: The LLC is? MR. LIROT: Being Courage Productions. They are the owners of the copyright of the film. THE COURT: LLC? MR. LIROT: Limited liability company. It's a specific -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LIROT: -- entity. And essentially, Judge, if somebody is -- a member of an LLC starts to go off the deep end and do things bad for the LLC, regardless of anything to the contrary, a managing member can take over and say, "I'm going to protect the interests of the LLC." Now, there is an arbitration clause in the operating agreement. The only reason I say that, those are all issues in the federal action. I looked at Mr. McGowan's response. And he alleged what we are trying to do is circumvent or bypass or --------------------------------------------------------------------- 519 in some way use this Court to buttress what is going on in federal court. That is a separate proceeding. That is a copyright case. We are asking for damages, punitive damages, and all of the remedies available, should we prevail in copyright proceeding. What we want to do here is in the best interests of the estate. It's our position, from the estate standpoint, that there is nothing good that can come from the dissemination of these things, this what I'll call snippets on the Internet. And it looks to us like, rather than try to give an accurate depiction of the movie, it's using materials that are not well produced, I think they are third or fourth generation, they are very bad for whatever future the movie may have. But, most importantly, all they do is fall right into line with what is alleged in the counterclaim. That the movie was produced and uses witnesses and people from the LMT. The snippets are what the general nature of the movie is. You saw it, there is a great number of different actors and actresses in this movie that had nothing to do with the LMT. Well, strangely enough, they don't find their way into the so-called snippets on the LMT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 520 website. So, basically, it's our position that while it might be some First Amendment fair use issue which we don't think applies, it's our position that the way it's being used right now is to advance the defendant's arguments in the counterclaim to create what we consider is really somewhat of a disingenuous position, because if they are concerned that the movie was made to create some sort of jury contamination or have adverse impact on their ability to obtain a fair trial, why in the heck are people on that side of the camp putting it up on the Internet for? We have spoken with the people at Courage. They have no objection to the entry. And I think that is an important point. We do this in the best interests of the estate. We have -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, people from Courage? MR. LIROT: From Courage. Mr. Alexander. Now, whether Mr. Minton thinks it's a good idea or not, I'm sure he doesn't -- THE COURT: He's the main stockholder of Courage Productions? MR. LIROT: No. They are equal partners. He's the major investor. But with an LLC, you know, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 521 whether you put in a dime or dollar, Mr. Alexander apparently wrote the script. Contrary to what Mr. Minton might have testified to, I don't think Mr. Minton had any input into the script. Not important. But the bottom line is we don't think anything good can come out of this, we don't think it's a legitimate fair use of anything because the movie has never been finished, it has never been commercially released, other than one test showing, and it's our position that we don't want it to be used against us. If we're the ones who have made the movie or, obviously, the estate, if it was made to create jury contamination, well, we want to prove that is not the case. We -- THE COURT: When you say we're the ones who have made the movie, who is the "we"? MR. LIROT: Well, the allegation by Mr. Minton was that Mr. Dandar and all of this anti-Scientology jihad, as it has been referred to as, everybody got together and said, "Well, we're going after Scientology, plus I'm going to fund this movie which will make Scientology look bad and it will contaminate the jury pool, so anybody who watches --------------------------------------------------------------------- 522 the film will automatically think that Scientology is a bad thing and enter a verdict in favor of whoever is against Scientology." I'm not saying that we buy into that. We don't want to hear it any more. We would like the Court to issue an order abating any further dissemination of this movie, and I think we're the ones speaking from the strongest First Amendment perspective. The movie belongs to Courage Productions. They are willing to let this court enter an order abating any further dissemination to stop that from becoming an issue. We don't want anybody to say it was out there for purposes of jury contamination. We don't want it to be used as any sort of tool in advancing the counterclaim or motion that is before the Court. And we're willing to sacrifice our rights for the benefit of the estate. THE COURT: "We're willing"? MR. LIROT: Courage Productions and the estate are willing to put their rights aside. THE COURT: Now you are saying "we're" and you are representing Courage Productions and you are here arguing for the estate as co-counsel for the estate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 523 This is the very thing I'm going to hear about and have some transcript end up up here about you, Mr. Lirot. MR. LIROT: I'll be more specific. I'll be more specific. The motion is on behalf of the estate. I also represent Courage Productions, subject to whatever objections they have that Mr. Minton hasn't approved of my representation. I think what I have stated is my representation is based on the statutory provisions that allow any operating member of an LLC to take steps that are in the best interests of the LLC. And I would certainly submit that. But the argument before this Court is made on behalf of the estate to prevent any adverse argument made that, A, the film was created to contaminate the jury pool or, B, that it did so. And obviously, Judge, the case law, I think, is pretty clear from your perspective. A trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. There are many cases that stand for that. THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. The problem is the parties that are listed here as defendant is Church of Scientology Flag Service --------------------------------------------------------------------- 524 Organization, Janis Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski and David Houghton. They don't have a thing to do with the LMT site, they don't have a thing to do with Courage Productions, they don't have a thing to do with the LLC, and they don't have a thing to do with whatever is going on. I mean, I could enter any order I want to in this case against the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. The problem is that isn't the right person. MR. LIROT: Well, Judge -- THE COURT: They have no -- no more authority than I do to tell somebody that is not here, that has not been joined, that is not before this Court, to stop disseminating something. MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I would respectfully disagree with that. I think it is within your province. For instance, the cases where newspapers on many occasions have sought to circumvent gag orders and engage in disseminating different information that certain judges have felt would be prejudicial to whatever it is that they're trying to do to maintain a fair and equal, impartial proceeding. I don't think that Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 525 anybody associated with whoever is putting this out on the Internet, I don't think they need to be parties. I think that your discretion to maintain the sanctity of these proceedings allows you to issue a blanket order saying nobody does this anywhere. And, quite honestly, Judge Beach's order says that to some extent. He says nobody can show the movie. Is it not constructively showing the movie if you put in 47 snippets that just happen to be 47 scenes from the movie? I think an argument could be made to that effect. So it's our position that you do have the authority to issue whatever order of abatement is appropriate. And we would like to see you do it, in an abundance of caution, so we're not down the road saying, "Oh, all these terrible Internet postings have caused the jury pool to be contaminated, voir dire is affected, now on the eve of trial we have to change venue." Quite potentially, Judge, I see a lot of problems that could come out of this. This seems like the most cautious step to take. And I don't think it is in any way asking for any sacrifice of any First Amendment right that isn't vastly --------------------------------------------------------------------- 526 outweighed by the protection of these proceedings that I think are appropriate. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. What says the Church? MR. FUGATE: Judge, I don't have a dog in this fight, as the Court pointed out, on the one hand. But I do have a concern because there was a comment just made about the disingenuous position of this side of the camp. I'm not sure if that is pointing to us, or this over here. THE COURT: Meaning at the Church, or Ms. Brooks' and Mr. Minton's lawyers? MR. FUGATE: Right. I'm sorry, Judge. THE COURT: Right. MR. FUGATE: But the problem that I have is one I raised earlier on. And that is the appearance of conflict or the appearance of impropriety, because I just went up and looked at Defendant's Exhibit 139, which is the lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Lirot on behalf of Patricia Greenway. I won't go through all of that again. But by my count, Mr. Lirot now files a motion on behalf of the plaintiff who -- he says he represents the estate, he filed a notice of appearance representing Mr. Dandar individually and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 527 Dandar & Dandar. He sued a witness in this hearing. He cross-examined another witness in this hearing who is the 50 percent owner of the company that he's filed a lawsuit on behalf of. So he's representing -- or attacking four witnesses in this proceeding: Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and Peter Alexander. And he's filing lawsuits that -- if I read the pleadings correctly, he's at odds with one of the 50 percent owners of the company. I see this -- the reason I raise it, I see this as a potential conflict. And I don't want that to go unnoticed by the Court or unobjected to by us, because if there is an adverse ruling down the road somewhere, I can imagine Mr. Dandar saying, "Geez, I didn't realize this, and maybe I didn't get fair representation by Mr. Lirot." But Mr. Lirot, by my count, represents a whole host of people who are witnesses, who are plaintiffs, who are people that he's cross-examining in this case in front of this Court. And I think it is inappropriate. I think under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7 A and B, there is a potential conflict. And I just call that to the Court's attention. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 528 Whatever you want to do with regard to the movie -- you know, we obviously made our position very clear on The Profit and on Courage Productions. And we don't need to be -- THE COURT: What is your position? MR. FUGATE: Our position -- THE COURT: You would agree. Obviously, if you are consistent, you would agree with them. MR. FUGATE: Oh, I do agree that is what it -- we have addressed it in our motion. THE COURT: You would agree you want it taken off the site, right? MR. FUGATE: I would agree it ought not to be disseminated during the pendency of this proceeding. THE COURT: Period. All right. Mr. McGowan. MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, on behalf of Stacy Brooks, first of all, she's not party to the lawsuit, as the Court points out. And that raises a host of problems. What this motion really is, is seeking injunctive relief. She hasn't been properly served. There is no allegations of irreparable harm and other allegations necessary for an injunction as to Ms. Brooks. And the motion is unsworn. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 529 In addition to that, it is the Courage Productions -- or at least under the guise of Courage Productions, this very matter is in the Middle District of Florida. Stacy Brooks is a named defendant in that case for the very same activity, putting these so-called snippets on the Internet. And that lawsuit, which is in the court file -- excuse me, I have a cold -- that lawsuit seeks injunctive relief. So, I mean, what you have got here is you have commercial speech that is protected. There is a fair use defense. There is petition for injunction in the Middle District of Florida. We filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment. And they are in the -- their Rule 11C safe harbor right now. So this is nothing more than an end run to what they are seeking in the middle district. They are seeking this Court to do what they can't get the Middle District to do. If they have copyright problems, then they can go and do what they have to do in federal court. If the estate has a problem with Ms. Brooks and they want to enjoin the speech, then they better serve her and they better do it the right way, because -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 530 because anything -- anything that get signed and enjoined in speech isn't going to have a lot of force and effect. And there is just no jurisdiction to do this as to Ms. Brooks. And so -- so I hear in some motion, unsworn, just served on me by hand -- THE COURT: You would admit, would you not, Counsel -- you are absolutely right in the presentation you make. But, on the other hand, Ms. Brooks really wants to set the record straight and go in and make a global settlement, and help Mr. Minton make a global settlement with the Church of Scientology. If she doesn't do this at the request of both sides here, the only reason would be somehow or another that she must think there is some benefit to the Church, or she would take it off immediately if she wanted to settle with them. MR. McGOWAN: Well, the fact is it is taken off. It is down. THE COURT: Then you shouldn't have any objection, either, other than the fact you don't want me entering any order. What you ought to be saying is, "That is fine, we're going to shut it down, but you should not be entering any order." --------------------------------------------------------------------- 531 MR. McGOWAN: That is why it is shut down, and I don't know Ms. Brooks ever put anything up there. But, you know, I think that is something the federal court should be addressing. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Howie? MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, Mr. Minton is not a defendant or a named party in the federal action. However, they apparently are thinking to enjoin him here. The Court's jurisdiction over him is as counterdefendant. If this is actually a request for injunction, it fails legally because they failed to cite any irreparable harm, and they failed to cite they have no adequate remedy at law. Obviously, if they have adequate remedy at law, they are trying to exercise it in federal court. If this is a motion for protective order, as was just indicated, this is a situation where the snippets that they're referring to are not part of any evidence or documents produced in this case, they were obtained independently. However, given the fact there is no harm being done because the -- the items have been taken off the website, I don't think they provide the Court with an adequate factual basis, either for --------------------------------------------------------------------- 532 protective order or for an injunctive order, and we would object to the motion to abate. THE COURT: Okay. I'll ask you the same thing that I -- that I asked counsel for Ms. Brooks. The Church here has joined, in essence, with the plaintiff, stating that it would be in everybody's best interests if this wasn't up and running on some site, in the event some potential juror in this case -- in the event there is a trial, a juror sees this and, somehow, because they have seen it, relate it somehow as an anti-Scientology snippet that would cause them to be prejudiced against the Church of Scientology in a lawsuit. If that is not farfetched -- well, that is what the allegation is. So if it sounds farfetched, it does to me, too. Nonetheless, since Mr. Minton wants to settle and wants to make a global settlement with the Church of Scientology, and since they don't want it up and running, then it would seem to me he would want to accommodate that. So I can't grant your order. I have no jurisdiction to enter this order, as far as I am concerned. But I simply tell counsel for Ms. Brooks and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 533 counsel for Mr. Minton that if there is any truth to the fact that Mr. Minton wants to enter a global settlement with the Church of Scientology, set the record straight, and all of the things he testified to in this Court, he ought to get that off the web as will she, Ms. Brooks. And, therefore, if it is up and running, I can only assume, if they have any control over that, there is something very strange going on. So I'm not going to say any more than that. I think I made myself clear. MR. HOWIE: I'll pass the communication on. Thank you. THE COURT: So your motion is denied but -- because I don't think I have any authority to enter that. MR. LIROT: Your directives are clear, Judge. Thank you. THE COURT: Now, if I'm done with this, I'm going to throw it in the wastebasket. MR. McGOWAN: Do we need an order? THE COURT: I don't know. I guess I do. I guess -- MR. McGOWAN: I'll do it. THE COURT: I guess what I probably need to say is that the defendants joined with the plaintiffs. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 534 However, the argument was the Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order, or whatever. MR. McGOWAN: I'll -- THE COURT: The truth of the matter is there is -- it is better not to have it in the order. Put it is denied or put everything in I just said. MR. McGOWAN: The record speaks for itself. THE COURT: I mean, I do want to make it clear that the credibility here of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks is at issue in this case in this hearing before me. There is no question that if they are trying to settle something with the Church, the Church's position ought to be exactly what it is, which is take that stuff off the net. That is what the plaintiff wants, too. So there really would be no reason for them not to do that. That is my point. And that is what my order should state. But as far as ordering them to do that, the suit has been filed in federal court. It needs to be decided over in federal court. Okay? All right. Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Weinberg, are you ready? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 535 MR. WEINBERG: Almost. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: I get tired, too, every now and then. THE COURT: I get tired. My neck gets tired. MR. WEINBERG: I know. MR. DANDAR: At least you are looking down, not up. MR. WEINBERG: Yes, you are sitting. THE COURT: Although, actually, sometimes I wish I were standing. MR. WEINBERG: I sort of go back and forth. I get stiff both ways. THE COURT: Me, too. MR. WEINBERG: I marked four exhibits that we did before but I didn't put them in at the break and I just wanted to offer them. This is -- let me get my glasses -- this we marked as 163A, which was the subpoena to Vaughn Young which we went over. 163B, which is Kartuzinski's emergency request for expedited production of documents from expert Vaughn Young. 163C, which is Mr. Dandar's January 19, 2000 fax transmittal with the interrogatories, and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 536 those -- I think it was -- eleven letters to Mr. Young. And then 163D, which was excerpts from Mr. Young's deposition, particularly those excerpts which I read of my exchange with Mr. Dandar concerning the production. And I offer 163A, B, C, and D into evidence. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. LIROT: No objection, your Honor. THE COURT: They will be received. I have forgotten, I'm sure it's in my stack here, because I have it right here. I know you mentioned it. What was the letter? What was the exhibit number of this? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is 73, I think, but let me -- I have it in my notes here. Hang on a second. THE COURT: It's all right. MR. WEINBERG: No. No. I actually have a weird way of filing this. THE COURT: I just thought you could get it for me quickly. MR. WEINBERG: It is 73. I was right. THE COURT: 73? That is Defendant's 73? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is. THE WITNESS: Judge, if I could just tell you --------------------------------------------------------------------- 537 something on the record. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: During the lunch break I called my office and spoke with my paralegal, Donna West. I said, "Find this letter, May 2, 1997. Look everywhere, correspondence, Mr. Young's file, Stacy Young's files, if there is one for her." And she reported back to me this letter does not exist in my office. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Just look at that letter for a second. A Yes. Q We're talking about the May -- whatever -- 2nd, whatever it was, letter, is that the date? A Yes. Q Is that your signature? A Yes, it appears to be. Q And you sent that letter to Mr. Young on or about May 2, 1997. Right? A I assume I did, yes. Q So you have no explanation for how it is you don't have a copy of that letter at this point? A No explanation. Q Or why you didn't have a copy of it when these requests for productions went out? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 538 A It's the same explanation. It's not in my office anywhere. Now or then. Q Excuse me? A It's not in my office anywhere now and back then when you asked for it in 2000. MR. WEINBERG: Now I'm going to go to a different subject matter. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to hand Mr. Dandar, for convenience, the fifth amended complaint which is the January 20th -- the extant one, the one that we're dealing with now. I can give you a copy if you want it. THE COURT: That would be good. MR. WEINBERG: It's in your notebook, but it's easier -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to give Mr. Dandar that, and a copy of Mr. Prince's affidavit, which is August 20, '99. And I'll hand you up a copy of that, too -- I believe it's already in evidence in this case -- because I'll be referring to those two things. That is Mr. Prince's affidavit from August of '99. THE COURT: Okay. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 539 MR. LIROT: So I have the affidavit of Jesse Prince? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. That is it. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, Mr. Dandar, you relied solely on the speculation of Jesse Prince with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint. Correct? MR. LIROT: Judge, I object to the characterization. I don't think speculation -- I think affidavit is a good enough example. I don't think speculation is -- THE COURT: I think that is true. I think you may refer to it as speculation. But I think -- I don't think he's going to be able to suggest that it was speculation. So I think you need to change your terminology. MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question again. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You relied solely on the affidavit, the August 20, 1999 affidavit of Jesse Prince, with regard to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint? Those are the allegations that include end of cycle -- end cycle and decision to let her die. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 540 A No. Q In addition to the -- did you rely on the Jesse Prince affidavit back in 1999? A In part, yes, I did. Q Okay. In addition -- for the end cycle allegation, what else, other than Jesse Prince, did you rely on? A I relied upon all of the Scientology-published documents that Mr. Prince refers to, and some he doesn't refer to, in his August '99 affidavit. Q Okay. Anything else? A I relied upon other people, one of which was Vaughn Young, but -- and I know this sounds -- I did see a Scientology dictionary of some kind, some document, that had end cycle. And as the definition of end cycle it said, "To," T-O, "die." Q Anything else? A Right now, I can't remember anything else. Q All right. Now, specifically I'm talking about -- my question is focused on -- Paragraph 34. Have you had a chance to look at that? A Of course. Yes. Q The last sentence of Paragraph 34 says -- THE COURT: When you are asking your question you are specifically referring to that -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 541 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, Paragraph 34. THE COURT: But the part of 34 that deals with end cycle? I mean, obviously he could tell you a lot of things about the entire paragraph. It is end cycle, right? MR. WEINBERG: I will make myself clear. I was really referring to Paragraph 34 where the allegation was contained where this was an intentional act by the Church and management of the Church to allow her to die. That allegation is -- THE COURT: Read to us exactly what you're talking about. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Because -- in other words, the first sentence says: "The extremist medical condition of Lisa McPherson was obvious to Scientology and all of the individuals --" there is a lot of stuff that I have read in expert depositions that he could refer to about that if he had it. I don't think that is what you're talking about. So I'm trying to say what it is you're talking about. MR. WEINBERG: You're right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 542 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q "Yet, the defendants, in total and conscious disregard to the rights of Lisa McPherson, willfully, intentionally, wantonly and maliciously, toward the last days of her life, decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e., end cycle, in Scientology terms, rather than save her life, even though her extremist physical condition was known to be entirely reversible. Scientology has no restrictions on seeking licensed professional medical care. This decision made by Scientology, through the Sea Org by David Miscavige, carried out by Kartuzinski, Johnson and Houghton, was only due to their decision to protect Scientology from bad public relations." That is the allegations that I'm talking about. A That is most of 34. The first thing that comes to my mind is Dr. Werner Spitz, pathologist retained by the estate, who told me, after reviewing all of the information on the medical aspects only, that they simply watched her die. So that is why it is in there like that. That comes from Dr. Spitz. Dr. Bandt -- Q Before you go on, so you mean where it says "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, rather than save her life," that comes from Dr. Spitz? A Right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 543 Q Okay. What else? THE COURT: Just Dr. Spitz? Or are you -- are you talking about all of the things here? THE WITNESS: No. No. I'm talking about the whole paragraph, but, in particular, the medical part. Dr. Spitz is the one who told me first that his opinion was they watched her die. Dr. Bandt and Dr. Coe also came to the same, independently of all three. They are all acting independently of each other. He came to the same conclusions. Now, Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young contributed to that by bringing in the Scientology thinking about doing everything you can possibly do to protect your seniors, higher-ups, and doing everything you can possibly do to protect the image of Scientology, protect the tech of Scientology, which is the tech never fails anyone. But Lisa McPherson is a prime example it does fail, and so, therefore, in the thinking of Scientology, according to my Scientology experts, and the fact that Scientologists firmly believe that there is reincarnation, you drop your body, meaning you die, you come back later, it's not a big deal. Letting Lisa McPherson die would be the best choice under --------------------------------------------------------------------- 544 these circumstances, rather than take her back to the emergency room where they had previously promised the ER doctor that they would make sure that she would get better, and if she didn't, they would immediately bring her back, which they didn't do. Now, that is -- this paragraph is a combination of at least three forensic pathologists, plus Jesse Prince, plus Vaughn Young. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Anything else? A It might even be Stacy Brooks. Q Okay, when your allegation -- this is the complaint now, correct? A That's right. Q Okay. When you say the defendants -- THE COURT: Whose machine is that? Sometimes it just gets a little loud. Go ahead. MR. WEINBERG: Sometimes when one concentrates -- I didn't even hear it. But I did when you pointed it out. THE COURT: Right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q When you say the defendants decided to let Lisa --------------------------------------------------------------------- 545 McPherson die, you are saying and you are alleging that there was a conscious decision by the management of Scientology, of the Church of Scientology, to allow her to die, correct? That is what the allegation is? A It speaks for itself. Q But am I right? A That is right. Q All right now -- A Somebody made a decision -- Q Well, not just somebody. THE COURT: Not somebody, Mr. Dandar. It says in here that it was -- it was made by Scientology, through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige. THE WITNESS: That is the only one that can make that decision. THE COURT: Well then, what -- the doctors have got absolutely nothing to say about that, they wouldn't know a thing about that. THE WITNESS: That is what I said. I said this is a combination of medical -- THE COURT: Well, who is it that you have that says that? THE WITNESS: On David Miscavige, is Jesse Prince, Vaughn Young and Stacy Brooks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 546 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q No other evidence? A Well, there could be other former Scientologists that told me that. THE COURT: Literature? Are you relying on the literature? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. THE COURT: I don't know what literature, but he said before the literature. I want to make sure I know what he's talking about. THE WITNESS: There is the RT News. It says PTS Type III has to be immediately reported up the lines to RTC, the command channels of Scientology -- which is the booklet which I now have a complete copy of, by the way -- that talks about reporting up the lines for either PTS Type III or PR problems. And there is some other things that talk about OSA and RTC. Plus the depositions of the OSA members I took in this case that they were immediately on this case as soon as they heard Lisa McPherson took her clothes off and was going to the emergency room, because it was a huge PR flap to Scientology. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, there is not one document, there is not one --------------------------------------------------------------------- 547 witness that has testified that anyone at the Church of Scientology -- THE COURT: Counselor, if you are getting ready to testify, you're going to have to do it. You can't stand here and say that is -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you agree -- THE COURT: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you agree -- do you agree -- is there any witness that you're aware of that has testified that David Miscavige or anyone at the Church of Scientology made a conscious decision to let Lisa McPherson die? Anyone? A It would be a high crime of Scientology. They would never testify -- Q Just answer that question. Is there anyone? A Never. No. It is the publications by Scientology that show that. Q Is there any document that you have seen in this case that says that David Miscavige or anyone else in the Church of Scientology made a decision to allow Lisa McPherson to die? A Not specifically that says Lisa McPherson. That's right. Q There is nothing specific that you have in this --------------------------------------------------------------------- 548 case that indicates that there was any decision made by anyone at the Church of Scientology to allow Lisa McPherson to die, is there? A Well, the medical records say that -- to my experts on the medical side -- that someone let her die. I just told you what Dr. Spitz said. Q Now, on this last sentence here, Paragraph 34, you say, "This decision --" I assume when you say "This decision," that is the decision to let her die, right? A Right, let her die, not do anything, omission. Q But when you say the word "decision," you are saying the decision that was made by, in your allegation, the Church management to permit her to die, that is what you are referring to? A Correct. Q You say, "This decision made by Scientology, through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige, and carried out by" these three individuals, you say, "was only due to their decision to protect Scientology from bad public relations." A Correct. Q Now, what evidence do you have that there was a decision by anyone related to Lisa McPherson to protect -- that had to do with her death to protect Scientology from bad public relations? A The general business practice of the Church of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 549 Scientology. The publications of the Church of Scientology. The greatest good for the greatest number. The knowing Scientology or keep it working, keep Scientology working by Mr. Hubbard, saying I would rather have you dead than incapable. The introspection rundown. The search and discovery document course that says the psychotics -- sometimes they can't be kept alive. This book, Signs Of Survival, that said if you blow 2.0 on the tone scale, which someone who is psychotic or chronically ill would be, if you can't get them any better, then you let them die quietly and without sorrow. That is the only thing that comes to mind at this time. Q All right. And all that was in your mind when you made this allegation in this complaint that is the extant complaint in this case? A At least that much was in my mind. Q Now, discovery has been going on since February of '97, and it's been ongoing throughout every iteration of the complaint in this case. Right? A Correct. Q And there has been discovery on Paragraph 34 -- the allegation of Paragraph 34, the end cycle, permit her to die, public relations allegation, since the fifth amended complaint was filed. Correct? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 550 A Yes. Q Okay. And you have been asked, in discovery, the question, "What evidence do you have," because in these civil lawsuits each of us parties have an obligation to set forth what the evidence is that supports various allegations. Right? A Yes. Q And specifically you were asked -- I'll just pull it out here -- there were interrogatories that were served by Alain Kartuzinski. And amongst other things, there were questions -- there was a question, Question 29, it's an interrogatory -- the first set of interrogatories propounded by Mr. Kartuzinski, served on February 14, 2000, which is right after this extant version of the complaint was filed. And it says, "Identify all evidence, including documents and testimony of witnesses, upon which you rely to support your contention in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint that the defendants willfully, intentionally, wantonly and maliciously decided to let Lisa McPherson die, specifically including in your response such evidence that demonstrates that Kartuzinski decided to let Lisa McPherson die." And the answer was, "Objection. Work product. Without waiving objection, see Dr. Coe's deposition, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 551 affidavit of Jesse Prince and affidavit of Dr. Spitz." Now, do you recall that? A No. Q Do you want to look at it? A How long ago was that? Q Excuse me? A Was that in '99? Q No, February of 2000. MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach, your Honor? A No. If you say that is what it says, that is fine. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. And since that day, since that production, you -- until this very day, you haven't in any way indicated that there is any other witness, other than Jesse Prince, Dr. Coe and Dr. Spitz, that would support the allegation contained in Paragraph 34, correct? This is it? A I'm not sure. I have answered Mr. Kartuzinski's interrogatories many times, so I'm not sure if there has been amendments to that. If you tell me that is the only answer ever -- THE COURT: Has nobody else ever asked that question? MR. WEINBERG: I believe that in this case we tried not to have the parties ask the same --------------------------------------------------------------------- 552 questions. So I believe in this situation, Mr. Kartuzinski submitted the interrogatories that specifically addressed those allegations in the extant version of the fifth amended complaint. THE COURT: I would say -- obviously, I don't know that, and I hear you saying you believe, so I assume you don't necessarily know that either, you are assuming, the best you can tell. Obviously, any answer to that response on behalf of any of the defendants would have to be added together, even if -- MR. WEINBERG: I understand. THE COURT: Okay? If there is another interrogatory, and there is more there, then you can kind of add it together. I mean, this defense is being presented fairly unified, which is obvious from the fact there has never been a defendant's lawyer, here from the moment this started, other than the Church's lawyers. MR. WEINBERG: At this hearing? THE COURT: Yes, and at many other hearings. But the truth of the matter is you all are protecting those three defendants most of the time. MR. WEINBERG: Well, we have -- I mean, the way --------------------------------------------------------------------- 553 I would put it is we have joint interests. And there is no reason to file five different motions when we can file one on behalf of everybody. That is what we've tried to do in this case. THE COURT: I understand that. And I think you understand what I'm saying. The deal is, is that these people do not have the first lawyer here, Mr. Houghton's lawyer isn't here. Mr. Kartuzinski's lawyer isn't here. And -- MR. WEINBERG: Actually, now Mr. Houghton is represented by Mr. Moxon, as well, because, remember, Bob Pulin moved to Hawaii. THE COURT: I think Ms. Kobrin was representing her. MR. WEINBERG: They are partners. MR. MOXON: We're partners. THE COURT: Then he's not speaking on behalf of the Church then. MR. WEINBERG: But I agree with your point. We're not arguing -- THE COURT: I hope not, because it is very clear to me the lawyers for the Church are representing the interests of these individual defendants. I am simply saying if these individual --------------------------------------------------------------------- 554 defendants, or the Church, put out interrogatories, as far as I'm going to be concerned, if he responded and he has forgotten to put it one place, so he put it somewhere else, he gets to add it in. MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely. I agree. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: And if I thought there was something else, I would put it in front of him. I don't think there is, particularly in light of his answer today. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: So I'm going to mark this as the next exhibit. We've just gone over it, so we don't need to go over it again. THE COURT: Well, I certainly heard about literature many, many times in response to this end cycle business. I have seen literature many times in response to the end cycle. I have seen, in this hearing, stuff about end cycle. So the idea that the Church of Scientology didn't know that he was relying on Church of Scientology literature, despite the fact he didn't have Alain Kartuzinski's response -- MR. WEINBERG: That isn't my point. I'm going to get to end cycle in a minute. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 555 THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: That is not my point at all. I'm really talking witnesses here in the interrogatories. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: I have marked as Defendant's Exhibit 164 -- it is the response of February 14 of Mr. Dandar. And specifically we will refer to Number 29. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Just take a look at it. This was something that was sworn to by Dell Liebreich and filed by you in this case, correct? A Yes. The exhibit number again? Q 164. A Okay. Q Is that right? A Yeah. This is the first answer to this first set of interrogatories. I think I have answered this five times, if I'm not mistaken. THE COURT: Answered what five times? THE WITNESS: The first set of interrogatories by Mr. Kartuzinski. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Not this particular question, because you answered --------------------------------------------------------------------- 556 it the first time? A Yes. But -- if I had my file I could tell you for sure, but I didn't bring that today. MR. WEINBERG: There were motions to compel with regard to some of the other questions, I believe. But that particular question he answered. I'll put this back. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right. Now, you said, in response to both my question and, I believe, something that Judge Schaeffer asked you a few minutes ago, that in addition to Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young, that you may have been relying on Stacy Young, as well, with regard to the allegations in Paragraph 34. Right? Isn't that what you said? A Yes. Q But you certainly weren't relying on her for the end of cycle allegation, were you? A No. Q No? In other words, you agree? A I agree, I was not. She was there -- she had filed -- in our motion to add parties back in September, I had a declaration from the Wollersheim case where she talked about the micro-management of David Miscavige in all Scientology corporations. Q Was it the Wollersheim case, or the Fishman case, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 557 that you -- A I -- well, I think it's the Wollersheim case. There was no heading on the affidavit or -- or the declaration. Q It was attached to your original motion -- or supplement to your motion? A It was a supplemental additional authority, I believe. Vicki Aznaran talked about it. THE COURT: We all know what it is. MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: It's in the -- it's in this hearing. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you knew, back in 1999 when you filed this Paragraph 34 of the amended complaint, that the one example that Stacy Brooks -- back then Stacy Young -- referred to in her prior affidavit about introspection rundown that she had done, and the one example of the introspection rundown that Jesse Prince had been on and set forth in his affidavit, turned out to be the same woman? You knew that, right? A I knew they did one together. So, yeah, I would have to -- yes, I would have to say yes to that. Q And you interrogated both of them at that time, before you filed this complaint, as to what the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 558 circumstances were of their one life experience on an introspection rundown? A I don't think I interrogated them. But I did ask them questions. Q You knew back at that time that the woman that they had been on the introspection rundown with did not die? You knew that? A I knew that. Q You knew that there had been no orders from anyone above to let her die or permit her to die or to do what is characterized in the complaint as an end of cycle? You knew that, too, right? A I knew that because Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks told me that they made every effort they could to get her to drink water. Because had they not, she would have died. Q And you knew, at that time in 1999 when you filed the complaint, that no witness that you had talked to, including Mr. Young, Ms. Young or Jesse Prince, had any experience that the introspection rundown had ever been -- had ever been used to murder someone? You knew that? A Well, if you're going to use the word "murder," I can't answer that question the way you phrased it. Q Okay. Well, let me ask it a different way. You had no evidence -- THE COURT: Asked to let him or her die, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 559 intentionally let him or her die. That is the way you stated. You didn't use the word "murder" here. MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question a different way. THE COURT: I just asked mine. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Let Lisa McPherson die. You said they decided to let Lisa McPherson die. THE WITNESS: Right. They did not put a gun to her head. They didn't do anything -- this is an act of omission. It's like watching somebody bleed to death in front of you. You didn't cause the person to bleed, but you are standing there, or you are walking out of the room, and they are bleeding to death and they can't save themselves. That is an act of omission. That is what my medical doctors said happened in this case. They just didn't do what a first grader would have done. They looked at this woman in a coma-like state and they just virtually abandoned her. And they said that is homicide. And I agree with that. THE COURT: Well, as I read it, they said it is manslaughter, which is kind of a reckless indifference to human life. It certainly does not --------------------------------------------------------------------- 560 equate, nor is it equatable, with intentional murder. THE WITNESS: Well, no. I agree with you. THE COURT: Your complaint is phrased as if it's an intentional decision by higher-ups to allow her to die intentionally. That is murder. Manslaughter is reckless indifference to human life. THE WITNESS: Well, I do say in -- I believe I'm saying this, Judge, in this Paragraph 34, "Total and conscious disregard for the rights of Lisa McPherson, willfully, intentionally, wantonly and maliciously, rather than save her life, decided to let her die." That is how they told me and that is how it is in the deposition. THE COURT: Whose deposition? THE WITNESS: It's in Dr. Spitz's -- THE COURT: No, it isn't. I read it. It is not. It is not in Dr. Spitz's deposition. It certainly isn't in Dr. Coe's deposition. And it really isn't in Dr. Spitz's deposition like that. I mean, he basically kind of gives you a very clear manslaughter. It's very questionable, to me, as to whether or not he gives you an intentional murder. In fact, I think he specifically said it --------------------------------------------------------------------- 561 isn't. THE WITNESS: And I'm saying to you I'm agreeing with, of course, what my experts say. I'm telling you -- or I'm suggesting to you that this paragraph comports to what my medical experts told me, which is in their deposition, also, after this complaint was filed, is that no one shot her or intentionally did anything to cause the injury. They simply did not do anything, when it was obvious they should have done something. It is an omission. THE COURT: If you would have phrased it like that, you would be in pretty good shape. That is not how you phrased it. And you can't sit here and pretend that is how you phrased it. You phrased it like there was a conscious decision sent down through channels to these workers that told them, don't give her water, let her die. That is what you said. And you have got no proof. THE WITNESS: If you recall, even Stacy Brooks, in this hearing, told you, Judge, that end cycle and her definition and understanding as a former Scientologist, is if someone has a terminal illness, there are processing, as they call them in Scientology, to help the person die. THE COURT: Well, of course according to your --------------------------------------------------------------------- 562 expert -- according to your experts and according to everything you would be telling this jury, she did not have a terminal illness. You would be saying, and your experts would be saying, all they had to do is take her to the doctor, hook up the IVs and she would be a living, walking, breathing girl today. THE WITNESS: That is exactly right. THE COURT: So that is right. And I know it. So what you have said in here, and what you're going to try to promote in here, is a decision was made "She's no good to us, we don't want her anymore, let her die." That is what you said. THE WITNESS: That is what I said. THE COURT: And you don't have any proof of it. THE WITNESS: But what I have is the medical evidence of my doctors telling me how in the world can anybody let someone get in this condition and not rush them to the hospital. THE COURT: Because they acted with reckless indifference to human life. It is called manslaughter. And it surely is a far cry from what you put in 34. And what the Church is saying, and what they have been saying, and -- once it became apparent to --------------------------------------------------------------------- 563 me what they were saying, is this is what brought them so much grief. You said out there, everybody said out there, they murdered Lisa McPherson. You said it, and you don't have any proof of it. You still don't have any proof of it, right, except what Jesse Prince may have said? THE WITNESS: I have -- I have proof of a homicide. THE COURT: You have a proof of a homicide through manslaughter. THE WITNESS: I agree with you. That is -- THE COURT: You have some evidence of that. I shouldn't say you have proof, but you have doctors. THE WITNESS: And that is what I have been saying all along. THE COURT: No, you haven't. THE WITNESS: If I wanted to say they murdered her, Judge, I think I would have used the word "murder." But I didn't. Paragraph 34 is the reckless indifference, it's the total and conscious disregard, which Florida Statutes equates to intentional conduct. It is like running a stop sign totally drunk. THE COURT: Well, I think what he's saying now is basically he doesn't have any proof that David --------------------------------------------------------------------- 564 Miscavige, from on high, I said that lightly, but, you know, the top dog, so to speak, top banana, head of the Church, said, "Let's see, she's got problems down there, I think she's better off dead than alive," so they chose to step back and let her die. There is no proof of that. And apparently he's saying that is not what he meant for proof. But -- MR. WEINBERG: I can read -- THE COURT: But I offered him the opportunity, at the beginning of the hearing, to tell me differently. And I think he said no. MR. WEINBERG: And I agree with you. And I can read, too. And this is what we've been dealing with since -- since it first appeared in this case in September of '99, and ended up in this extant fifth amended complaint. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I have one more question for you, Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: Well, I need to add something to what you said, Judge. I have no document from David Miscavige saying, "End cycle Lisa McPherson." I would never get such a document from this defendant that has, according to the affidavits and declarations from other cases that I have seen -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 565 they -- they destroy documents all of the time. The last three days of Lisa McPherson's life, those records that did exist are now nonexistent. Those records may have showed us a great deal that was going on. THE COURT: Yes, they might have. And I suppose that is something you might allude to for some sort of reckless conduct or what have you. But it's awfully difficult to allude to something that is not there, to just say, from these little notes that somehow they wrote in there, "Dear Sir," is how they write, "Dear Sir, I got a message from David Miscavige and it told me --" that ain't going to be in those notes. The notes might say, "I thought she needed more water and I thought she was getting dehydrated, we ought to take her to the doctor. And Janis said, 'No, you know, she's not that sick yet.'" That is what you might find in those notes. But you wouldn't find anything saying, "David Miscavige gave us a message and it was to let her die." THE WITNESS: Based upon the Scientology business practice of who -- who are the people to get involved in this type of situation to make the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 566 big decisions, that is not the little people at the little Ft. Harrison Hotel or wherever she was. That is from Los Angeles. That is from the top management people in Scientology where David Miscavige sits at the very top. I have several witnesses, one of whom is going to be Teresa Summers, who used to be a commanding officer -- THE COURT: Well, look, is she one of your witnesses? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Not for Paragraph 34. You didn't mention her. THE WITNESS: I forgot then -- I didn't have her at the time I wrote the paragraph. That is how I was answering the question. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: I have discovery of her since then. And she was present in the office when an end cycle order came in for someone who was dying of a terminal disease. And it's true, Lisa McPherson did not have a terminal disease. This should never have happened, if what is published by the Church of Scientology on go to a medical doctor was followed. For some --------------------------------------------------------------------- 567 reason, they didn't do what they published they would do. They did something totally different. THE COURT: Well, there are two explanations for that, isn't it? Number one, their experts are right and your experts are right. That is what you have juries for. That is the first explanation. And the second explanation is, is that they were negligent. They were grossly negligent. And they didn't realize how sick she was. And they were too slow. They should have been quicker. And that is how you can prevail in the lawsuit and get money for it, for the wrongful death. That isn't what you said. THE WITNESS: What I'm saying -- THE COURT: You tried to say and you tried to imply, and apparently now that I have been through this hearing, you tried to put out there in the community that the Church, through its leader, determined that this woman should die, made a decision that said, "Don't take care of her, let her die." And the truth of the matter is that is a pretty outrageous allegation. And if you have proof of it, it comes from Jesse Prince. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 568 THE WITNESS: No, not just Jesse Prince. It comes from Vaughn Young, and there is some coming from Teresa Summers. And I expect there will be some coming now from Bill Franks. THE COURT: All right. Well, then he said he has more evidence. Now, see, I want you to understand this, because we're going to get to this one day. MR. WEINBERG: I know. THE COURT: I gave him this opportunity on day one, because I was kind of confused. Now, listen to me, Mr. Lirot. I don't know what you are sitting back there doing, but listen to this. On the first day of the hearing I made it real clear that I want to know what in the world and where it was you-all were coming from. And I thought you were coming from a theory, I believe I said, of -- some sort of manslaughter theory, reckless display, something like that. Mr. Dandar was very clear to point out to me I was wrong. This was after I pointed out to -- to -- to Mr. Lieberman whatever it was legally. Then I finally said, "We're not going there." He was talking about all this. I said, "We're not going --------------------------------------------------------------------- 569 there. They're talking about a wrongful death, recklessness, some sort of manslaughter type theory." Then I finally looked at you and said, "Isn't that so?" And very clearly he told me -- Mr. Dandar said, "No, that is not what we're saying. What we're saying is they intentionally -- intentionally --" that is not manslaughter, "intentionally allowed her to die." And I said, "I apologize to Mr. Lieberman." I think the record will reflect that. I went home, I read the complaint, and I came back and I said I was really wrong. I thought we were trying a wrongful death here. I thought it all along. I thought, when we did the Frye hearing, I thought we had two different theories, one would be this, one would be that. I have read the complaint. I have listened to what Mr. Dandar said. And, you're right, that is what they're saying. They corrected me. Nobody said, "No, Judge, you don't get it." So now I'm saying again that what you have said here, as clear as a bell -- it's clear as a bell, you might as well have said murder. It says that --------------------------------------------------------------------- 570 David Miscavige, the man at the top, made a decision that Lisa McPherson no longer needed to live. And he passed the word down, through his underlings, and it got to the workers, and they stood back and let her die, i.e., end cycle, which is exactly what it says, "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e., end cycle." And I have just -- he's asked you what your proof was. You said what your proof was. And you will have to prove it. I mean, you'll have to come forward with some evidence of that to prove it. But, you know, that is what their point has been all along is you have not talked reckless indifference or manslaughter; you talked intentional acts, and you talked about it from their superior leader. And they take great offense at that because they didn't think you had much proof of that other than Mr. Prince in his affidavit. Anyway, proceed. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q A couple more questions on this point. You don't have any evidence, testimony from anyone, affidavit or testimony, indicating -- saying that --------------------------------------------------------------------- 571 the introspection rundown has ever had an end of cycle order, as you use it, attached to it? There is no evidence of that, is there? Not in Prince's affidavit, not in Vaughn Young's, not in Stacy Brooks'? A No, there is no evidence, that is right, as of right now. Q And Vaughn Young didn't testify, in his trial testimony that was done by you literally on the day that the final version of the fifth amended complaint was filed, and he didn't indicate in any affidavit that he had any knowledge whatsoever of end of cycle. He doesn't say anything about end of cycle in his testimony, does he? A I don't remember him saying that. I do remember him talking about the public relations aspect of how far the Church of Scientology will go to protect their public relations image. THE COURT: Could I ask a question? MR. WEINBERG: Sure. THE COURT: This is sort of mind-boggling to me. Is it really something that you mean to present, that the Church of Scientology would have worse relations if they had taken Lisa McPherson to the hospital, dehydrated -- let her be dehydrated -- hydrated, I should say, if that is what the problem was, and let her either stay or leave or whatever, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 572 than it was to let her die and go through this flap? THE WITNESS: It's -- it makes -- outside of the thinking of the Church of Scientology, it boggles the mind, it boggles my mind. But I'll have to rely on my former -- my experts who are former Scientologists, especially Mr. Prince, who talks about other end cycles he has seen. THE COURT: I understand that. And I understand that Mr. Prince may say that. But, I mean, I do understand what you alleged and what you said the Church feels about bad public relations and some of those things. But, I mean, nobody in their right mind would think they would want this woman to die in their care because they thought somehow that would not cause bad public relations. Why, they would know very well that would cause huge public relations, as it, indeed, did here. I mean, these -- these are not stupid people we're dealing with. THE WITNESS: The question is why did they take her fifty minutes away to another hospital to -- and lie to their own public Scientology member, Dr. Minkoff, who said they lied -- Janis Johnson --------------------------------------------------------------------- 573 lied to him. And he was appalled and shocked about her lies about the condition of Lisa McPherson. THE COURT: Wouldn't you say that is reckless indifference, perhaps? THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's a little more than that. THE COURT: Why did she take her at all? Why didn't she kind of bury her in the backyard? How stupid, Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: It would be a death -- in this physical condition, either at the Ft. Harrison Hotel or Hacienda, wherever she was, it would be a death that they would -- THE COURT: I'm tired of hearing that. Do you have any proof of that, she was at the Hacienda where there were cockroaches? THE WITNESS: Well, that is where the cockroaches are. THE COURT: I don't know if there are cockroaches there or not. But you have no proof of that, and I'm tired of hearing about it. THE WITNESS: Well, I have eyewitness testimony that there is cockroach -- infestation of cockroaches at the Hacienda. THE COURT: Oh, boy. I just don't think I can --------------------------------------------------------------------- 574 stand another minute. Do you have any proof of the fact that Lisa McPherson was at the Hacienda instead of at the Ft. Harrison? THE WITNESS: Testimony? No. THE COURT: Do you have any proof? THE WITNESS: No. I have no testimony, no documents. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, do you have any proof? A I have cockroaches feeding on Lisa McPherson's body. And if -- if there is none at the hotel, then where is she? THE COURT: No, actually what you have, you have somebody that says there is a 80 percent chance they are consistent with cockroaches. At best you have a 20 percent chance it is not consistent with cockroaches. In your best case you have a doctor that says it is 80 percent consistent with cockroaches. Anybody can look at that and figure there is a 20 percent chance that it isn't consistent with cockroaches. You have a whole bunch of other folks that say it is abrasion. Guess what? With the facts as they are, you --------------------------------------------------------------------- 575 can look at it and say, well, the 20 percent chance must be the right one here because there is no cockroaches at the Ft. Harrison. THE WITNESS: I -- there is other evidence. Dr. Goff also said, Judge, that based upon his expertise and experience, he can't think of anything else but cockroaches that would have caused those marks. THE COURT: You know, I swear to God I don't think you read the same thing I read. He can't even say it's an insect. He doesn't know if it's an insect or abrasion. He has to look to the medical examiner to tell you whether it's an insect or abrasion. The guy that says it's an insect or abrasion can't tell you he's a 100 percent sure. He can tell you within reasonable degree of medical probability, which is 51 percent. So, guess what? You put all this together, what do you have, a good, smart-thinking lawyer like you? What do you have? THE WITNESS: You have a prima facie case. THE COURT: Well, you have -- what you have got is a good probability, unless you can establish that there are, A, roaches at the Ft. Harrison, or, B, she was at Hacienda. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 576 What you really have is probably they were abrasions. And that is exactly what they are. And your Dr. Goff wouldn't argue with that because he said he wouldn't even begin to say whether they are insect bites or not. THE WITNESS: Their own entomologist, who is with a master's degree -- I can't remember his name right now but I took his deposition, Judge -- he said this -- based on the pictures he was shown by defense counsel, shows openings in the door which is right adjacent to the public street, and there is a little plant area between the door and the public street. He said those openings in that door are sufficient enough to have roaches or other insects come into that room. And they are attracted by what? There is no lights on in the room and there is feces -- MR. WEINBERG: That is not true. That is not what the testimony was. There were lights on and people in the room. THE COURT: Yes, you just don't really need to go there. I have already entered that order. But I just was trying to say -- you seem to be playing right into -- I hate to tell you this, but you seem to be playing right into their hands here. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 577 It seems like maybe you haven't read their motions or terminating sanctions. It seems as if everything you want to just continue and continue to say and do, with very little proof of it, kind of shows what you were really out to do is to damn the Church of Scientology. THE WITNESS: That is not true at all. THE COURT: Well, it sure does sound like it. And that is what they're saying. And that is what they're saying in their counterclaim. And that is what they're saying in their motion for terminating sanctions, that -- it goes beyond that. What they are saying is that is exactly what the situation is, and that you knew it, and that you and Mr. Minton were in on it together, and this is what you really had in mind to do, which was to set out to ruin, put down, do away with, cause embarrassment to, on and on, the Church and its members. And, of course, you say, well, that wasn't true. But -- but -- you know, you do understand that is what they're saying? THE WITNESS: I do. This allegation, from my experience in doing personal injury/wrongful death cases for over 20 years, this allegation was an --------------------------------------------------------------------- 578 allegation that I would make against a really, really, really bad nursing home who let someone in bedsores just sit and suffer and die from the bedsore. Someone who made a decision, "I'm not going to do anything about it. I'm going to do the act of omission," and the person dies from a bedsore. Or the person bleeds to death in bed in a bad, bad nursing home. I could care less about the Church of Scientology. I didn't even know about the Church of Scientology, and I lived in Pinellas County, south county, before I ever got this case. I could care less about the Church of Scientology. I'm not Mr. Minton's puppet. I wasn't on his agenda. I was doing the wrongful death case. And this allegation is above a manslaughter allegation but it's below a murder count. It's in the between now. And it is based on my medical doctors, not Jesse Prince. THE COURT: All right. Continue. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q The fact is that throughout this case you have, in pleadings and in public statements, accused the Church of murder, M-U-R-D-E-R, with regard to Lisa McPherson. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 579 Correct? A No. Q All right. Well, let me show you -- A I don't believe I ever used -- THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I think you have. I think there is already evidence in this record of that. THE WITNESS: Well, it is the way he framed his question. I don't think I ever used the word "murder" in public. I did use "murder" in a brief to the 2d DCA, because I had my pathologist telling me that is what it was. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, I'm going to show you -- it won't take long -- THE COURT: That is where I read it, in several pleadings. MR. WEINBERG: You also heard it on video. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Remember the December 4, 1999 appearance with the media there where the Lisa McPherson Trust was announced, and your opening line was -- and we played it when Ms. Brooks was on the stand -- "Thank you. I'm here to talk about the murder of Lisa McPherson by a cult known as the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 580 Church of Scientology." Do you remember saying that to the media and to the public on December 4, 1999? A I think I remember the video being played here. Q And you remember saying that. Right? A I don't remember saying it until you showed me the video. Q And do you remember that on -- that on -- A But I thought I was talking about seeing it -- but if you say that is what I said, fine. I thought I was talking about end cycle. Q Well, we just marked it as -- the transcript of your speech. Want to take a look at the transcript and take a look at the opening line? Is that what it says, what I just read to you? A That is what this says, the transcript that I guess somebody at the Church typed up. Q Well, you surely don't want me to play that video clip again when Ms. Brooks was on the stand, but I'll be happy to play it for you. A No. No. It is okay. THE COURT: I mean, if he doesn't remember saying it, you better play it. MR. WEINBERG: Well, let's play that for him. Let's key that up. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 581 ______________________________________ (Whereupon, the videotape is played.) "I'm here to talk about the murder of Lisa McPherson by a cult known as the Church of Scientology." (This concludes the playing of the videotape.) ______________________________________ THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Does that refresh your recollection? A It certainly does. Q And the press was there, there was a microphone sitting there from one of the local TV stations. Correct? A Yes. Q You weren't reluctant about accusing the Church, in December of '99, right after you had filed your motion to add David Miscavige under the Sea Org theory, with this Paragraph 34, saying that he had ordered the death of Lisa McPherson; you weren't reluctant to say that to the public on December 4, 1999, that this was murder, were you? A Well, it was prior to the hearing, ten days. Q Prior to the hearing, after the motion was filed? A Okay, did I talk about the motion being filed? I don't think so. Q Well -- THE COURT: Counselor, you two just really need --------------------------------------------------------------------- 582 to stop. What you wanted to ask him is whether or not he said that Lisa McPherson had been murdered. He couldn't recall it. And now you have shown him one instance. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Do you have more than that to show him? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Well, then go ahead, show him that, then we're going to take a break. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me hand you the answer brief you filed in the 2d DCA on August 4, 1999. I will refer you to Page 1, the statement of the case. And I -- in the first paragraph, I want you to read what you said in the last sentence that is yellowed. A "This is a case of murder by an organization calling itself a church." Q That is the second time. You acknowledge you filed that pleading. Right? A Yes. I did. THE COURT: What -- what document is that? MR. WEINBERG: Here. I'm going to mark it. THE WITNESS: The answer brief of an appeal --------------------------------------------------------------------- 583 brief filed by Bennetta Slaughter and other people who worked for the AMC Publishing Company. THE COURT: I have seen this. This isn't the first time I have seen this. It has been filed somewhere in this case. MR. FUGATE: It's in a number of pleadings, I think, to the Second District, your Honor. MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark this as our next exhibit, your Honor. THE COURT: I guess what I'm telling you, this is not the first time that I have seen that allegation in an appellate brief or in an appellate pleading by Mr. Dandar. I don't know if this is where I have seen it before, or if it is in this stack of stuff somewhere. MR. WEINBERG: It's not in the stack of stuff, because we haven't put this document before you. But I think we've referred to it before. THE COURT: All right. What is the number here? THE CLERK: 165. MR. WEINBERG: And I move 165 into evidence, which is the answer brief of appellee filed by Mr. Dandar on August 4, 1999. THE COURT: Any objection? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 584 MR. LIROT: No. No objection, your Honor. THE COURT: It will be received. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay, now do you remember filing a motion to dismiss the counterclaim with prejudice, motion to strike and motion for sanctions on February 26, 2001? A No. But I'm sure if you have it there, I did. Q Okay. Let me hand that up to you. MR. WEINBERG: Do you have another copy of that? All right, I'm going to hand this to you. And if I could stand by Mr. Dandar, that seems to be my only copy. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q All right, this is a pleading you filed, right, in 2001? A Yes. Q And can you read what you have yellowed there? A What you have yellowed? Q What I have yellowed. Correct. A "Redress for the intentional torture and killing of Lisa McPherson." Q Then, at the bottom, you talk about also, same words, "For the killing and torture of Lisa McPherson"? A That's right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 585 Q And then, on Page 4, you say, "Scientology maliciously tortured and killed Lisa McPherson"? A That's right. Q And then there are a few other references to -- well, one other reference on Page 10, "The torture and killing of Lisa McPherson"? A Right. Q And in that pleading filed in this case, that was a murder allegation, right, "Intentional torture and killing" is murder, right? A No. It said, "Intentional torture and killing." Q Oh, so intentional didn't modify killing? A No. It modified torture. Q Oh, I see. So the killing was unintentional? A No. The killing rose between murder and above manslaughter. MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark that as my next exhibit. A And it didn't say murder. MR. WEINBERG: That, your Honor, is Exhibit 166, which is motion to dismiss counterclaim with prejudice, motion to strike and motion for sanctions filed by Mr. Dandar on February 26, 2001. I move that into evidence. THE COURT: What is it? What number? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 586 MR. WEINBERG: It's 166; Defense 166. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LIROT: No objection. THE COURT: Thank you. I'll assume, Mr. Lirot, especially on these pleadings, that they're already part of the record. MR. LIROT: Part of the record, Judge. THE COURT: And as I said, basically I'm just going to assume that you don't have an objection unless you say so, so that -- MR. LIROT: Fair enough. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, you do remember that -- THE COURT: What is above a manslaughter and below a murder? MR. WEINBERG: I'm not familiar -- oh, you are asking Mr. Dandar? THE COURT: I'm asking Mr. Dandar. THE WITNESS: Dr. Bandt called it a second degree murder, which -- he also called it homicide. None of my experts would call it murder, first degree, because there was no commission. THE COURT: Well, of course you did. THE WITNESS: Well, I did. And I stand --------------------------------------------------------------------- 587 corrected by my experts. THE COURT: I mean, you called it a premeditated murder, in essence, by saying it was determined that this is what was going to be done. That is a premeditated act, right? Murder two is something short of premeditation. It is done out of spite, evil -- ill will, evil, this type of thing. That is what murder two is. THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: So to prove spite, evil intent, ill will -- I think a classic example of that, sort of, is when you go -- I go to shoot Mr. Fugate and I point at him and -- no, that would be first degree, that would be transferred intent. MR. FUGATE: Right. THE COURT: I'm trying to think, there is classic example when you -- for murder two. When you don't really premeditate it but your mind is such that, as I said, you are being spiteful, you know, you are operating out of ill will, evil intent. So, you know, that, I suppose, could also fit what you have said here, that would be considered, I suppose, a murder two. But again, we -- well, you have been telling us --------------------------------------------------------------------- 588 what your proof is. And we'll just have to wait and see what you have. MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: I have read the affidavit of Mr. Prince, and I have not heard Mr. Prince testify and I have not read his deposition and, quite frankly, if it's a thousand pages, I don't want it. So -- MR. WEINBERG: The last exhibit in this series, your Honor, with regard to the murder. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You do remember filing a response to the religiosity motion, which was a 120-page response that you filed on January 18, 2000, along with Ford Greene? Do you remember doing that? A 120 pages? I don't remember doing 120 pages. Is that exhibits? Q Excuse me? A Is that exhibits? Q No. I'm going to show you -- this is my only copy so I'll mark it, it's so long, but -- A If you tell me -- Q If I can approach, I'll show you a few things, if that is okay. A If it is 120, fine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 589 Q Is this the religiosity response where the issue was whether or not the Church of Scientology was a church that you and Mr. Greene filed in whatever I said, early 2000? A Yes. Q And it's a lot of pages. Right? A Yes, it is. And my argument is the first argument, that there should be no issue in this case to talk about whether or not they are a religion or not. Q In any event, in this response -- A Which Judge Moody agreed with. THE COURT: I'm sorry, your what? THE WITNESS: My response is we don't need to have a circuit court say I declare the Church of Scientology to be a religion. I said that is a red herring. That has nothing to do with this case. And Judge Moody agreed. THE COURT: I don't think anybody disagrees with it, do they? THE WITNESS: There are some courts that cite decisions in this case where -- Judge Kovachevich, for instance, under the Clearwater cases, stated in her opinion she wondered why the City of Clearwater did not challenge the religiosity. And the City of Clearwater did what I did in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 590 this case, saying we're -- that is not an issue for us, we're not here to challenge that. That is not what this case is about. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q But this whole pleading -- A But they wanted me to admit they are a church and religion. They wanted Judge Moody to say they are a church and religion. And, personally, I don't think I have to do that. And Judge Moody agreed. It's just not an issue. Q No, except in this 120-page document, you attacked the Church of Scientology's practices which you said were not religious practices. Correct? That is what the whole pleading is about? A Right. It is what it is. And I signed it, and Ford Greene. He has more expertise about whether something is a religion or not than I did. Q All right, but that wasn't why I was going to show it to you. A Sorry. Q On the first page, you and Mr. Greene talk about -- you say "killed Lisa McPherson." A Right. Q Right? A Right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 591 Q On Page 4, "It," being the Church, "has imprisoned, tortured, killed and lied." A Right. That is all true. If you're asking me if I still stand behind -- THE COURT: I think the term "killed," you have to be real careful with, because a manslaughter, of course, is a killing. I mean, there is a difference in a murder and a manslaughter. They are all forms of killing. And so I'm only interested, really, to tell you the truth, in where he said "murder." MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: Or "intentionally killed." MR. WEINBERG: This is so voluminous, I think I'll wait until later. THE COURT: All right. And I do think, what he's trying to say, this is not a manslaughter but it's like a murder two. I don't know why in the world you would ever go to the point of trying to establish something like that when it certainly isn't necessary for your wrongful death case. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. THE WITNESS: Well, I'll move to conform the pleadings to the evidence. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 592 MR. WEINBERG: Well, excuse me, your Honor, but I think it's a little late for that right now. You gave him that opportunity -- THE COURT: He has an -- he has no opportunity to speak right now. We'll finish with this hearing we are in, which deals exactly with the pleadings as you have filed them and as they have been perceived to be public -- at least how you wanted them to be perceived by the public. And that is part of the issue. And that is why I'm letting him go there, because one part of the issue is this was, as they're perceiving it, sort of the evil intent of the estate, which was to attack the Church and attack the -- not the wrongful death, but to attack the Church and kind of undermine it. THE WITNESS: You know, I didn't once allege in these pleadings, I don't believe -- of course, maybe in the -- since they brought an issue of religiosity, but other than that religiosity motion that was not relevant to this case, I don't believe I have said in my pleadings, especially the complaints, that they are not a religion. THE COURT: You don't get it yet. THE WITNESS: I don't get it. THE COURT: You don't get it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 593 THE WITNESS: I never heard of this before so -- THE COURT: When you say the Church murders, you are attacking the Church. You know what I mean? When you say a church stood by because they were afraid of bad press and intentionally allowed a woman to die, you are attacking the Church. And that is -- that is what -- part of what their concern is. And that is really what has happened as far as -- you know, you're right, you stand by your pleadings. Your pleading says what it says. I didn't realize until this hearing exactly what it said. I just assumed we were off on another course. But, in any event, we are on this course now, and my course says it is time for a break, so let's go ahead and be in recess. It is 10 after. We'll be in recess until 3:30. (WHEREUPON, a recess is taken from 3:10 to 3:37 p.m.) _______________________________________ THE COURT: Where is that paragraph we've been dealing with? 34? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Here is the definition of --------------------------------------------------------------------- 594 manslaughter. Murder in the second degree is not going to fit, I don't think. Murder in the second degree is an act that was an unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind, without regard to human life. An act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or series of acts that a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another. Here is the problem. Number two, is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. Three. When done, is of such a nature that the acts themselves indicate an indifference to human life. So ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. But if you get to manslaughter, it does talk about intentional. The victim is dead. That is element number one. Number two. A. The defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim. B. The defendant intentionally procured the death of the victim. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 595 Or, C, is where most cases I see on manslaughter, is the death of the victim was caused by the culpable negligence of the defendant. Culpable negligence -- I will define it. Each of us has duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care to another. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. I heard those words somewhere. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or would show wantonness or recklessness or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of those rights. So that's murder one, premeditated murder, and murder two and three. Premeditated murder doesn't --------------------------------------------------------------------- 596 apply. So those are your statutory definitions. THE WITNESS: It fits what you just read. THE COURT: Manslaughter. THE WITNESS: But also fits, the last part, I think, also, of second degree, the very last line you read. THE COURT: Well, second degree says that it is from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. You have to show, when you phrase your thing here, that Mr. Miscavige passed the word down, and apparently it was done from ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. THE WITNESS: What was that after that, Judge? THE COURT: It is an "and," it has to be one, a person of ordinary judgment would know is certainly reasonable to kill and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. The kicker for murder two is the ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. So it really doesn't fit there, based on anything I know. There are some pretty -- you know, pretty ugly words in manslaughter under the definition of culpable negligence. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 597 But I wasn't thinking -- manslaughter can be an intentional death. I don't think that is what is -- it's kind of an odd thing that he phrased here. But, in any event, now you know that is what the definitions are. All right, continue on. MR. WEINBERG: Yes, ma'am. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You mentioned, in the response -- your response to both Judge Schaeffer and I, as to what we might anticipate from other witnesses that could appear. And one of the witnesses you mentioned was Bill Franks. Right? A Right. Q And you said something to the effect that Bill Franks was going to provide evidence that would support the allegation that we're talking about set forth in Paragraph 34. Did I hear you correctly? A Yes. Q Now, yesterday we put in evidence the affidavit of William Drescher, which is Defense 143. And attached to that affidavit was the May 23rd, 2002 letter to Mr. Drescher from Bill Franks. You remember that. Correct? A Yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 598 Q And you had already had a copy of that letter before we put it into evidence, didn't you? You'd seen that before? A No. You handed it to me that morning. Q But I'm saying had you been sent by Mr. Franks, the person who you subpoenaed, a copy of that letter? A No, because I would have given that to the Judge right away when it talks about threats made by Mr. Drescher not to appear when being subpoenaed. Q What I'm going to focus on is what he said is relevant to what we're talking about, which is Paragraph 34 in the fifth amended complaint. What he says, at the bottom of the second page, "I am sorry for this young woman's fate, but there is no way that the Church killed her or participated in her death. I don't know much about this case. But I wonder why someone would try to pull me into such a case when I know that standard Church procedure as I knew it would not have allowed this to happen. And that is all that I would have to say pertinent to this matter." You see that? A Yes. Q It doesn't sound like Mr. Franks is going to come here and tell us about any knowledge that he has that the Church of Scientology has ever permitted, allowed, ordered --------------------------------------------------------------------- 599 someone to die on introspection rundown, does it? A I guess you'll have to wait to hear from him. Q Well -- A I'm not going to talk about what Mr. Franks may or might not say, nor what he meant by that letter. I have no idea what he meant by that letter. Q Have you -- have you -- is he your expert? A He is an expert. Q No. Is he an expert for the estate of Lisa McPherson in this case? A Well, as much as I can get a person who all I did was subpoena him to come into this courtroom, yes, to talk about Scientology practices, policy, end cycle, I guess, I would hope so. And, no, I haven't subpoenaed him. But I have to pay for his expenses to get here. Q The next question is a yes or no. Have you talked to him about the allegations in Paragraph 34? A I talked to him about the end cycle and I talked to him about deaths in Scientology, and public relations flaps. And -- very briefly, yeah. Q All right. So it's hard for you to understand, explain what he meant when he wrote those words that I just read to you, of Mr. Drescher, about having no experience, from his experience in the church, which I think ended in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 600 1981? THE COURT: If he's coming, it's kind of irrelevant. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: If he doesn't come, then it won't make any difference. So let's just wait and see if he comes. MR. WEINBERG: That is true. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, Mr. Dandar, in addition to statements in -- THE COURT: If he comes, I am sure -- and says something different from what is in that letter, then you can impeach him from that letter. MR. WEINBERG: I would suspect that I would. THE COURT: I suspect you would. THE WITNESS: I even agree with that. MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me? THE WITNESS: I agree with that, you will. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. In addition to statements and pleadings in this case regarding the killing, murder, things like that, you have done quite a bit of media with regard to the Lisa McPherson case since the complaint was first filed in February of '97, is that right? A No. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 601 Q You -- A I have responded -- I responded to what the Church of Scientology has done when the reporters asked me to respond. I did not hold a press conference with my pathologists. And your client did. Q Okay. My question is did you appear, for example, in Court TV Prime Time Justice -- did you do that -- December of 1997, and do an interview with regard to the allegations in the case? A Mmm, is that one show? Or is that two different things? Q One show. A I did something -- I did an interview where your associate, Laura Vaughan, was on, and Mr. Rinder and Elliott Abelson was on, if that is the one with Bryant Gumble, Prime Time. If that is the one, yes. Q You appeared on various news shows, particularly at the time of the criminal charge in this case, talking about the allegations? A It's possible. Q Well, you remember that, don't you? A When you say appear on TV, I mean, if someone comes to my office and asks me a question, and I answer the question, like I'm allowed to do. Q Do you remember Mr. Minton's testimony about your --------------------------------------------------------------------- 602 conversations between you concerning the German TV show ZDF TV? A No. Q Well, did you -- A I don't think I was on German TV, was I? Q Yes, you were. A Well, if it played in Germany, I didn't get to see it. Q Well, do you remember being interviewed by German television in your office? A Yes. I do remember that. Q And do you remember that -- that when you were interviewed, you said words, in effect, "We're going to try all of Scientology, every enterprise they have, and the one at the top of Scientology, David Miscavige. He's the absolute ruler of Scientology." Do you remember saying that? A No. Are you going to play it? Q Do you want to hear it? A Well, no. I don't remember saying that. That doesn't sound like me. Q What I am going to play, this will take about twenty seconds or thirty seconds, is three clips, one from Prime Time Justice, one from Channel -- Prime Time Justice, December 18, 1997; one from Channel 13 News, November 13, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 603 1998; and one from Channel 28 News, December 18, 1997. A So you're just going to play my part, and not your client's part? THE COURT: We'll let you play the other parts. I'm sure if there are three of them and one of yours, I'm sure they talked three times more than you did. THE WITNESS: I don't want to. THE COURT: Well, then don't. All right. All right. _______________________________________ (Whereupon, the videotape is played.) "Why would they want her dead? "As bizarre as this sounds, the Church of Scientology will let a member die before they face bad public relations, according to their own copyrighted books on rules and regulations of Scientology. "They killed Lisa McPherson. She's dead. Her entire death was preventable. They chose to let her die. "They killed Lisa McPherson. She's dead. Her entire death was preventable. They chose to let her die in following the dictates of Scientology. "Through an isolation, they were following the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 604 exact programs authored by the founder of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Hubbard. And as a result of those programs, they killed Lisa McPherson." (This concludes the playing of the videotape.) BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, when you said, in December of 1997, which is that first clip that I played -- that we played for you -- that the Church of Scientology will let a member die before they face bad public relations, according to their own copyrighted books on rules and regulations of Scientology, that is before you ever met Jesse Prince, right? It was a year before you met Jesse Prince? A Right. That is from Vaughn Young. Q So Vaughn Young told you that? A Right. He was their public relations person. He knows. Q And what were those copyrighted books and rules that said that you would let somebody die before they would face bad public relations? A Well, I don't have those committed to memory. I'm sure they include the ones I already talked about. THE COURT: I'm sure you'll have what it is you are talking about in your response to motion to summary judgment. THE WITNESS: I most certainly will, Judge. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 605 THE COURT: Yes. So we'll see those at that time. MR. WEINBERG: Okay, you can turn that off. Let me go to another subject, your Honor. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Switching gears, going to a completely different subject -- THE COURT: I'm sure it must be about the agreement. MR. WEINBERG: Well, no. THE COURT: When are we going to get to the three things your lawyer indicated were at issue here? MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is part of it. What we just did is part of the three things. THE COURT: How long are you going to spend on this one? MR. WEINBERG: On this one? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WEINBERG: Not that long. But, I mean, it's discussed and has to do with confidential stuff. It's discussed in our brief. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: And our motion. What were you referring to, will I get to the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 606 agreement? I'm not tracking -- THE COURT: I don't know. There are three things your lawyer said were essential to this matter. One was the agreement between -- between the estate, or Ms. Liebreich, or Ms. Liebreich and her brothers and sisters and Mr. Minton to give the bulk of the money, or substantial part of the money or some part of the money. That I have yet to hear about. So I assume you're going to get to that, or else you're not. And if you don't, we'll just eliminate that. MR. WEINBERG: But -- but -- but I believe -- and I'm looking for -- here it is, for the -- for the first page of our memo, if I could just address this for -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: -- for a moment. We said that we filed this memo seeking various forms of relief based on the extraordinary record of new admissions from Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, showing that, one -- that is why I'm a little confused at the three areas -- showing that, one, plaintiff engaged in perjury and elicited perjury on material matters in this court and in other court proceedings on matters --------------------------------------------------------------------- 607 relating to the procedures in this case. That is number one. THE COURT: Committed perjury or what? MR. WEINBERG: Or elicited perjury. THE COURT: Okay. Now we're going over his fifth amended complaint, which isn't under oath. MR. WEINBERG: But I'm not there yet. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Two is plaintiff and her counsel knowingly have made false accusations in this case, including accusations that the defendant and Scientology ecclesiastical leadership knowingly and intentionally murdered Lisa McPherson for the purpose of using such allegations to attack the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. THE COURT: I thought that is what we've been doing? MR. WEINBERG: Well, I thought that -- I mean, I was going to review with you what -- I mean, I'm going to show you what we're doing -- I mean, I'm going to show you the three areas. And I think it will be clear that everything that I have been doing falls within the purview of these three areas. THE COURT: I thought that you said you were done with that and you were going into the third --------------------------------------------------------------------- 608 area. I thought -- MR. WEINBERG: No. I said another area is what I said. THE COURT: You mean -- MR. WEINBERG: Another subject matter. THE COURT: All right. I thought you were going -- MR. WEINBERG: Another -- THE COURT: One more and you would be done, and I thought perhaps it would be the agreement which your lawyer said when he made his oral presentation was one of three. MR. WEINBERG: All right. I mean -- THE COURT: Continue on -- MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: -- rather than arguing with me. MR. WEINBERG: I wasn't trying to argue. THE COURT: Move on. It's very slow going. And one of these days I'm going to put limits on you all and tell you you have half a day. I haven't done that yet, but I'm going to if you don't move. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I've tried to move fast. And I -- THE COURT: Don't make excuses. Just keep going. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 609 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You sent E-Mails and other documents in the case to Mr. Minton. Correct? A I asked and answered that yesterday. THE COURT: Yes, you did. But you have a lawyer sitting back there. He may not have been. THE WITNESS: He may not have been. Well, my brother may have been here then. A But, generally speaking, yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Okay. You remember Mr. Minton's testimony that you E-mailed him the confidential videotaped -- or the transcript of the confidential deposition of Gerald Armstrong? Do you remember his -- his testimony about that? A No. Q Did you? A Not that I recall. Q Is it fair to say you don't recall, one way or another? Or are you denying that you did? A I'm pretty sure I did not. But as I have been saying throughout, if you show me something that is by me to Mr. Minton saying, "Here is the confidential deposition of Gerald Armstrong," I will change my testimony. But as I sit here under oath, I'm pretty sure I can say I did not. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 610 Q Do you remember Mr. Minton's testimony that he discussed with you the mediation -- the first mediation in 1998, and do you remember that he posted a few months later a posting that had to do with that mediation? THE COURT: Here again, I think, Counselor, the problem I have with this, you are trying to ask him about whether what somebody else said is true or not. You need to ask him questions. MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: And then, of course, when it is all over, you can say this is what Mr. Minton said, this is what he said. You can't impeach him -- MR. WEINBERG: I'm not trying to impeach him. THE COURT: What are you trying to do? MR. WEINBERG: I asked him a question. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you -- MR. WEINBERG: I was just trying to focus it so we went quicker. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you discuss the first mediation, which was a confidential mediation, with Mr. Minton? A No. Not that I remember. I don't think I ever discussed a mediation with him, except I may have said we --------------------------------------------------------------------- 611 had a mediation and they offered something that was extremely insulting to my client. Q Which is essentially what he says in his posting, which is Exhibit 98. So is it correct that you had some discussion with him where you told him it was an insulting offer? A I may have said it was an insulting offer. But I certainly didn't tell him the context of the mediation. Q Did you discuss with Mr. Minton the conversations that you had with Fannie McPherson when you met her for the one and only time, as you called it, on her deathbed? A Well, actually, she was sitting in a chair on oxygen. And I met her -- with her somewhere between three and a half to four hours. THE COURT: The question was -- THE WITNESS: Yes -- THE COURT: Did you discuss that with Mr. Minton? THE WITNESS: I think I told him or a group of people that one statement that Fannie said that still sticks in my mind about, you know, exposing what Scientology did to Lisa McPherson. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Was that a confidential, privileged communication you were having with Fannie McPherson? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 612 A Not that time, it wasn't. I had other people in the room when she said that, I believe. Q But other parts of the conversation you raised the privilege to when we sought -- we inquired about it over the five years of this case. Correct? A Correct. THE COURT: I don't know how she could be his client. She's deceased. MR. WEINBERG: He testified that she was his client. THE COURT: Well, he may have thought she was his client. But the truth of the matter is she's dead and it's not her estate. So the truth of the matter is I don't believe she is his client. THE WITNESS: Well -- MR. WEINBERG: Well, in this case -- we'll go over in this case it is one of the allegations we have in the motion. But in this case we sought transcript of part of the initial conversation between Mr. Dandar and Ms. McPherson. It's the transcript that ultimately had been given to the FDLE and the Clearwater Police that was produced by the Clearwater Police and/or the FDLE after the criminal case was nolle prossed. Mr. Dandar, who -- we'll show you this -- said --------------------------------------------------------------------- 613 this was a privileged document and would not produce it. THE COURT: I don't -- Mr. Dandar continues to say she's his client. Mr. Dandar said his privilege and this and that and the other thing. I'm saying, as matter of law, I don't know how this could be. She's dead. Lisa McPherson is not his client. His client is the estate of Lisa McPherson. That is not -- I mean, that is not Fannie McPherson. And it's not Lisa McPherson. It's the estate of Lisa McPherson. So I think he's wrong. I mean -- MR. WEINBERG: Obviously, I'm not arguing with you about it. It is just what he said. THE WITNESS: But I did get rulings by Judge Moody that said I was right. She did sign the retainer agreement. THE COURT: Well, you know what? You're here now. THE WITNESS: I know. I'm just letting you know I'm just not throwing this up in the air. THE COURT: And I'm sure when she was alive she was your client. But she's not now. Move on. Sorry I brought it up. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 614 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you send the 1995 knowledge report of Brenda Spencer Hubert to Mr. Minton? A I don't know. I don't think so. And I'm pretty sure that wasn't a confidential document, either. Q Well, you do remember Exhibit 99, which was his posting that said he got that? A Yes. I don't think he said he got it from me. He might have gotten it from one of -- his spy. Q Did you -- have you now checked with your office concerning the August 30, 1999 draft of the fifth amended complaint that we looked at yesterday and marked as Exhibit -- A Yes, we did, Exhibit 145 for the defendant. I did. And it does not exist in my office. THE COURT: What is that? THE WITNESS: That is this crazy-looking -- THE COURT: Oh, right. THE WITNESS: -- complaint that someone apparently tried to scan from something. If Mr. Minton had that, I'm sure you would have asked him all kinds of questions about it. But it's not in my office. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q So you don't know who prepared this version of the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 615 fifth amended complaint? A No. Not based upon this exhibit, I don't. THE COURT: What is the number of that again? THE WITNESS: 145. MR. WEINBERG: It's actually 146. MR. LIROT: There are two different ones. THE WITNESS: No, this one is 145. MR. LIROT: 145 appears to be the one either scanned or is a little rougher text. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LIROT: And 146, I think, has a date of 9/6/99. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And 146 is a -- is a copy that you have confirmed is -- is a draft of what you did in your office. Right? A No, that is the one that is actually filed. Q 145, I mean -- is it 145? A No. No. This is 145. This is the scanned gobbledygook. That one is not in my office. The one that has September '99 in the top left-hand corner, that is attached to the motion to add parties. So that is in my office. That is a filed document. Q And did you send that document, the September one, by E-Mail to Mr. Minton? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 616 A No. Q And you -- A Unless -- wait a minute. Wait. Wait. You know, again, if you can show me something that says I did, I can help answer your question. But I didn't -- certainly didn't send him anything before I filed it. It is a record document in the record of the court, so it's a public record. And if he asked for it after it was filed, I had to send it to anybody, send it to the press, send it to whoever asked for it. Q You keep saying -- and you said it a number of times -- if I can show you, you'll agree with it, which is nice. If I could show you, beyond what I have, I would. But I'm asking you really for your best recollection of whether you sent drafts of pleadings before they were filed, or gave drafts of pleadings before they were filed, to Mr. Minton. A No. Q Okay. Now, you filed a motion for sanctions against Mr. Moxon in regard to the Teresa Summers deposition, didn't you? A Yes. Q You allege that he did not notify her, at her deposition, of the confidentiality provision -- the order that Judge Moody had entered several years before. Correct? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 617 A Correct. Q You didn't notify her, either, of that at the deposition, did you? A Correct. I wasn't taking her deposition. What was the date of that, by the way? THE COURT: By the way, I don't care about that. MR. WEINBERG: About the -- about the confidentiality provision? THE COURT: I don't care about that, and I don't care whether he filed a motion against Mr. Moxon, and I don't care whether Mr. Moxon told her, and I don't care whether Mr. Dandar told her. MR. WEINBERG: Right. But what I'm going to show Mr. Dandar, if it is okay, is that -- THE COURT: If it is something that is relevant, I'm anxious to hear. But all that, I don't care about it. It sounds like you guys fuss and file a motion, bring things to court, typical of what is happening in this case. MR. WEINBERG: I think it's relevant. And what -- what is -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Is it true, Mr. Dandar, that prior to your motion you actually caused the transcript of the Teresa Summers --------------------------------------------------------------------- 618 deposition to be E-mailed to Mr. Minton? A We've already covered this. Q And the answer is? A Yes. Because they were so worried that this ex-employee -- THE COURT: You've already testified to this. He doesn't have to go over this again. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Did you authorize Mr. Prince to E-Mail a draft of the severe sanction motion concerning -- you know, that Judge Schaeffer just issued an order on yesterday concerning Mr. Prince -- to E-Mail a draft of that motion, before it was filed, to Mr. Minton? A No. Q Did you know that Mr. Prince did that? A No. Do you have proof of that? Q Yes. A Okay. Mr. Prince certainly had a copy of that because it concerned him. MR. WEINBERG: Can I approach, your Honor? THE COURT: Save it for Mr. Prince, why don't you? I mean, he -- if he wants to see it, let him see it on his time, not mine. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. That is fine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 619 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, you were present at the May 1999 depositions of Dell Liebreich, Ann Carlson, Lee Skelton and Sam Davis that we did in Dallas, right? A Yes. Q And at those depositions, each of your clients exercised the confidentiality provision and declared their depositions to be confidential. Right? A Yes. THE COURT: Are all those people your clients? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Why is that? THE WITNESS: Because they all consider me their attorney, and I consider them my clients. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: Am I doing something wrong? THE COURT: Well, I don't know. I don't even see where they're listed on this thing. They are a potential beneficiary. THE WITNESS: It is true they are not parties to this case, nor are they beneficiaries of the Lisa McPherson estate. But they are beneficiaries of the Fannie McPherson estate, which is the sole beneficiary of the Lisa McPherson estate. THE COURT: Well, if Fannie McPherson is dead, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 620 you'll find if she's the beneficiary she's not going to get much. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: She is dead. Yes. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And you talked -- during those depositions that were taken in Texas in May of 1999, you had telephone conversations with Mr. Minton, didn't you? A Well, have I testified to that already? Is that what you said? Q No. A Oh? Q I said you had telephone conversations with Mr. Minton about those depositions while those depositions were going on while you were in Texas in May of 1999, didn't you? A It is possible, because that is all you kept asking about is Mr. Minton and Ken Dandar. Q Well, I mean, did you tell him about some of the content of the deposition that had been -- of the depositions that had been deemed, pursuant to Judge Moody's order, to be confidential? A I don't think I gave him the contents. I think I just gave him a general statement. I think he called it on the Internet, to my dismay, a "Bob and Ken Show," or --------------------------------------------------------------------- 621 something like that. Q Well, this is May of 1999. And we've asked you a number of questions about Mr. Minton. And is there some reason why, while the depositions of your clients -- as you called them -- the beneficiaries in this case, including Dell Liebreich, are being taken, that you are having communications, by telephone, with him about the depositions? A I think I can telephone anybody I want to telephone, Mr. Weinberg. Q I didn't say you couldn't. But you have insisted that Mr. Minton didn't have anything to do with this wrongful death case, right? You said that? A That is right. I still say that. That is still the truth. And it hasn't changed. THE COURT: What were you talking to him about? THE WITNESS: About Mr. Weinberg consistently asking questions about Bob Minton throughout the deposition, instead of asking questions about the estate, the damages to the estate, their relationship with Lisa McPherson, the mother's -- you know, normal -- what you would consider normal questions. THE COURT: And why was it you cared about that when it came to Mr. Minton? He had nothing to do --------------------------------------------------------------------- 622 with it. THE WITNESS: Because I kept objecting to -- you know, "Why are we wasting our time sitting here talking about Mr. Minton?" THE COURT: I understand. But why did you feel it was necessary to hustle out and call him on the telephone? THE WITNESS: More likely than not, it would have been afterwards, not during the deposition. THE COURT: Continue on. MR. WEINBERG: I'll just get the dates of the deposition if I can. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me show you what has been marked as -- has been entered as Exhibit 108, Defense 108, which has been admitted in this case, which is Mr. Minton's May 28, 1999 -- 1999 posting. And if my memory serves me, the depositions of -- of these parties were being taken on May 25 and May 24 of -- of 1999. Is that right? A That is what it looks like. Q And let me just refer you to this paragraph of Mr. Minton's posting, which is Exhibit 108. And he says, "In any case, the week started out with another hundred thousand dollars to refill the --------------------------------------------------------------------- 623 McPherson case coffers. The money was deposited Monday into the Dandar & Dandar account while Ken was in Dallas, as the Scieno's deposed Dell Liebreich for seven hours, not to mention 30 minutes for Ann Carlson. "Ken told me on Monday night," Monday night indicating during the deposition, "that it was the 'Bob and Ken Show' for the entire seven-hour intimidation session. They were only interested about her communications with me and what Ken had told her about his communications with me. Not a question about Lisa, I was told. Dell made it real clear to the Scieno side that she wanted everybody to know that Scientology murdered Lisa." Now, does that accurately reflect the conversations that you were having, while these depositions were in progress, in May of 1999 with Mr. Minton? A Well, what is the date of the deposition? Because this doesn't say while the depositions were in progress. Q Well, what he says is, "Ken told me on Monday night." A Yes. What Monday night? Q Well, this is 5/28. A So what -- I can't say that his posting here describes a conversation that took place in the evening while I'm in Dallas, Texas during a deposition. And this does describe what I just said, the Bob --------------------------------------------------------------------- 624 and Ken Show, seven hours. There is no substance here. Q Tuesday is May 25, 1999. So Monday is May 24, 1999. Sam Davis's deposition -- MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach, your Honor? THE COURT: You may. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q -- Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Do you see that? A Whose depo is that? Q Sam Davis's. So Ms. Liebreich's was on May 24, which is Monday. Okay? A Okay. So apparently -- Q Apparently -- A Except this is dated the 28th. Q Right. What he says in here, Monday he had a conversation with you. A Okay. Q That would be after -- after the day's session, possibly during the day's session, with Dell Liebreich, right? A No, it says Monday -- wait a minute, I thought I saw -- yes, Monday night, so it is after the deposition. Q So you called him from the hotel? A Possibly. Sure. Q And -- and you thought that it was -- I mean, he knew you were going to take these depositions. Right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 625 A I don't know. Q Well, didn't you tell him in advance? A I don't know. Q Did you tell him you were going to give him briefings on them? A No. This is certainly not a briefing on a deposition. Q You thought it was necessary to fill Mr. Minton in on what had been declared confidential pursuant to Judge Moody's order? You thought that was necessary? A This is -- has no context of the deposition, as far as I'm concerned. Q What do you mean, no context of the deposition? A It's talking about a Bob and Ken Show. It doesn't give them any context of what is going on, what is substantive -- THE COURT: Don't argue with him. Save it for argument. Move on to your next question. MR. WEINBERG: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you remember what else you talked to Mr. Minton about, other than what he describes in this posting? A No. Q And do you know where the record of that phone call is? Because that wasn't part of the records that were --------------------------------------------------------------------- 626 produced in this case. A No. Do you remember -- wait a minute. Why not? THE COURT: How do you know? Maybe it's a cell phone call. MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, Mr. Dandar produced -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, do you know if you initiated this call or Mr. Minton did? A I have no idea. No idea whatsoever. MR. WEINBERG: What I do know, your Honor, is that at least Mr. Dandar didn't reflect this is a call from his -- from his telephone, either his cell phone or -- obviously it wouldn't be from his office phone, but in his cell phone -- THE COURT: Maybe it was made from the hotel phone. Face it, that is on a hotel bill. You wouldn't expect somebody to check the hotel bills to respond. MR. WEINBERG: No, I didn't. I just -- THE COURT: I mean, I have to assume if he made the call, it came either from a cell phone or call from the hotel phone. MR. WEINBERG: Or Mr. Minton made the call. THE COURT: Or Mr. Minton made the call. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 627 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, did you ask for permission, from any of these -- from Ms. Liebreich or the four people, to discuss the details of their confidential deposition with Mr. Minton? A I don't recall. In fact, I don't even know if Dell was on the phone with Mr. Minton. I mean, I don't know -- Q Well, do you think Dell was on the phone with Mr. Minton -- A I don't know. Q -- discussing this case? A I don't know. Q Well, did Ms. Liebreich have conversations with Mr. Minton during the course of this case? A Not -- Q About the case? A I don't know. Q Did you discuss the strategy with regard to what your clients, Ms. Liebreich and the other siblings, were going to say during their depositions, prior to going there with Mr. Minton? A Absolutely not. That I'm positive of. Q Now, you have a website for your firm. Correct? A Yes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 628 Q And that website was established for you by Mr. Minton? A No. Q It was registered by Mr. Minton? A No. Q Registered in his name? A No. Q Well, what -- what does Mr. Minton have to do about your website -- about the establishment of your website? A Nothing. What Mr. Minton did, at his suggestion, since I didn't know how to do this, is that he registered the name Dandarlaw.com and another one, which I can't remember right now. And all it is, is like a business card on the Internet. You type in Dandarlaw.com, at the time he did this, and it brings up a little business card and gives your name, address and phone number. Then my brother's secretary was knowledgeable about websites, and so I had her develop a website. And I started to use Dandarlaw@AOL as my E-Mail address to get messages. And I was trying to get Dandarlaw.com to bring up my website, instead of this little business card, which didn't do anything except give you name, address and phone --------------------------------------------------------------------- 629 number. And then Mr. Minton gave me the codes -- because he had no interest in this, he was just doing me a favor -- to connect Dandarlaw.com to my real website, which is Dandarlawyers.com, which is the way it is today. Q So if I understand what you just said, Mr. Minton registered Dandarlaw.com, the domain name Dandarlaw.com? A He registered it, right. He paid for, I think -- I think you have to buy it in like a 2- or 3-year interval. Q He did this on November 4, 1999? A I believe that is right. Q It's Exhibit 96, if you want to look at it or -- A No. I'm sure that is right. Q And -- and this was just a favor that he was doing for you, much like the favors that you did for him, like incorporating the Lisa McPherson Trust? A Well, he -- he thought -- no -- well, maybe. I guess you could say that, sure. He thought it was crazy that I didn't know how to do this myself. He's a lot more computer and Internet savvy than I was. Q Do you have any idea how much he had to spend in order to register the Dandarlaw.com? A No. I can guess it's about $200. Q A year? Is that the way it works? A It's from '99 -- I think it expires this November, so it will be interesting to see what happens, if I can get --------------------------------------------------------------------- 630 that, or the Church of Scientology gets it. Q Now, you alleged, at the beginning of the case, and it's still in the fifth amended complaint, that Lisa McPherson was leaving the Church. Correct? A That is correct. That is a truthful statement. Q A truthful statement that that was your allegation? A Yes. Q Mmm -- A It's also the truth. Q Now, that allegation that Lisa McPherson was leaving the Church is a central element to making this an anti-Scientology complaint, isn't that right? A No. You know, this is not an anti-Scientology complaint. It's a wrongful death complaint. Q If you go to the fifth amended complaint -- you still have that in front of you? A Yes. Q Paragraph 31A on Page 11, you say, "The above actions of the defendants were the result of persisting in their attempt to subdue the will of Lisa McPherson because, A, she had expressed that Scientology was not working for her and she desired to leave Scientology." Do you see that? A That is right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 631 THE COURT: Tell me what the relevance of that has to do with this hearing. There is a dispute here. I mean, I read through it. MR. WEINBERG: No, there is a -- in our motion we have made two allegations with regard to misconduct with regard to two issues that relate to this allegation. One has to do with the Fannie McPherson tape and what happened with regard to it. THE COURT: There is no dispute about that, is there? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Oh. Okay. MR. WEINBERG: And, secondly, the diary, and what happened to the diary. And what we'll show you and review with Mr. Dandar is that Mr. Dandar made a bunch of allegations throughout this case against us to various judges, starting with Judge Moody, and in order to prevent -- in order to sustain this suggestion that Lisa McPherson was -- had said that she was leaving the Church of Scientology and to prevent us from getting two essential documents, one of which is the Fannie McPherson tape in which she said no such thing, which he knew from -- from -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 632 from the first day he met her, and, secondly, was the 1995 diary, which the testimony now is that his clients had, and somehow it -- it is no longer around. Both of those documents there was lots of litigation over. And that is what he's going to have to prove. And it's very much -- THE COURT: Well, that has some bearing on whether he lied, committed perjury, suborned perjury? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I mean, it's -- it's briefed in some detail in the -- THE COURT: I remember some of the things that you put in there, quite frankly, aren't relevant, will not be relevant, and I will not consider them relevant. I tried to give you-all clues here and there, but you don't want to take them. Put on your evidence. Keep going. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: As far as I know, this business -- I mean -- about what you have alleged in here about what he did about the Fannie McPherson tape, is accurate. I mean, is there any dispute over it? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 633 Have you read it, Mr. Dandar? THE WITNESS: About their accusations about what I did with the tape? THE COURT: No. About the fact that you didn't -- Mmm, you didn't give it to them right away, and you made certain allegations about what was on it, and then they finally got it and it's not on it? THE WITNESS: No. I don't think I made any incorrect allegations. THE COURT: Then you better go through it. THE WITNESS: See, I was with Fannie McPherson, I said, almost four hours. THE COURT: She said a -- THE WITNESS: She said a lot of things to me. THE COURT: That aren't on the tape? THE WITNESS: That aren't on the tape. THE COURT: I knew we would go there. THE WITNESS: But that is true, Judge. THE COURT: I said I don't know where we're going here but we're going to get through it. THE WITNESS: This allegation about 31A, she wanted to leave the Church and wasn't working -- it wasn't working for her, that is in her PC folders. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 634 BY MR. WEINBERG: Q You -- THE COURT: It also has to do with an allegation -- that is why I say this will not get you anywhere. This also has to do with a dispute, the disagreement, of what the testimony of his friend meant when she called. MR. WEINBERG: I'm not getting to the allegation about the friend when she called. I'm -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. WEINBERG: I'm focusing on -- BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Mr. Dandar, you told the Court, earlier on, there had been a phone call from Lisa McPherson to her mother, and you'd been told about that call by Fannie McPherson where Lisa McPherson said she was either coming home for good or leaving the Church. Right? A Right. Q But Fannie McPherson didn't say that, did she? A Yes, she did. Q Now, you were aware that Fannie McPherson was -- did an interview with the Clearwater Police Department? A I became aware she did an interview with the Clearwater Police Department. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 635 Q Excuse me? A At a certain point in time, I became aware she did an interview. Q Okay. Now, this was turned over as a public record after the criminal charges were nolle prossed by the State? THE COURT: Which was in what year? THE WITNESS: June 2000. MR. FUGATE: June of 2000. MR. WEINBERG: June of 2000. THE COURT: So as of June of 2000 you all had this in your hands? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q And this is an interview that was done by Ron Sudler, who is a detective that you know, don't you, Mr. Dandar? A No, I don't know him. Q Of the Clearwater Police Department? And Fannie McPherson. And in this interview she's asked a number of questions. But particularly on Page 7 she tells Mr. Sudler -- I think he's Detective Sudler -- the following. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 636 "Question: Were you aware of any projects that your daughter was working on? "Answer: No, I wasn't. Lisa called me, it was either the first or second week in November. And we were kind of talking about Christmas. She was planning to come home. We were joking, and she was telling me what she wanted on her -- on her shopping list. And that was the last time I talked to her. I did not know she had the accident until I got to Florida. I did not know she had cracked up or been sick. I knew nothing. They didn't call me about anything." Then later in the interview she talks about -- on Page 10 -- the stress that she was feeling in her job. You know she worked for AMC Publishing, right? A She worked for AMC Publishing, that is correct. She felt stress at work, according to the statement. Q Right. And then on Line 3 of 5 or 6 he says, "In fact --" she said, "In fact, she didn't tell me but it was in her diary, and I could kinda tell from the way I talked to her she was just real uptight, never got through work. "Did she just have too much work to do? Or -- "Answer: I think she did. Of course, they never think that they do. "Detective Sudler: And you just found this out from her diary -- from reading her diary? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 637 "Uh-huh." My question is -- is when you met with Fannie McPherson in whatever the day was in January 1997, which is, what, a month or so after this -- this -- no, several -- eleven months before this -- after this interview, did she tell you that when she got the call from Lisa McPherson, that Lisa said she was just coming home for Christmas? A No. And that statement doesn't say just for Christmas that you just read. Q Well, I mean, when you look at that interview, it certainly doesn't indicate that Lisa McPherson was dissatisfied with Scientology -- THE COURT: You-all are arguing with each other. You can argue it to me, or to a jury, or both. MR. WEINBERG: That is fine. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Now, then there came a time when we, that is, the Church of Scientology, made a request for the -- for the recorded statement that you had done -- that you had announced publicly that you had done of Fannie McPherson. Correct? A I don't believe I announced publicly. Q Well, you said in some hearing, because we knew about it, that you had recorded a statement of Fannie --------------------------------------------------------------------- 638 McPherson, you had a recorded statement? A No. What happened is you, the Church of Scientology, requested a copy of the transcribed statement I had of Fannie McPherson, which I never published to anybody that I had one. And that is when I answered, "Yes, I have one. How did you know," more or less, and "I'm not giving you a copy because it is work product and privileged." Q Right, what you said, on January 15, 1998, in response to the third request for production, "No video nor affidavits of Fannie McPherson exist, to plaintiff's knowledge. Plaintiff is in possession of a recorded statement of Fannie McPherson which is work product." That is what you said in January of 1998. Correct? A That is right. Q And you remember that thereafter, there was litigation over whether or not this was really work product. Do you remember that? A There were a couple hearings -- THE COURT: I guess I'm just real confused about this. I mean, that is in dispute. You can -- you could make a claim that it was work product or not. Different judges would rule different ways on that. What difference does it make? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 639 MR. WEINBERG: Well, here is what the difference is, your Honor. After the -- the -- THE COURT: If I'm not going to get you to stop your questions, just ask your next question and we'll save it for another day. Go on ahead. MR. WEINBERG: All right. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q There came a point in time in or about mid-2000 when -- when there was a public records act production by the Clearwater Police, and there came a point in time where we obtained a copy, from the public records act, of a transcript of this recording that you had done of Fannie McPherson. Do you remember that? A I remember some of that, that I can agree with. Fannie McPherson's transcribed statement of my interview with her was never a public record. Q Do you remember that there was a hearing in front of Judge Quesada on April 4, 2001 in which we sought, as a result of that public records act -- we said, "Hey, they can't be a public records act -- they can't be a work product because he already turned it over to the Clearwater Police. Therefore, we want the original tape." Do you remember that? A Oh, I certainly do remember that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 640 Q Right. And at that proceeding, you told Judge Quesada that apparently you had inadvertently disclosed that -- that you had given it to the Clearwater Police but you didn't intend for them to keep it. Do you remember that? A I remember telling Judge Quesada I don't remember ever turning it over to the Clearwater Police or FDLE, but there was an FDLE Bates stamp on it. And, my goodness, they -- THE COURT: (To the audience) All right, who has what on? Turn it off. All right, go ahead. A And he convinced me -- Judge Quesada convinced me the FDLE Bates number was on there, that means FDLE had it, that means I must have turned it over to them sometime. Then he said, "Are you accusing the FDLE of stealing this document out of your office?" I said no. I just -- I was just standing there embarrassed, before Judge Quesada. I couldn't figure out what to say. I said, "Well, if I gave it to them, I expected them to keep it private and give it back to me." He laughed. You guys laughed. But not one person from your table stood up and said, "Oh, Judge, we put the FDLE numbers and letters on that document, it's our Bates --------------------------------------------------------------------- 641 number." So he and I were both there thinking that FDLE did that. And the next -- that night I called up FDLE, Lee Strope, and I called up Wayne Andrews, because I thought I was going crazy. And they said, "You never gave us that document." BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Let me refer you to Page 107 of the transcript of April 4, 2001. And -- MR. WEINBERG: Do you have another copy? BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Do you see where you say, "This document was given, I believe, by me to FDLE with the expectation --" And then Judge Quesada interrupts: "That party is over, isn't it? You voluntarily gave it to the FDLE." "Mr. Dandar: I believe so. Yes. "Judge Quesada: The party is over. They didn't come into your office, steal it. You didn't leave it on a bus and they picked it up inadvertently. "Mr. Dandar: Actually, they did come to my office but I'm not saying they stole it. "The Court: All right." As a result of that hearing, Judge Quesada ordered the production of that original tape. Correct? A Well, wait a minute. Is this the hearing where --------------------------------------------------------------------- 642 the officers testified? Q No. A Right, he did order it on this, and then we had a subsequent hearing. But on Page 105 of what you handed me, it said, "Have you looked at this transcript that starts out 'Statement of McPherson, January 1997' Bates stamped by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement 327, 328, 329"? And that is what started that downhill spiral. THE COURT: That is another thing you can put on your list when you call one of them to the witness stand to ask them how they got it. THE WITNESS: We did, Judge. Oh, I'm sorry, we called the FDLE. THE COURT: I said, if you want to make a record in this case, you can call and ask them how they got the letters of Lisa McPherson they already had, and you can ask them about this. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: Then we'll have answers. BY MR. WEINBERG: Q Well, but we had a hearing on this because what you did is you filed a motion, after this, accusing the Church and the lawyers for the Church of stealing this document from your office and planting it -- planting it -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 643 in the FDLE or Clearwater Police Department records. Correct? A You would have to show me where I accused the lawyers. Q Okay, you -- you accused the client? A I mean, even Mr. Fugate said I accused him. I don't think that is correct. I accused the client, because the client has a history of doing this. Q Okay. But you didn't have a shred of evidence that anybody had broken into your office, stole this document and then planted it in the FDLE files which they had, then turned around, in June of 2000, and produced to the public? A I had -- I have -- I had evidence that it happened. And I presented that evidence to Judge Quesada. He chose to believe the person from OSA over two law enforcement officers. Q Well, those two -- A And that is his decision and I will not agree with that decision, and I'm sure not asking you to agree with it. But he was entitled to make the decision as he saw it. He's the judge. THE COURT: We really aren't going over this. And I'm going to ask you to move to whatever it is you want to get from that tape. I mean, obviously --------------------------------------------------------------------- 644 to this day he believes that is exactly what happened. MR. WEINBERG: Our point was, your Honor, is that Judge Quesada made a finding that this was completely incredible. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. WEINBERG: Our point -- THE COURT: I mean, I'm going to make findings in this case. And I'm going to find what a lot of folks are saying is incredible. It doesn't mean it is true, and it doesn't mean some other judge might find a perfectly logical explanation for it. You know, that doesn't mean Mr. Dandar didn't believe that somebody from the Church stole it. MR. WEINBERG: The point was he didn't have any evidence of it. It was a false accusation. There has been a pattern of that throughout this case. That is part of what we pled. That is part of what the termination of sanctions is concerning. And that is certainly part of our motion to disqualify Mr. Dandar. THE COURT: All right. MR. WEINBERG: All right, I'll go to the next issue. THE COURT: And you say that on this same thing --------------------------------------------------------------------- 645 is the Church's Bates number? THE WITNESS: They typed it on there, "FDLE." THE COURT: Who did? THE WITNESS: The Church of Scientology did, after Judge Quesada and I believed it was from the FDLE. MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, all of the discovery had Bates labels on it. We went over that with counsel for the plaintiff. They had Bates -- THE COURT: My point has been made. The mere fact that Judge Quesada ruled does not alter this man's belief in what he reasonably believes to be true. He believes it. You thought it was ludicrous. Judge Quesada thought it was ludicrous. I might think it was true. None of that really matters. The idea is this man wasn't intentionally lying. He thought it was true, and he still thinks it is true. MR. WEINBERG: Right. But what was important, when we got this transcript, however we got it, which we did get it from a public records request, when we got the transcript which he tried so hard for us not to get, on the transcript, what -- what the transcript says and what Fannie McPherson told Ken Dandar on January 27, 1997, was: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 646 "Ken Dandar: And can you tell me when the last time you talked to her? "Fannie McPherson: It was between Halloween and November 18th, just a few weeks before she died. "Ken Dandar: What was the conversation about? "Fannie McPherson: Well, it was about her coming home for Christmas for two weeks, which she never planned to stay that long before. "Ken Dandar: This time she was going to stay longer? "She was going to stay two weeks this time. "And what was the conversation about? "Fannie McPherson: Mostly Christmas shopping and the fun we were going to have. And she couldn't hardly wait to get her," et cetera. And it goes on. And it says nothing in this statement, as indicated by Mr. Dandar to the Court, that Fannie McPherson got a telephone call from Lisa a few weeks before she went to the Ft. Harrison Hotel and said she was leaving Scientology. And that was the point, and that is what was significant, and that is why it is so essential to Paragraph 31A in this case. And I will mark as the -- as our next exhibit the transcript of that conversation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 647 THE COURT: I'm sure it's already in, isn't it? MR. WEINBERG: Actually, I don't think it is. THE COURT: All right, well, then mark it. If he didn't make it an exhibit, I would be flabbergasted. MR. WEINBERG: Well -- THE COURT: I have seen it and read it. MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark two exhibits. Also there is a March 27, 2001 letter from the FDLE to Mr. Mansell at the Church of Scientology which -- which responds to a public records request with regard to this statement that had been turned over in the public records. And I'll read it. "This correspondence was provided to acknowledge that our department --" that is the FDLE " -- is in receipt of your March 16, 2001 correspondence regarding the above-identified public record request and is hereby furnishing, in response to that request, this particular transcript," which is attached, which is this version of the -- of the statement, of Fannie McPherson "-- this particular transcript (your letter identified saying it's a statement of Fannie McPherson from CL-01-002;1A:8." It's a police number. THE COURT: Why are you reading this to me? Is --------------------------------------------------------------------- 648 it I can't read? Or you think it is real important to be on the record? Or what? Are you planning on introducing it? MR. WEINBERG: Yes. It just says they produced this document in the public records. THE COURT: I -- I have no doubt about that. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. THE COURT: I see that. I know it. He still thinks you stole it. It's just that simple. MR. WEINBERG: All right. THE COURT: Don't you? THE WITNESS: I do. 100 percent. THE COURT: And there is no question about it. So you don't disagree on this. MR. WEINBERG: Okay. We'll mark the transcript as 167. And the March 27, 2001 letter from the FDLE to Mr. Mansell, with the attachment -- actually, that is Defendant's Exhibit 53, so that is already in. THE COURT: I kind of told you it was. MR. WEINBERG: The transcript is not, though, your Honor. That is 167. MR. FUGATE: It's 52. THE COURT: The transcript is 52? MR. FUGATE: It's 52, and the letter is 53, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 649 Judge. MR. WEINBERG: But is it the one that is readable? Okay, I apologize, I was wrong. We won't mark it. THE COURT: I hope we won't go over stuff that has already been introduced already in the record. You can argue about it, you can do all kinds of stuff you want. THE WITNESS: Judge, I'm not asking to terminate for the day, but could we take a restroom break? THE COURT: Sure. But if it's 20 minutes to five, I'll not take a break and go back and work ten minutes. THE WITNESS: Three minutes? MR. WEINBERG: Why don't we just stop for the day? THE WITNESS: You know me. I want to go -- THE COURT: I know you do. But the deal is -- THE WITNESS: All right, then keep going until you -- THE COURT: We're not going to go. We're not going to take a little break. I'm tired. That is it. 9 o'clock. Why don't you try to finish up with him --------------------------------------------------------------------- 650 tomorrow? THE WITNESS: Are you going to be finished tomorrow? MR. WEINBERG: I'll do my best. THE COURT: I'm going to start really telling you you can't go over stuff you have gone over. I knew this was in the record. I mean, I knew it. MR. WEINBERG: I'm not trying to -- are we off the record? Are -- THE COURT: It was there. I'm not going over stuff I have been over. MR. WEINBERG: But -- THE COURT: We'll get to that agreement tomorrow, or you're going to stop and I'm going to assume it is not important, which I kind of suggested all along it wasn't very important, because it wasn't. But if you want to get to it, you better get to it. We can't drag this on forever. MR. WEINBERG: I'll get to it. I'm not trying to drag it out. THE COURT: Everybody is dragging it on forever. That is both sides. And, yes, you are dragging it on. And you know -- MR. WEINBERG: Are we off the record now? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 651 THE COURT: Yes. (Whereupon, Court stands adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 652 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. DATED this 5th day of June, 2002. ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR