||||| From: phatman@swissalps.ch (The Fat Man) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Bob Minton testimony (Volume 9) Date: 3 Jun 2002 21:04:56 -0000 Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News Lines: 5943 Message-ID: <6SW2VJDS37410.9617592593@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: aboukir-101-1-4-pparis.adsl.nerim.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: norfair.nerim.net 1023138402 77315 80.65.224.85 (3 Jun 2002 21:06:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@nerim.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:06:42 +0000 (UTC) Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address. You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!! X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/ content-length: 199108 X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/ Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!newspeer2.tds.net!newspeer.radix.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!proxad.net!proxad.net!nerim.net!norfair.nerim.net!Nyarlatheotep-frogadmin.yi.org!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1522021 Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 1 1 THE COURT: Okay. I called the Florida Bar. 2 And Ms. Bloemendaal was not there -- Bloemendaal, 3 but I talked to another gentleman whose name I can't 4 remember. But he was involved in another complaint 5 coming out of this case. Maybe you-all can figure 6 out which one it is. It is a complaint against 7 another lawyer in the case. And he was familiar 8 with the call -- the discussion. 9 So what he said was this is what 10 Ms. Bloemendaal had told Mr. Pope, this was not a 11 confidential letter. 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 THE COURT: I said, "Okay, that is what I need 14 to know." 15 So I read it. And just -- I think I'll have 16 the clerk seal this, because it is in the nature of 17 a Bar matter. I'm not sure why the paragraphs 18 marked were marked, to tell you the truth. 19 MR. FUGATE: I highlighted them, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure why that is. If 21 you're -- if you're noting to me there has been a 22 complaint filed against Mr. Pope, that's -- that is 23 anybody's right to do, so I don't know what that -- 24 well, I'm not sure why that is highlighted. 25 I also see where there is something about the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 1 allegation about Mr. Miscavige not having anything 2 to do with the death of Lisa McPherson certainly is 3 an issue -- that is an issue in the case. 4 And the last thing highlighted seems to be some 5 suggestion that Mr. Pope represents anyone, judges 6 or whatever that is all about. 7 He has never represented me, nor has his law 8 firm. Naturally I know Wally Pope. He has been a 9 lawyer in this community a long time. I was a 10 lawyer for a long time before I was a judge. I know 11 who he is. And he knows who I am. 12 As I said, I have almost always been a St. 13 Petersburg lawyer. He has always been a Clearwater 14 lawyer. 15 MR. FUGATE: Clearwater. 16 THE COURT: He has been in my court. He and 17 I -- he never represented me or anything like that 18 so I'm not sure why that is highlighted. But if 19 that was to find out whether -- 20 MR. FUGATE: No, your Honor. It was 21 highlighted because it's another one of the 22 aspersions or accusations cast that are what we've 23 been looking at in the case. And that is one of the 24 things that I wanted to -- I tried to highlight 25 things I thought directly related to the issues.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1 There is one I missed. If you look up in the 2 top of the last paragraph dealing with moneys, you 3 know, they are just areas -- actually, I didn't mean 4 to give you a highlighted copy, but I think I gave 5 you my highlighted copy of things we were going to 6 address. I'll be glad to take it back and give you 7 an unhighlighted copy. 8 THE COURT: No, I'm going to put this -- 9 MR. FUGATE: That is fine. 10 THE COURT: -- in as the Court's exhibit. 11 Madam clerk, put it under seal, merely because -- 12 I'm not sure exactly what it is, but as I said, I -- 13 I have read it and -- and it will be there in the 14 event I should need it. 15 MR. FUGATE: There may come a time in the 16 proceeding that we may want to address that, and 17 unsealing it to ask cross-examination questions of 18 Mr. Dandar. 19 THE COURT: That is fine. If it has some 20 bearing on that, we'll do that. 21 MR. FUGATE: You'll be the -- 22 THE COURT: But for now -- I don't think it's 23 an exhibit that really has -- 24 MR. FUGATE: I didn't file it as an exhibit. 25 Actually, it was handed up to me, your Honor, by-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1 Mr. Pope. 2 THE COURT: Maybe it doesn't even have to be an 3 exhibit. 4 MR. DANDAR: I don't think it does. 5 THE COURT: Okay, give it back to me, madam 6 clerk. I agree with that. 7 MR. DANDAR: Judge, the paragraph Mr. Fugate 8 called -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: Aspersions. 10 MR. DANDAR: -- aspersions is not aspersions. 11 We went through quite a few judges in the breach of 12 contract case in Clearwater because Mr. Pope 13 represented quite a few judges and they all recused 14 themselves. So I didn't feel comfortable, if there 15 was anybody on the committee that may look at that 16 that had anything to do with this law firm -- 17 THE COURT: It's a big law firm in Clearwater 18 and -- 19 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the committee is in Tampa. 20 But I don't know what the materiality of that is. 21 THE COURT: Well, I don't, either. But it was 22 highlighted, so that is why we're probably dealing 23 with it. 24 Any way, I have read it and I'll have it up 25 here in the event it's needed.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 1 MR. FUGATE: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: And I just wanted to report what 3 the lawyer from the Bar told me, that it was not, in 4 their opinion, a confidential letter, so you are not 5 waiving any confidentiality or anything of the sort 6 by my reading it, if that was your concern. 7 MR. DANDAR: That was it. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Mr. Minton, I'm going to show you what we have had 11 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 53. 12 THE COURT: Did you say defendant's, or 13 plaintiff's? 14 MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff's. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q This is a letter give us to us today dated May 22, 17 2002 from an attorney in Geneva, Switzerland, is that 18 correct? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q Is he your lawyer? 21 A He is. 22 THE COURT: How do we know this is from 23 Switzerland? Oh, down here, "Geneva"? 24 MR. DANDAR: I would think so. 25 THE COURT: At the bottom? Okay.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q It says "Geneva LE." What does "LE" mean? 3 A Where does it say that? 4 Q Above the reference clause. 5 A It's in French. The "Geneva" part I understand. 6 But I don't know what "LE" means. 7 Q All right. This attorney -- 8 THE COURT: I don't know if this is from 9 Geneva, Switzerland or not. 10 MR. DANDAR: I'll ask him. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q This attorney John Pierre Jacquemoud, 13 J-A-C-Q-U-E-M-O-U-D, what city and country is he located in? 14 A Geneva, Switzerland. 15 THE COURT: Well, now we know. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Okay. Was he involved in any degree whatsoever in 18 helping secure the funds that went through Operation 19 Clambake to LMT? 20 A No, he wasn't. 21 Q Was he involved in the $500,000 that came into the 22 LMT that was told in depositions by you and Ms. Brooks to be 23 anonymous sources? 24 A No. 25 Q Was he involved in any money transactions?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 1 A No. Other than between him and me. 2 Q Okay. Now, isn't it true, sir, that the Church of 3 Scientology, once they found out you were involved in 4 providing financial support to cases involving the Church of 5 Scientology -- not only did Mr. Elliot Abelson, counsel for 6 the Church of Scientology, call you on the phone, but he 7 also sent you a letter, a threatening letter? 8 A He did. I think that was a little bit later. 9 Q How much later? 10 A Mmm, well, sometime after the phone call in '97, 11 so I don't know how much later, but it had to do with 12 Clearwater and fulmenting hatred in Clearwater. 13 THE COURT: If you don't mind, I think we'll 14 try to quit a little early today. It is Friday. 15 I'm just dragging. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Not only would we not mind, 17 but -- 18 THE COURT: Okay, then let's do that. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Let me show you the letter of November 18, 1997 21 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 54. This is from Mr. Abelson, 22 is that right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q To you? 25 A To me.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 1 Q At the bottom of the first page, could you read 2 the paragraph out loud, please. 3 A "My client holds you, your associates and backers, 4 financial or otherwise, personally responsible for any and 5 all damages it has suffered or will continue to suffer as a 6 result of your tortious officious intermeddling in church 7 litigation. The Church will not tolerate such conduct. I 8 demand that you immediately withdraw all financial support 9 for such matters and am warning you that you and those you 10 are funding have crossed the threshold of legality." 11 Q Did this cause you any concern? 12 A No. 13 Q As far as your understanding is concerned, was 14 this letter including the case of Lisa McPherson? 15 A Oh, I would guess it was. 16 Q He mentions Dennis Erlich -- 17 A I haven't read the whole part of the letter for a 18 long time, but -- 19 Q One name mentioned in there is Dennis Erlich. Had 20 you -- I think you previously testified you did provide 21 financial support to Mr. Erlich? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Did you also provide financial support to his 24 attorney? 25 A Morrison & Forrester?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 1 Q Yes. 2 A No. 3 Q As you sit here today, what is the total amount of 4 financial support you provided to Mr. Ehrlich? 5 A Mmm, I don't remember. It's a long time ago, but 6 $25,000 or something. 7 Q Was that a loan? Or a gift? 8 A It was a gift to -- it was actually a donation to 9 his ministry. 10 Q Which is called? 11 A I don't remember what it is called. 12 Q Is it a nonprofit corporation? 13 A It is. 14 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the amount 15 again, Mr. Minton? 16 THE WITNESS: I think that was $25,000. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q And this also mentions -- 19 A Or thirty. I'm not sure. 20 Q This also mentions Keith Henson. As of November 21 of '97, had you provided support of any kind to Mr. Henson? 22 A Mmm, I'm not sure whether I had at that time. I 23 certainly did at some time. But I don't know whether, as of 24 the date of this letter, I had. 25 THE COURT: I can't remember, it's been so long-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1 ago, but when was it that you -- well, it was 2 October of '97 -- 3 THE WITNESS: '97. 4 THE COURT: -- when the first check was sent, 5 was it? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. And there -- you know, 7 there were articles, I remember, in the newspaper 8 down here sometime just right after that, that 9 Scientology was complaining very loudly about this 10 contribution of funds into this case. 11 THE COURT: Into the Lisa McPherson case? 12 THE WITNESS: Wrongful death case, yes. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Mr. Minton, I think yesterday we established as of 16 August of 2001 you and I were no longer in communication. 17 Is that right? 18 A I don't think we established that. 19 Q Well, why is it that you had to have Mr. Merrett 20 contact me, through E-Mail, to tell me that there were no 21 more funds available from you to help with the Lisa 22 McPherson case? 23 A I don't know. I don't know why that was the 24 method used. 25 Q And why, in that E-Mail that we had Mr. Merrett-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 1 talk about that, he suggested a meeting with himself, 2 Mr. Merrett and Stacy Brooks, but not you? 3 A I perhaps wasn't in town. I don't know. 4 Q Now, there has been some testimony about a verbal 5 criticism -- not verbal, but E-Mail or Internet criticism of 6 you after word got out that you had stopped funding the Lisa 7 McPherson case. 8 When did you first realize that people were on the 9 Internet criticizing you for that? 10 A Sometime around the time you were notified about 11 not funding the case. 12 Q And how many of those -- how many critics were on 13 the Internet criticizing you about that? 14 A I don't know. 15 Q Do you know if they were criticizing you about 16 that because you had repeatedly said, throughout the years, 17 that you would never give up on the Lisa McPherson case? 18 A Oh, I think that was part of the criticism, yes. 19 Q Did that cause you a lot of emotional upset, the 20 criticism? 21 A You know, it bothered me a little bit in terms of, 22 you know, walking away from it. 23 Q Prior to August of 2001, did you ever speak to 24 anyone involved in the Lisa McPherson Trust at any time 25 about your concerns with income tax evasion?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1 A Not that I know of. 2 Q Do you recall having an emotional breakdown, that 3 is the words I'm using, I don't know what else to call it, 4 where you actually cried -- 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- in front of Peter Alexander and Patricia 7 Greenway because of your -- you expressed you had a lot of 8 concerns of not paying your taxes? 9 A No. I have never had any crying episode in front 10 of Patricia Greenway or Peter Alexander. 11 Q Did you ever express to either one of them your 12 concerns about tax evasion? 13 A No. 14 Q Do you recall having -- again, what, my words -- 15 an emotional breakdown in Stacy Brooks' house on Belleair 16 Beach where I was present? 17 A Well, you know, it's your word, "emotional 18 breakdown." 19 Q It is. It is. 20 A If somebody cries, that is hardly what I would 21 describe as an emotional breakdown. 22 Q Okay. Well -- 23 A There was -- there was -- there has been a 24 constant troubling situation over my relationship with Stacy 25 Brooks, and my feelings for my wife and family from whom I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 1 have been legally separated since early 1999. And it 2 continues to this day to be a source of angst. 3 And, you know, you and Ms. Greenway have been 4 proponents of going back to my wife. And this subject came 5 up over at Stacy Brooks' house when you were there. And it 6 was very upsetting, the whole issue. 7 Q Was that the only issue? 8 A That is the only one I remember. That is the one 9 that I cried about. If there were other issues, you have to 10 remind me, because I don't remember any others. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Could we possibly date that? 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Do you know when that was? 14 A Mmm, it was spring or summer of 2001, I think. 15 THE COURT: Is this the time that Mr. Dandar 16 and Mr. -- Dr. Garko were there seeking money? 17 THE WITNESS: No. This was at Stacy Brooks' 18 house. 19 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q Dr. Garko was not there. Right? 22 A I don't believe he was. 23 Q Okay. And let's go back to this Philadelphia 24 meeting in August of '99. Do you remember -- 25 A Was it August?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 1 Q Do you remember we -- 2 A Was it August? 3 Q August of '99. I was up there in Philadelphia 4 taking a doctor's deposition in another case. 5 A Right. 6 Q You and Stacy Brooks came over and had dinner with 7 me. Do you remember that? 8 A Mmm, well, others had dinner with you, as well. 9 Q Well, we'll get to that. But you and Stacy Brooks 10 were there, correct? 11 A We came there to see you. 12 Q And Rod Keller was there? 13 A Rod Keller was at dinner. 14 Q Charlene -- 15 A Charlotte Kates. 16 Q Charlotte Kates? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And weren't there two other people? 19 A I think you mentioned the other day that some 20 Scientologists came into the dinner. 21 Q Well, weren't there two other people sitting at 22 the table with us? 23 A Not that I can remember. 24 Q And do you recall that dinner where Stacy was 25 engaged in conversation with Charlotte and Rod Keller about-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 1 Charlotte's recent departure from the Church of Scientology, 2 and you and I were engaged in the concerns or the emotions 3 that you were expressing on your marital relationship? 4 A I don't remember that. 5 Q But -- 6 A But it was a dinner conversation. You know, 7 whatever we discussed we discussed. I don't know. 8 Q Well, we certainly didn't discuss the Lisa 9 McPherson case at dinner, did we? 10 A We didn't. 11 Q And it's your recollection that either before or 12 after dinner you or Stacy Brooks, in your presence, told me 13 that I had to emphasize the Scientology aspects of the Lisa 14 McPherson case more than I had been? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Did -- 17 A Just to refresh your recollection, we met before 18 dinner. We had dinner. Then we went up to I think it was 19 my hotel room with Charlotte Kates and Rod Keller and Stacy. 20 And there was something going on about some contact between 21 these people who had walked into the dinner from the 22 Philadelphia Org. I believe either I or rod Keller or 23 Charlotte Kates called them up and we were just kind of 24 horsing around in my room. Then we went to your room. That 25 is where the check was written, in your room, I think.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 1 Q Who was present when the check was written? 2 A Stacy, me and you. 3 Q And did Stacy say, "Bob, don't write that check" 4 or anything like that? 5 A No. 6 Q Did she say anything about trying you get to not 7 to write a check? 8 A No. 9 Q And did I listen to that suggestion that you made? 10 A I believe you did. 11 Q How? 12 A Well, I mean, you subsequently added parties, you 13 subsequently started utilizing Stacy and Jesse more for 14 these depositions. 15 Q Mr. Minton, isn't it true that before that dinner 16 in August of '99 in Philadelphia, I had already been meeting 17 with Jesse Prince and Jesse Prince's affidavit on the 18 culpability of David Miscavige in the death of Lisa 19 McPherson was already done, typed up, signed and sealed? 20 A Seven -- six days before, in fact. 21 Q Right. So you certainly didn't have any input on 22 that, did you? 23 A Well, not on that affidavit. I mean, Stacy had 24 input on that affidavit. 25 Q Really? What -- what part of the affidavit did-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 1 she write of Jesse Prince? 2 A Well, I would be extremely surprised if she didn't 3 write some part of it because she's written just about 4 everything that he's had written because his English is 5 completely atrocious. 6 Q So you are just assuming she did? 7 A Well, she's testified here, I believe, that she 8 talked to Jesse a lot about this affidavit in terms of I 9 think she said something about getting him in the right 10 frame of mind or something to that effect. 11 Q Do you have any idea what that means? How do you 12 get him in the mood to write an affidavit? 13 A You know, I -- I don't remember her testimony 14 exactly about that other than the fact that she said that. 15 So -- 16 Q You know that Jesse Prince wrote that affidavit in 17 my office, do you know that? My conference room on O' Brien 18 street? 19 A I don't know where he wrote it. 20 Q You weren't there? 21 A I don't think so. 22 Q Do you know it took him several days to write that 23 affidavit, do you know that? 24 A I'm sure it had to take more than one. 25 Q Now, Mr. Minton, you have also alleged that-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 1 because of your infusion of this check for $100,000 in 2 October of '97 I completely changed the allegations of the 3 complaint and made it into a murder -- a murder wrongful 4 death count. Is that your -- 5 A I didn't say you completely changed the 6 allegations. I said you included the word "Murder," you 7 clearly made it -- you had already indicated your 8 willingness to make it an intentional death case. 9 MR. DANDAR: Just bear with me a second here. 10 THE COURT: What are you going to do here? 11 MR. DANDAR: Well, I want to ask him to show me 12 where I changed anything based upon what he may have 13 said to me after October of '97. 14 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Well, would it be possible to 16 just hand him a copy of the complaint. 17 THE COURT: That is what I was thinking, 18 wouldn't it be easier to have him look at it? 19 MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought -- 20 THE COURT: Well, go ahead, if you want to do 21 it this way. 22 THE WITNESS: What is this we're looking at? 23 THE COURT: This is a copy of the of one of the 24 complaints point. 25 Could you identify for us which -- look at the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 1 first page for me so I know what we're looking at 2 here. 3 MR. DANDAR: This is the original complaint 4 filed in February of '97. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. This is the original 6 complaint. 7 MR. DANDAR: Right. Correct. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q Here is Paragraph 18 -- well, actually it is the 10 second Paragraph 18, I do have a problem sometimes on 11 reading things apparently. But paragraph 18 the above 12 anxiouss of the Church of Scientology were the result of 13 their premeditated design to follow their techniques, 14 bulletins and procedures, which was performed willfully, 15 intentionally, maliciously and in total disregard of the 16 rights of Lisa McPherson, in addition to their culpable 17 negligence and gross negligence in failing to obtain timely 18 appropriate emergency medical care through licensed medical 19 providers." 20 Do you see that, Mr. Minton? 21 A I do. 22 Q Okay. Now, here is the first amended complaint. 23 By the way, do you know that Vaughn Young helped participate 24 in preparing me and assisting me in drafting the allegations 25 concerning the operations of Scientology in the first-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 1 amended complaint? 2 A I believe I have heard it testified about here. 3 Q Well, you know that Stacy Brooks turned over a 4 work product letter that I sent to her and her husband back 5 in May of '97 to the defendants during your negotiations in 6 2002 with Scientology? 7 A I don't know whether she did or not. I believe 8 she said she thought they already had it. 9 Q Paragraph 48 of the first amended complaint the 10 above actions of Scientology were the result of their 11 premeditated design to follow their techniques, bulletins 12 and procedures, which were performed by or at the direction 13 of Scientology willfully, intentionally, maliciously and in 14 total disregard of the rights of Lisa McPherson. In 15 addition to their culpable negligence and gross negligence 16 in failing to obtain timely appropriate emergency --" does 17 that look to be the same allegation after your check of 18 $100,000, Mr. Minton? 19 A It does. I mean, it sounds like the same thing. 20 Q Do you see the word "Murder" in there? 21 A In this one? 22 Q Yes? 23 A In the first amended complaint? It's in there. 24 Q Okay. 25 MR. DANDAR: Maybe we'll do this at a break.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 1 I'm going to have you read it and then you can come 2 back and tell us where you see the word murder. 3 THE WITNESS: All right, I will. I believe 4 there is a copy of it here. 5 Q Well, on a break we'll do that. Let's go -- let's 6 go now to the -- let's go now to 2002. 7 During January of 2002 isn't it true that you were 8 calling me up, asking me to meet you? 9 A That is utter rubbish. No. 10 Q Isn't it true the first suggestion from you to me 11 was "I would like to meet you in Atlanta, Georgia," do you 12 recall that? 13 A No. 14 Q Do you recall the next suggestion by me was well, 15 if you want to meet, let's met at Vanderbilt, I have to fly 16 there for Dr. Fogo's deposition in this case" and you said 17 okay and I made a reservation for you at the new hotel? 18 A At the Marriott. 19 Q Yes, do you remember that? 20 A I remember you wanted me to come there and meet 21 you while you were there for this deposition. 22 Q Do you recall that I took a vacation with my 23 family, as I have been doing, I think, for 15 years to the 24 Cayman Islands for a week and I told you I was going there, 25 if you wanted to meet me, come meet me there. You thought-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 1 that was a good idea? 2 A No, that is not the way it was put. You wanted to 3 meet me, Mr. Dandar. The concept that you have laid out 4 here is I have been begging to meet with you. The 5 documentation that has already been presented doesn't show 6 that. You were looking for me to come to you. You wanted 7 money. I wasn't anxious to give it to you at that time so I 8 didn't want to meet. 9 Q Show me one letter that says I need to meet you 10 and get money. Do you have one? 11 A Well, that December 15th E-Mail, you know, the all 12 caps, you know, help, I need money, you know, please -- 13 Q How about January and February of 2002? 14 A What about them? 15 Q Do you have any E-Mails in that time period? 16 A Mmm, yes. 17 Q Do you have them with you? 18 A Well, in January there was the -- the thing from 19 the Vanderbilt. You know, you set that up independently. I 20 didn't tell you I was going to go to Vanderbilt, to 21 Nashville. You asked me. You made a hotel reservation. 22 It's my home town. My mother lives there, my two brothers 23 live there. There are plenty of places for me to stay in 24 Nashville. I don't need somebody to set up a hotel for me. 25 Q Wasn't it your suggestion for me to get a room-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 1 reservation for you, Mr. Minton? 2 A No, it was your suggestion. "I'm going to get a 3 room for you. And if you come, fine, you've got a room." 4 Q Then you -- isn't it true, Mr. Minton, you called 5 me up and suggested -- after I made a joke, I said, "Bob, 6 I'm the only person I know that hasn't been invited to your 7 New Hampshire home in all these years." 8 And you said, "Why don't you come up to New 9 Hampshire." Do you remember that? 10 A You said that several times, "I'm probably the 11 only person I know who hasn't come up to your house in New 12 Hampshire." 13 I said, "if you want to come up here, you are 14 welcome to come up here." You wanted to come up for the 15 purpose of talking about the money you needed. 16 Q When you called me -- let me put it so we don't 17 argue. When we had a phone call about coming to New 18 Hampshire at the end of February of 2002 -- 19 A Right? 20 Q -- was that on a speaker phone in my office? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Do you know if anyone was listening on that phone 23 call? 24 A I have no idea. 25 Q I called you back and said "Is it all right if-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 1 Dr. Garko comes." correct? 2 A You did. 3 Q All right. Now, it's your testimony that at this 4 point in time you no longer trusted me, you no longer 5 trusted Dell Liebreich, you wanted nothing to do with the 6 estate, the wrongnful death case and yet you are agreeing to 7 have me come to your house in New Hampshire. Why? 8 A Well, first of all, when you came to New Hampshire 9 I told you I didn't trust you, the estate or Dell Liebreich. 10 Q When did you form that -- 11 A Because -- well, I wrote it down -- Stacy Brooks 12 wrote it down as I dictated it to her the night before on 13 six or seven art pad pages, big pages. And I said, "Look, 14 this is what I want to talk to Ken about when he's up here." 15 Look, I still liked you. 16 Q When did you stop liking me? 17 A I would say when I heard you testify in Judge 18 Baird's court. 19 Q About what? 20 A About this money, for example. 21 Q Oh. So you made these meetings with Scientology 22 and came to the -- as you say -- set the record straight 23 decision and you still liked me then? 24 A I told you I -- I informed you before I even went 25 there at least a week to ten days before I went and you-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 1 remember exactly what I told you? 2 Q No -- 3 A I'm not going to do anything there to try to screw 4 you over in any way. Be sure of that. But there was one 5 person that I don't give a crap what happens to him. And 6 that was Patricia Greenway. And you said, "Oh, Bob, don't 7 do that." 8 Q I don't know about that, either. But let's go 9 back to the February -- 10 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I object to him 11 testifying. 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. DANDAR: Yes, I'm sorry, I thought I was 14 doing a better job than that. I'm sorry. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Dr. Garko and I flew up on a Saturday to New 17 Hampshire. Correct? 18 A That's right. 19 Q And you sent or -- or Stacy Brooks at less the 20 went into the airport to greet us and you stayed outside in 21 the parking lot. Right? 22 A I was smoking in the car. Yes. 23 Q All right. 24 A You can't smoke in the airport there. 25 Q Did you stay outside in the parking lot because-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 1 you didn't want to be confronted by anyone working for the 2 Church of Scientology? 3 A No. 4 Q Okay. And after we got inside your truck, we all 5 drove to the supermarket. Correct? 6 A That is right. 7 Q And we went and shopped for food, anything we 8 wanted. Right? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q And at this point in time you have already decided 11 that -- the night before, that I'm a person you don't trust 12 any more. 13 A That didn't mean I didn't still like you. 14 Q Okay. Now, while Stacy is cooking dinner that 15 night, you -- just before we sat down for dinner and I'm 16 going to use the word again and you correct me, you had an 17 emotional breakdown. Is that true? 18 A Well, Ken, that is your terminology. 19 Q I know. I said that. 20 A Yes. I -- I did cry. You know, I was upset. And 21 Michael Garko was very cognizant of the fact that I was 22 upset. And one of the reasons that I was angry and not 23 trusting you is because by this time I was firmly of the 24 belief that you were involved with these people who were 25 doing this campaign and that you were orchestrating it,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 1 even. 2 Q Do you recall, before this weekend, sending Jesse 3 Prince into my office to relay a message to me? 4 A No. I have seen that in Jesse's affidavit and 5 that is just not true. 6 Q Okay. 7 THE COURT: Before what weekend? 8 MR. DANDAR: The weekend of February 27th. 9 THE COURT: Oh, I thought you meant before this 10 weekend coming up. 11 THE WITNESS: And to continue the answer there. 12 And as you know, we've had problems, you and I have 13 had problems before, relative to Jesse Prince coming 14 into your office and representing that he was 15 speaking on my behalf. If you remember, this 16 problem came up several times about the money, 17 including around the time of that Key West trip, 18 because it became a major issue and I told you that 19 nobody speaks for me. You need to talk to me if you 20 want to find out what I feel or how much money I'm 21 going to be able to give you next month or whatever 22 it is. You remember, we had these discussions about 23 Jesse Prince coming in and falsely misrepresenting 24 his speaking for me. 25-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Isn't it true, however, that what Jesse Prince 3 told me before I flew up to New Hampshire is the same thing 4 you told me in New Hampshire? 5 THE COURT: You need to be -- 6 MR. FUGATE: Judge -- 7 THE COURT: -- they had a lot of chats up 8 there. Wait a minute, Mr. Dandar. They had a lot of 9 talk over two days. So you need to identify for 10 Mr. Minton what exactly it is that you're talking 11 about. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Isn't it true that one of our many discussions in 14 New Hampshire concerned -- well, I'm going to back up, let 15 me do it chronologically. 16 When you cried before we sat down for dinner you 17 were really emotionally upset toward me. Correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q All right. You thought that I was no longer your 20 friend. 21 A Well, I found it hard to believe that a friend 22 would be orchestrating this type of smear campaign. 23 Q So you assumed that I was orchestrating a smear 24 campaign because there were these people on the Internet 25 chat room, at religion Scientology, I guess (A L T,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 1 criticizing you severely for pulling out support of the Lisa 2 McPherson case, is that what you mean? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is there any other smear cam pain besides the 5 Internet chat room? 6 A No. No, not chat room. This was Alt 7 .religion.Scientology. 8 Q What is it called? 9 A A news group. 10 Q It's a news group? Okay. Did I ever post on that 11 news group? 12 A Mmm, I think you might have once. 13 Q Really? What did I say? 14 A I don't remember but I think I saw you post 15 something once. 16 Q Was it about you? Or a case? Or what? 17 A I don't remember. But, you know, I believe, you 18 know, I could be wrong, Mr. Dandar, but I think you did. 19 Q It wasn't criticizing you, though, was it? 20 A No. 21 Q In fact, I think the defendants here have shown 22 me -- there are so many of these -- a posting of Dell 23 Liebreich? 24 A Right, that she posted sometime in September to 25 raise money.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 1 Q And that was in the course after John Merrett's 2 E-Mail saying you were no longer funding the case? 3 A Right. 4 Q And that posting by Dell Liebreich was not a 5 criticism of you, was it? 6 A It wasn't. 7 Q It was a noble plea for help in the case, wasn't 8 it? 9 A It was. 10 Q And there is a Dina Holmes, who is one of your 11 most vociferous critics, I guess, on the Internet. Would 12 you agree with that? 13 A I would say she qualifies in that category. 14 Q And she -- she hosts a website calls Lisa 15 McPherson.com. Are you aware of that? 16 A I knew there was a website, Lisa McPherson DOT 17 something. 18 Q Even shows show she's a vociferous critic of yours 19 on the website at the website Lisamcpherson.com is not 20 critical of you, is it? 21 A No, because you told me this. You actually asked 22 her to change what she had on there and you asked her to add 23 some things, which was -- that was very nice of you. 24 Q Because we had no intention -- well, I don't know 25 about her. I can't speak for her. You're right. But Dell-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 1 Liebreich, nor I, had any intention to denigrate you any 2 where, would you agree with that. 3 A Not that I observed. 4 Q Okay. Now, did you instruct your attorney, 5 Mr. Howie -- no, no, I'm sorry, let's go back to the 6 February weekend in New Hampshire, I'm sorry, because you 7 said quite a bit about that. 8 At the dinner table -- any way, when you said you 9 didn't trust me any more because you thought I orchestrated 10 this smear campaign, isn't it true I assured you repeatedly 11 that I did not do that? 12 A I believe you did try to offer some assurance you 13 didn't do it. 14 Q Okay? 15 A And I eventually felt that maybe you weren't as 16 involved in it as I thought. 17 Q All right. Now, we sat down at the dinner table. 18 There were four of us at the dinner table. You and I are 19 sitting right across from each other, correct? 20 A I don't remember how we sat but there were four of 21 us at the dinner table. 22 Q Your back was to the fireplace. Do you remember 23 that? 24 A I don't. 25 Q All right. And you told me in front of Dr. Garko-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 1 I have no more money for you," do you recall that? 2 A I did. 3 Q And then you said, "But I have friends in Europe, 4 and let's call them the "Fat Man," and he may be interested 5 in sending you some money. Do you recall that? 6 A I didn't use the term the "Fat Man" at all until 7 the next day. 8 Q Okay. 9 THE COURT: What did you say during that 10 conversation? 11 THE WITNESS: Mmm, well, I said that, you know, 12 I don't think there is anything I can do right now 13 but, you know, maybe I have some friends in Europe 14 who could be of assistance. 15 THE COURT: So you mentioned friends in Europe, 16 you just didn't use the words -- 17 THE WITNESS: The "Fat Man" 18 THE COURT: -- it was basically correct what he 19 said except for the words the "Fat Man" 20 THE WITNESS: Right. And as I stated in my 21 affidavit, the purpose of using that charade, as I 22 called it, was to keep Dr. Garko in the dark about 23 me providing the money. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q And I think in your ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 1 A At your request. 2 Q Yes, in your affidavit you said I previously 3 requested this. Is that right? 4 A Well, going back to May of 2000, you know, you 5 wanted to make sure that that $500,000 didn't get known to 6 Dr. Garko. 7 Q Do you know -- do you have any knowledge 8 whatsoever that I tell anybody who works for me how much 9 money I have? 10 A Well, I know what Dr. Garko has told me you have 11 told him. 12 Q Well, let's not get into hearsay? 13 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor -- 14 THE COURT: Yes, you asked the question. 15 MR. WEINBERG: You asked him the question, let 16 help answer it. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q Go ahead, what did Dr. Garko say about this? 19 A Dr. Garko -- 20 THE COURT: I think I have heard it but I think 21 it is a fair thing to say at this point again. 22 A Dr. Garko said the first time -- well, he said 23 first of all that he had been aware of all of the money 24 before, even the $250,000 check written on Bank of America 25 in May of 2001 that was payable to Ken Dandar. That he had-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 1 been aware of all those checks before but he had not been 2 aware ever of the $500,000 check and even the $250,000 check 3 which he was part of the crowd who came to New Hampshire to 4 solicit money. And he was shocked by it, he said, when 5 Lirot briefed you and him about the testimony. And he said, 6 you know, further that you went out in the parking lot and 7 had a heated conversation and you told him he said to you, 8 "What do I have to do, Ken, to get my money from you?" and 9 at that time I think he said he was eight months behind in 10 getting paid by you. And you said to him in a snarling -- 11 repeating what he said, in a snarly way, "Michael, there is 12 nothing you can do about it." 13 And he walked away, he said. And he heard you 14 grumble something. He turned around and started to come 15 back and said to himself, "Forget it." 16 Q Anything else? Are you sure you covered 17 everything he said? 18 A That -- no. There is more he said. 19 Q Oh, keep going. 20 A Well, that is all he said about that -- the money. 21 That is what he said about the money. 22 Q Okay. Did he -- so he didn't know about the -- 23 the UBS -- 24 A Oh, oh, yes -- no, the other things he said is 25 that for sometime you had been telling him that you were-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 1 financing this out of your retirement account, you know, 2 financing the case out of your retirement account, and that 3 I had not been giving you money for a while. And even the 4 $250,000 in May of 2001 that was written on the Bank of 5 America account, and I'm happy to look up the Exhibit Number 6 if you want --, that when you got that check, you told 7 Dr. Garko that you had spent that much money already out of 8 your retirement account and had to put it back in and 9 therefore you still didn't have any money. 10 Q Anything else, Mr. Minton? 11 A I think that is all on that subject. 12 Q Okay. So are you telling me and this court that I 13 requested Dr. Garko to come with me to New Hampshire but we 14 were going to have code words and code names in front of him 15 when we started to discuss money? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And the whole purpose of the trip, I had been, as 18 you say, begging you to meet with you, was to get money from 19 you and not let Garko know about it? 20 A To get money from me, you know, what you did with 21 Dr. Garko was your business, but what you wanted me to do 22 was not to let Dr. Garko know that the money was going to 23 come from me. 24 Q Are you sure that in your mind it wasn't Dr. Garko 25 you didn't want to know about money given to me but, rather,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 1 it was Stacy Brooks who you didn't want to find out that you 2 wanted to give money to me? 3 A Mr. Dandar, that is right can you. That is 4 absolutely not true. Yes, Stacy did not want me to give any 5 money to you. Stacy -- you know, Stacy is aware of how much 6 money I have given to you you know how she feels, the 7 problems in the case, the perjury and everything. You know 8 exactly how she felt. I didn't have to hide that from Stacy 9 Brooks. You know, I have done -- if I would have listened 10 to everything she said, you know, I wouldn't be in so much 11 trouble now. 12 Q How long ago would you have been out of the, as 13 you call it, Scientology litigation business if you had 14 listened to Stacy Brooks? 15 A No sooner than I'm going to be now. 16 Q Well, she didn't want you to get out of the 17 Scientology litigation business back in the summer of 2001? 18 A It still wouldn't have made it happen any quicker. 19 Because as I told her -- as I told her at that time, "Stacy, 20 look, you have to understand, we're so even meshed in this, 21 you know, what on earth do you think we can do to distance 22 ourselves from this case. You know, we're so immersed in 23 it, we're sucked into it, there is no way out, we can't just 24 walk away and say, God, I wish this never happened. We are 25 under subpoenas, we're under court orders, you just can't-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37 1 walk away from it if you are in it. 2 Q In the summer of 2001, you had not committed any 3 perjury yet in your depositions because they didn't take 4 place until September and October. Is that right? 5 A I believe money had already been a perjury money 6 before that. 7 Q So the -- you're talking about the May 2000 8 deposition? 9 A The $1,050,000 deposition, yes. 10 Q Where you were asked how many checks you wrote and 11 you had testified $1,050,000? 12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that question. He 13 was asked a lot more questions than that, how many 14 checks he wrote. He was asked how much money he 15 gave -- Mr. Minton gave to him. 16 THE COURT: I realize there is a difference of 17 opinion here as to whether that -- but I don't 18 really think that the subtle tea needs to be taken 19 up with this witness. You can make that subtle 20 argument between counsel to me. 21 MR. DANDAR: All right. All right. 22 THE COURT: That is, it is Mr. Minton's 23 testimony that it is his belief that he committed 24 perjury in that May affidavit through not disclosing 25 that $500,000 check. Whether that is, in fact, true-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 1 or not is a matter that you-all can argue if it 2 makes a difference, but, I mean, that can be 3 argued -- he wouldn't know, to be honest with you, 4 all of the nuances of the crime of perjury. 5 Frankly, I don't know them very well, either. I am 6 learning more than I knew before. 7 MR. FUGATE: Ever wanted to know. 8 THE COURT: -- a few weeks ago. 9 A Mr. Howie gave me the biggest nuance was for each 10 count of perjury that you can spend 7 years in jail. 11 THE COURT: Well, I think he's a little short 12 there by about 8 years, isn't he? Isn't it a second 13 degree crime or is it third degree? 14 MR. HOWIE: It's a second degree felony. 15 THE COURT: 15 years in prison. 16 MR. HOWIE: I think we may have been discussing 17 criminal punishment code. 18 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 19 THE COURT: There are two kinds of perjury. 20 One is perjury perjury as most people know it, that 21 is a 15-year offense. One is just inconsistent 22 statements, very little as far as intent or 23 anything, inconsistent statements, as I recall, 24 under certain circumstances, that is a third degree 25 felony, that is 5 years in prison, for each episode.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q I'm pretty sure you and I differ on this, but I 3 just want to establish this as a predicate question. The 4 May 2000 UBS check, your testimony is you told me that was 5 your money. Correct? 6 A I told you before I got it, after I got the check. 7 Yes. Yes. 8 Q In your affidavit you say that I was under a court 9 order to disclose that $500,000 check. Do you recall that? 10 A I'm saying you told me that you hadn't reported 11 the check, that's all that I said. 12 Q All right? 13 A To the Court. 14 Q And did I -- well, if I told you that, did I also 15 tell you I was under no court order to report any money to 16 the court or to the defendants after January of 2000? 17 A I'm merely telling you what you told me. That you 18 can't do that, I haven't reported it to the court." 19 Q Did the $500,000 to LMT, the anonymous donation 20 that is really your money, and the $300,000 Operation 21 Clambake money, did that all come from the same financial 22 institution? 23 A Mmm, no. 24 Q Did it come from the same country? 25 A Did what come from the same country?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 1 Q Those two payments to the LMT. 2 A Mmm, I believe so. 3 Q Okay. Did the money that was in the UBS check of 4 May of 2000 to me, did that come from the same institutions 5 as the Clambake money and other anonymous money to the LMT? 6 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He just said the 7 Clambake and anonymous were two different 8 institutions. 9 THE COURT: That is true, sustained. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Did the money in May of 2000 come from any of the 12 other two institution as soon as? 13 THE COURT: Either of the other -- 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q -- either of the other -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. And did the March 2002 UBS check come from 18 either one of the institutions that LMT got money from? 19 A Ask me that again. 20 Q Okay. The March 2002 UBS check -- 21 A Yes? 22 Q -- that you say is your money, did that come from 23 one, or the other, of the two institutions that sent the LMT 24 money? 25 A Yes.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 1 Q Okay. The UBS check that went to Courage 2 Productions, did that come from one, or the other, of the 3 two institutions that sent in the -- that was the source of 4 the LMT money? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. So all we're dealing with are two 7 institutions from which the money come for all of the UBS 8 checks? 9 A Right. 10 Q Okay. Now, were there more institutions, though, 11 involved in transferring money from one to another before it 12 went to the UBS bank? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay. Are the accounts from these institutions 15 that you have refused to disclose in your name? 16 A I'm going to plead the Fifth amendment on that 17 question. 18 Q Are they numbered accounts? 19 A I'm also pleading the Fifth amendment on that 20 question. 21 Q Does your wife have an interest in the accounts? 22 A I'm going to plead the Fifth amendment on that 23 question. 24 Q Now, Mr. Howie -- no, let's go back to the -- to 25 the New Hampshire weekend. Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, at-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 1 that dinner table in front of Dr. Garko, you said, "My 2 friends in Europe may be interested in sending you money but 3 first you need to write where a letter to me and you need to 4 guess these people to stop criticizing me on the Internet 5 (write a letter) 6 A That is correct. 7 Q Did I send you a letter as a result of that 8 conversation? 9 A The suck up letter, yes. 10 Q That you call the suck up letter? 11 A Yes. 12 Q But that was at your request? 13 A It was. I stated it. 14 Q Oh, sorry. 15 THE COURT: He said he was sucking up to you 16 but that is what he asked you to do, is that. 17 THE WITNESS: Right. Right. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Do you think there is anything in what you call 20 the suck up letter written by me that is not truthful? 21 A Yes. I think there are things in the suck up 22 letter that are not truthful. 23 For example, the highlighted secret agreement. 24 Q Oh. Okay. So it mentions a secret agreement, you 25 say one existed, right?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 1 A I didn't come up with the term. You did. And you 2 put it in the letter. 3 Q Okay. And so did Mr. Merit lie about that 4 yesterday, too? 5 A I wasn't here when he testified about it but I 6 heard that he testified about it. 7 Q Mr. Merrett said there was never an agreement 8 between me or the estate and you or the LMT to give any 9 amount of proceeds over and above the loans that you 10 advanced. Is that -- 11 A If that is what he said, he said it incorrectly. 12 Q Okay? 13 A He may not have known. 14 Q Mr. Merrett said yesterday that you posted on the 15 Internet and you put it in an -- interviews in the Boston 16 globe or wherever, TV, wherever -- 17 A Yeah? 18 Q -- that there was this agreement that the LMT 19 would get the bulk of any proceeds from the wrongful death 20 case. 21 A Right. 22 Q And he said he confronted you about that and you 23 told him, "Well, I know that's not true, I just wanted to 24 get Scientology all riled up about it." 25 A That is a total fabrication on his part. That is-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 1 not true. 2 Q What would be the motive of Mr. Merrett to lie 3 about that? 4 A You'll have to find out what his other motives 5 were for lying yesterday. I don't know. 6 Q You're not a lawyer but do you have any idea of 7 the consequences of a member of the Florida Bar lying to a 8 circuit court judge? 9 A Do you? 10 MR. DANDAR: Move to strike. 11 THE COURT: Yes, that will be granted. We 12 really can't go there. We need to kind of move 13 through this so just answer his question. 14 A I don't know. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 THE COURT: Well, for one thing, it would be 17 the same thing as anybody else lying, it is perjury. 18 Number two, a lawyer stands to lose a lawyer's 19 license because that will just not be tolerated by 20 the licensing -- well, won't be tolerated by the 21 Florida Bar and I dare say won't be tolerated by any 22 other state bar that I could imagine. 23 MR. FUGATE: None that I'm aware of. 24 THE COURT: None that I'm aware of. 25-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Now, the $100,000 that Gerry Armstrong paid you 3 back, did that come from you? 4 A It did. 5 THE COURT: I'm sorry? The $100,000 that Gerry 6 Armstrong paid you back came from you? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Oh -- 9 A Your Honor -- 10 THE COURT: I didn't know you had any money, 11 but I wish I could find folks I did owe money to, 12 sir. 13 THE WITNESS: Your Honor? 14 THE COURT: Sir? 15 THE WITNESS: I just want to pull out some of 16 these things that I showed you yesterday -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: And one that I didn't show you 19 yesterday because I only read it last night. 20 THE COURT: What is this now? 21 THE WITNESS: This is from the April 8 22 deposition. 23 THE COURT: Oh, okay, April 8 deposition? 24 Okay. I'm not sure exactly what you're showing me. 25 I had asked -- you made some statement yesterday-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 1 about some recollection you had and you were going 2 to show me where it was in your deposition, -- what 3 it was in your deposition that caused you to 4 remember this so late in this proceeding, and what 5 you are suggesting is you found something else? 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I read this -- you know, 7 this was the last deposition that I read last night. 8 And there are some things in this April 8 one which 9 we had already stated on the record that there were 10 some corrections that needed to be made to it. 11 One of those involves Gerry Armstrong. 12 THE COURT: Oh. Where is that? 13 THE WITNESS: It is -- 14 THE COURT: Can we -- 15 THE WITNESS: It's -- it's Page 117 on line 24. 16 You know, I'd previously stated that I didn't 17 know where Gerry Armstrong got his hands on a 18 hundred grand. And I'm correcting that testimony by 19 saying that he got it from me. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Well, there is more lies on that page, isn't 23 there, Mr. Minton? 24 A Yes, I have got them highlighted in yellow. 25 Q That has to do with Clambake money and the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47 1 $500,000 anonymous donation to the LMT? 2 A That's right. 3 Q We're jumping ahead but this is April 8, 2002, 4 after you have already conferred with representatives of the 5 Church of Scientology to so-called set the record straight 6 and you are lying in your deposition. Why would you do 7 that? 8 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object. Mr. Minton I 9 think was attempting to recant and he was 10 interrupted by Mr. Dandar in the middle, I don't 11 know if -- was done. 12 THE COURT: Overruled, counsel. 13 A I'm not sure, Mr. Dandar. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Well, could it be and isn't it true that the 16 reason you kept the lie about the LMT money and the Gerry 17 Armstrong money is because your deal with Scientology was to 18 destroy the Lisa McPherson case and not go after the LMT 19 which was dissolved or Gerry Armstrong who nobody cares 20 about? 21 A Absolutely incorrect. 22 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, also assumes facts not 23 established, that there is a deal. 24 A And, you know, at the time of this deposition -- 25 THE COURT: If that was an objection, it is-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48 1 overruled. I think it is an appropriate question. 2 A At the time of this deposition, within minutes, as 3 you can see, of -- of this, we went out of the room and we 4 came back in and we told Mr. Rosen that there had been some, 5 Mmm, wrong answers given and we had to correct them. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Well, why didn't you do it right then and there? 8 A Because Mr. Rosen saw how upset I was about this. 9 Q And you think Mr. Rosen cared that you were upset? 10 A Well, you see what he said here on Page 120 and he 11 said "We'll continue this deposition." 12 THE COURT: I know, perhaps you do too, 13 Mr. Minton, that Mr. Rosen was quite a bit nicer 14 throughout, he was really quite polite and quite a 15 gentleman, wasn't he, on that April 8. 16 THE WITNESS: I tell you, he was much nicer 17 than any other one. 18 THE COURT: I'm going to tell you something, I 19 also read that October 11 and 12 deposition and 20 there was quite a change and turn about face in 21 Mr. Rosen behavior in those two depositions, wasn't 22 there. 23 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Absolutely. 24 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, in the one 25 deposition he was giving you notice, trying to get-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 1 you to pay judgments, trying to have you get out a 2 checkbook. 3 THE WITNESS: Right there on the spot. 4 THE COURT: -- right there on the spot right in 5 the middle of a four-hour deposition {}. 6 THE WITNESS: Right. 7 THE COURT: And he was just as sweet as pie, 8 comparably speaking, in the April 8 deposition, 9 true. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: I'm kind of curious because I 12 thought in this April 8 deposition which was the day 13 before you were going in to speak to Judge Baird, 14 that the assumption was that everything you were 15 going to say there, now that you'd agreed to set the 16 record straight, would be true. Is that why you got 17 upset is because you were still lying? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: So really after you agreed -- 20 THE WITNESS: You know, there -- there -- 21 THE COURT: I need to take a look here for a 22 minute. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Minton. 23 I noticed back in the deposition, particularly the 24 deposition of both September taken by Mr. Moxon and 25 the deposition in October taken by Mr. Rosen, now-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 1 that I read them over, after having sat through this 2 deposition last night until the wee hours of the 3 morning, I wondered if you noticed this, too. Did 4 it appear to you, in reflecting what was being asked 5 in those two depositions, that regarding these 6 moneys that were coming from Europe, the $500,000, 7 the $300,000, that they already knew about it? 8 THE WITNESS: What? 9 THE COURT: The money, the $500,000 and the 10 $300,000, Operation Clambake. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe they'd already 12 gotten the bank records from Bank of America by 13 then. 14 THE COURT: So they already knew about all of 15 that? 16 THE WITNESS: Well, certainly in the October 17 one they did because Mr. Rosen had the bank records, 18 I know, I remember that. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, when did you get those 20 records, do you remember that? 21 MR. MOXON: Yes, I got some of the records from 22 LMT at the Stacy Brooks deposition, she revealed 23 them. 24 MR. DANDAR: But, judge -- 25 THE COURT: Wait a second, when was that?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 1 MR. MOXON: In August. 2 THE COURT: In August? 3 MR. MOXON: Yes. 4 MR. FUGATE: Of? 5 MR. MOXON: 2001. 6 THE COURT: So Ms. Brooks had given you all 7 this data about this Clambake and all that stuff 8 that I just gave you the other day? 9 MR. MOXON: No, we just got some of the 10 records. We tried to piece together what was going 11 on because we saw transcripts. Remember, we got 12 bank records, we had a couple hears about the bank 13 records from the Bank of America, you recall there 14 was a phone hearing and motions for protective 15 orders, there was a lot of litigation that fall, 16 particularly Judge Beach, mostly with Judge Beach, 17 but some with you and we'd gotten some records and 18 there was large very strange unusual transcripts and 19 we are trying to figure out what in the world is 20 going on particularly one that looked like there 21 were these transfers that may have been going to 22 Dandar, we didn't know what was going on (transfers) 23 THE COURT: I really need to ask you, did it 24 appear to you that the Church of Scientology already 25 knew about stuff that you had no idea that they knew-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52 1 about when Mr. Moxon took your deposition in 2 September? 3 THE WITNESS: I think they already knew about 4 this 300,000 and 500,000 having gone into the LMT. 5 THE COURT: And the money -- did they know 6 anything about money going to Mr. Dandar? 7 THE WITNESS: Not that I know of. I don't 8 believe they did. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Well, as I said, as I read 10 it over, I thought, wow, they knew a lot more than I 11 would have thought they knew back then, it really 12 doesn't matter, it was what was in your mind, in 13 your mind you were not concerned that they already 14 had information that you never dreamt that they 15 would have because you were trying obviously to hide 16 it from them, you have already testified about that. 17 THE WITNESS: Right, but I believe Stacy Brooks 18 had to testify that -- I don't know whether this was 19 the one where she was threatened to go to jail or 20 what, but there was -- I know shed testified about 21 some of this stuff (she had) 22 THE COURT: It may be the reason I don't know 23 that because I don't have Ms. Brooks' deposition. 24 MR. DANDAR: Didn't we give it to you? 25 Mr. Lirot has our copy.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53 1 MR. FUGATE: Judge, that -- just for the 2 record -- 3 THE COURT: So if it is right obviously when I 4 was reading the deposition it was pretty clear -- 5 THE WITNESS: They did know about it. 6 THE COURT: They did know about it? So however 7 it was he knew about it, it was pretty clear to you 8 it had been something you had been very careful 9 about trying to hide from the Church of Scientology 10 for the reasons you have already said, and the fact 11 that you are, were and -- in September and are to 12 this very day claiming the Fifth amendment, this was 13 a concern, I presume, way back in September. 14 THE WITNESS: Sure. Sure it was. 15 THE COURT: This was a fairly elaborate scheme 16 that had been gone through at least as to this 17 300,000 Clambake contribution to hide it from 18 Scientology and to hide it from what -- whatever 19 else it is that you're trying to made hide it from 20 or not incriminate yourself. 21 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, in May of 2000 when you 24 handed me the $500,000 UBS check you knew at that time that 25 the only money the Church of Scientology was interested in-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54 1 learning about was money that came from you? 2 A No. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I don't -- 4 A No. 5 MR. WEINBERG: I guess if he understands it is 6 okay. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q You didn't have that understanding? 9 A Well, just from what I understand you are saying 10 is that the Church of Scientology was only interested in 11 going into discovery on moneys coming from me. 12 Q Right. 13 A That is what you are saying? 14 Q Right. 15 A That had nothing to do with why the check was 16 issued the way it was. 17 Q Well, did you have an understanding back in May of 18 2000 that you were the only person they were interested in 19 in obtaining information from as to funds going to the Lisa 20 McPherson case? 21 A I think that is an accurate description of what 22 was going on at the time. That's who they were inquiring 23 about. But, you know, you're the one who wanted to put this 24 money into a separate account. You weren't going to run it 25 through your trust account. You were going to tell the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 1 employees that you were financing this case out of your 2 retirement funds. 3 THE COURT: Well, you were trying to hide it, 4 too, weren't you Mr. Minton? What is fair is fair. 5 I don't know what it was Mr. Dandar was trying to 6 do, we're going to hear about it but you, sir, 7 certainly didn't want any more money for anybody 8 else to trace from this country. Did you? 9 THE WITNESS: Mmm -- 10 THE COURT: You were perfectly happy to hide 11 that $500,000 and had it come over the way it came 12 over. That is a lot of money. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I could have 14 written the check here. But, you know, I did it -- 15 and, you know, at the time, you know, it didn't dawn 16 on me, really, that I was doing this to avoid any 17 discovery from Scientology about it. It was that 18 this is the way Mr. Dandar asked me to do it and I 19 said fine. I mean, this was -- this was $500,000 20 that in Judge Moody's court Ken Dandar, with a trial 21 date set, said, "This will take me through trial." 22 THE COURT: So your testimony to me is the only 23 money that you cared about hiding from whatever it 24 is you are taking the Fifth amendment for was the 25 $500,000 that you paid to LMT and the $300,000 that-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 1 you went through the elaborate scheme for to pay to 2 LMT but that same motivation did not exist in the 3 $500,000 check to Ken Dandar and the $250,000 check 4 to Ken Dandar? That same motive did not exist? Is 5 that what you're telling me. 6 A Well, it didn't, your Honor, also this is a year 7 earlier, $500,000 in May of 2000, you know, and I 8 subsequently gave Mr. Dandar a check for $250,000, you know, 9 on my bank account here after that. 10 THE COURT: Well, I understand that but I don't 11 know how much money you keep in your account. But I 12 do know that is $750,000. That is a lot of money. 13 I don't know how much you keep in your American 14 accounts and I frankly am not going to ask you 15 because I don't care. But that is a lot of money. 16 And if you weren't keeping that much money, well, 17 then that would kind of deplete you. 18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Mr. Minton, since -- for the years '97, '98, '99, 21 2000, to 2002, have you underreported your income to the 22 Internal Revenue Service? 23 MR. HOWIE: Objection. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. And I'll tell you 25 exactly why. Because there is an allegation the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57 1 very reason, the very thing, that the Church of 2 Scientology was using was either extortion or 3 whatever about money laundering, racketeering or 4 income tax. And, therefore, that becomes a relevant 5 inquiry. I'm not saying it is true or not true, I 6 am saying it is a relevant inquiry. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just, -- I mean, 8 these are just allegations, I just want to make the 9 record clear. 10 THE COURT: I understand that but -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: I understood your ruling. I 12 mean, we have been quiet ever time Mr. Dandar said 13 extortion and blackmail and all those things. I 14 just wanted to Mike clear these are his allegations 15 and that is all it is. 16 THE COURT: I understand that is his 17 allegation. However, in this hearing he's allowed 18 to pursue his allegation just as you are. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 20 THE COURT: And I tried to make it clear many, 21 many times and I'm not suggesting any of these 22 things are true but these things have to be explored 23 on this hearing can be done and rulings can be made. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 A I'm going to plead the Fifth amendment on that-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 1 question. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Does Stacy Brooks know anything about whether your 4 income tax reporting in the United States is accurate? 5 A I wouldn't think she would have any idea. 6 Q You kept that from her? 7 A She's never been involved with it. 8 Q You haven't told her? 9 A I haven't. 10 Q Did you ever tell her you were concerned about tax 11 evasion? 12 A No. 13 Q Did you ever tell her you were concerned about 14 money laundering? 15 A No -- Well -- well, yes. 16 Q When? 17 A In connection with these charges that were filed 18 in Switzerland. 19 Q Okay. What charges were filed in Switzerland? 20 A Mmm, the Nigerian -- back in June of '9 -- no, 21 June of 2000, the Nigerian high commissioner in London wrote 22 a letter to the Swiss prosecutor in Burtosa {} and alleged 23 that the business that I had done twelve years earlier in 24 Nigeria, the business that had finished 12 years earlier in 25 Nigeria, had involved money laundering, forgery of financial-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 1 documents and a third allegation. 2 Q And did the prosecutor in Switzerland get 3 interested in that charge? 4 A Not to my knowledge. What happened was that the 5 way the charge was alleged, it was alleged that I somehow 6 facilitated the laundering of $12 billion by a Nigerian 7 dictator named Soni Abacha, who came to power the year after 8 I stopped doing business in Nigeria. You know, I have never 9 been to Nigeria, I never met any of these people who were in 10 power, and this allegation was basically bogus. 11 Numerous attempts were made to convince the 12 prosecutor that these charges were bogus. People who were 13 familiar with money laundering and familiar with the debt 14 trading business that I was involved in went to visit the 15 police in Switzerland, the prosecutor's office in 16 Switzerland. They wrote affidavits explaining this business 17 to convince the Swiss authorities that there had not been 18 any crime and this was a bogus allegation. 19 But one -- the main charge was this $12 billion of 20 money laundering. 21 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was looking at 22 something, the one something charge? 23 THE WITNESS: The main charge. 24 THE COURT: The main charge? 25 THE WITNESS: Was $12 billion worth of money-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 1 laundering, that enabled this Nigerian dictator 2 whose last name was Abacha, A B A C H A, to steal 3 from the country $12 billion basically. 4 THE COURT: When you say the charge, this is 5 again I'm just -- maybe it is late in the week, but 6 this charge was a charge brought against you, or 7 being looked at against you or looked at against 8 this Nigerian leader? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, in fact what had happened 10 earlier is the Swiss authorities conducted a large 11 scale investigation into this Abacha and seized 12 moneys and things of that nature that he had stolen 13 from Nigeria and put in Switzerland and Luxemburg 14 and Cayman Islands and panama and everywhere else so 15 the Swiss authorities had this huge investigation 16 going -- also in London, had this huge investigation 17 going, and this charge from -- or this letter from 18 the Nigerian high commissioner in London was an 19 attempt to add this within that investigation that 20 the Swiss authorities were doing. And, you know, 21 it's two years -- almost two years later. The Swiss 22 authorities have said, you know, we're not in a 23 position to give you a letter saying that we're not 24 pursuing this case because it's a small element 25 within a much bigger case and until we get rid of-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61 1 the whole case, we can't say, you know, you're off 2 the hook. 3 THE COURT: That is you personally? 4 THE WITNESS: Right. 5 THE COURT: Okay. But this is the same 6 Nigerian money laundering 12 billion-dollar scheme 7 that Stacy Brooks wrote about in her harassment of 8 Bob Minton where she alleged that the Church of 9 Scientology was -- was over there in Nigeria or in 10 the business community over there trying to keep 11 that stirred up in some fashion? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, they definitely stirred it 13 up. Definitely. 14 THE COURT: And that was true. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe it was true. 16 THE COURT: Well, she believed it was true, she 17 put it in -- and you believed, certainly, it was 18 true at the time. 19 THE WITNESS: I did. 20 THE COURT: So -- 21 MR. DANDAR: And -- 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q And did there ever come a point in time when the 25 Swiss prosecutor told you, "Okay, you're off the hook"?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 1 A I believe I just testified -- 2 THE COURT: He just said that they could not 3 let him off the hook because he said it was part of 4 a bigger -- this is about the Abacha fellow, right? 5 THE WITNESS: Right. 6 THE COURT: And until that was resolved, they 7 couldn't let him off the hook. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q So it is still ongoing? 10 A It's still pending. Yes. 11 Q And -- 12 A You know, I haven't been charged with anything. 13 You know, if I was charged, you know, I would actually have 14 some rights. But right now I'm just -- 15 THE COURT: And the actual charge is money 16 laundering, or racketeering, or fraud, or what did 17 you say -- 18 A Money laundering, forgery of financial documents, 19 and maybe the third was fraud. I'm not sure. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q When did it come to your attention that this 23 was -- this was going on involving you with the Swiss 24 government and Swiss prosecutor? 25 A Just after that -- sometime within a month or two-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63 1 of that letter going to the Swiss prosecutor. 2 Q What month was that? What year? What month? 3 A Well, the Swiss prosecutor -- the letter went to 4 the Swiss prosecutor in June of 2000. 5 Q Was there anything going on in the summer of 2001? 6 A No. 7 MR. WEINBERG: I assume you mean with regard to 8 this case? 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q With regard to the Swiss prosecution? 11 A No. 12 Q Did you have evidence in the summer of 2000 that 13 the Church of Scientology investigators or other operatives 14 were behind getting the Swiss prosecutor to look at you? 15 A There -- I certainly had a pretty strong feeling 16 that -- that this investigator David Lee was involved in 17 this. 18 Q The same David Lee -- 19 THE COURT: That seems to odd to use the term 20 operatives, what in the hell is a church operative? 21 MR. DANDAR: Someone working undercover, like 22 Laura Terepin was working for David Lee, the other 23 undercover person you say was connected and working 24 for the Church of Scientology. Right, Mr. Minton? 25 THE WITNESS: That is correct.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 1 Q Now, back in New Hampshire, Sunday morning, you, 2 Stacy Brooks and I and Dr. Garko, I believe -- 3 THE COURT: Wait a second, if we're going back 4 there, this is a wonderful time for a break, so 5 stop. We'll be in recess until 3:15 or 3:20 but go 6 on and -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: You think we'll go what. 8 THE COURT: We'll break around 4:30. How is 9 that? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Sounds good. 11 MR. DANDAR: I'll have Mr. Minton read this 12 complaint. 13 THE COURT: Okay, look at that complaint, if 14 you would. Just take it with you downstairs. 15 THE WITNESS: Which complaint? 16 THE COURT: Whatever he's going to give you, 17 the first amended complaint, see if you can find the 18 word "Murder," 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 20 THE COURT: Specifically the word "Murder." I 21 guess that is what he wants you to look for. 22 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken at 3:00 to 3:22) 23 THE COURT: Well, I told Mr. Keane, I saw him 24 at lunch, that I had to -- he just had a jury that 25 is going to be instructed at 1:30, but that I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 1 haven't seen him so I don't know whether his jury is 2 out or what. 3 MR. MOXON: I spoke to him just now at break 4 and he's still waiting for the jury but he said he 5 would stop up and get the box. 6 THE COURT: Fine but I want to talk to him 7 before he gets it so if I don't have a chance to 8 deal with him, he'll just have to get it next week. 9 MR. MOXON: Okay. 10 THE COURT: And I guess what I need to see is 11 the latest order to make sure he has the latest 12 order. There are so many orders around, that I have 13 seen floating around, that I need to see. What does 14 he have? 15 MR. MOXON: I have given him all of the orders, 16 your Honor, but I'll make sure he has the latest. 17 THE COURT: Well, give me all of the orders, 18 would you, so I can look through and see what I 19 think he needs to do? 20 MR. MOXON: Okay. And Mr. McGowan and I 21 already talked, and he's stipulating that I could 22 look at these tapes {} in Mr. Keane's office and 23 just copy sections that were related to the issues 24 in this case and if there is any dispute as to any 25 of it, we'll bring it to the acourt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66 1 THE COURT: Well that is not acceptable to me, 2 Mr. Keane is not to turn over those tapes unless 3 they are relevant. 4 MR. MOXON: Okay. 5 THE COURT: So no you cannot look at them 6 because there may be things that are relevant. That 7 is why I say I'm going to talk to Mr. Keane and I'm 8 going to decide what it is has been ordered to be 9 done in this case which I think is to turn over 10 unedited videotapes of witnesses in the case. I 11 think that is the last thing. 12 MR. MOXON: I'll give you each of the orders, 13 your Honor. 14 THE COURT: What I want to do at some point in 15 time is figure out witnesses, well, who are the 16 witnesses, and let him know that. And I don't know 17 how in the world he's going to know who these people 18 are. 19 MR. FUGATE: I was just going to say -- 20 THE COURT: I wouldn't and I have seen some of 21 them. 22 MR. FUGATE: -- there is no way he can get them 23 without you being involved. Should somebody go tell 24 him he needs to stop by here first? 25 MR. MOXON: I already talked to him about it.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 1 THE COURT: The nice thing about is I I talked 2 to him, so when I have time to get with Mr. Keane, I 3 shall do so. That man has got a jury out. And I'm 4 tired. And I'm not going to ask him when he's 5 waiting for a jury that he's been involved in for 6 two weeks to come up and deal with this so he's not 7 going to deal with it most likely today, I'm not 8 going to deal with it today and we'll get this done 9 next week {}. 10 MR. MOXON: Very good. 11 THE COURT: But I do want the order so I can 12 see what -- what needs to be done. 13 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor as point of 14 information I won't belabor the point, but I have 15 just spoken with Mr. Bunker, I'll be entering an 16 appearance for him. He advises me that there are 17 like 26 more tapes in his possession that would fall 18 under the order, they are being Fed Ex'd to me, I'll 19 turn they are over to your honor or Mr. Keane on 20 Tuesday. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MR. McGOWAN: So I hope that -- 23 THE COURT: But obviously it has been brought 24 to my attention there are tapes in there that are 25 personal tapes. Mr. Moxon does not need to see-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 1 personal tapes, neither does Mr. Dandar. 2 MR. MOXON: No, I don't want to, absolutely. 3 THE COURT: But you can't go view them and then 4 say, well, gee, I don't need that. Personal tapes 5 are personal tapes and that is my problem and I'm 6 not sure how it is we're going to -- I mean, that 7 was an objection made in my court and I need to 8 honor that but I'm just not sure how that is going 9 to happen. 10 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, Mr. Bunker is 11 actually willing to come down and assist Mr. Keane, 12 he knows what -- 13 THE COURT: That would be perfect. He knows he 14 has the right to come in and make his argument 15 before me about all of the tapes, all that stuff 16 that was said yesterday, journalistic privilege and 17 all that sort of stuff, if he wants to. But if he 18 doesn't do it pretty quick, I'm going to assume he 19 doesn't want to do that and that all he wants to 20 make sure is of his personal tapes are not viewed by 21 anybody other than the master is going to have to 22 view them, and -- 23 MR. McGOWAN: Right. 24 THE COURT: -- and that whatever is turned over 25 to either side will be copies and whatever it is he-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 1 can have them back. 2 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, I have disabused him 3 of certain notions and he understands how in camera 4 viewing these kinds of things works now and I think 5 he'll be cooperative and I think he can actually 6 identify certain tapes which are in whole irrelevant 7 or family tapes or whatever. 8 THE COURT: I'm sure that is true. Then once 9 we identify that there are certain relevant tapes, 10 as far as I'm concerned at that time Mr. Moxon and 11 Mr. Dandar or somebody from your office can be 12 present and you all can identify what you want and 13 somebody can -- I don't know whether Mr. Keane has 14 the ability to do this or not but I guess he has the 15 ability to appoint somebody who does have the 16 ability like he did with the computers. 17 MR. MOXON: Yes, well, we may have to sit down 18 with him and maybe with Mr. Bunker there, too, and 19 try to figure out which are which. It's kind of 20 hard to tell I guess unless you actually look at 21 them but of course I have a list of all of the 22 people that have been witnesses or people that are 23 listed as witnesses. 24 THE COURT: Well, people that have been 25 witnesses but are not -- why would you be entitled-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 1 to them? {}. 2 MR. MOXON: Well, only because from time to 3 time some of the witnesses have been utilized for 4 matters that have been argued here now. Mr. Dandar 5 has put pretty much everybody back on his witness 6 list and then some who was on the original. We have 7 gotten a list from him that is quite long so I don't 8 know if there is anybody in the category of used to 9 be but no longer is. 10 THE COURT: Well, if they are on the witness 11 list -- but if there is somebody that is not on any 12 witness list and they used to be and they are long 13 since removed, not to be used for anything and not 14 planned to be used for anything, I don't see where 15 they would still be part of the order. 16 MR. WEINBERG: I guess it depends if they were 17 sitting there talking about the case at the LMT or 18 in end of cycle or something that is an issue in the 19 case, I -- like that clip you saw would be very 20 relevant. 21 THE COURT: I think so, too, but those are 22 people who clearly -- 23 MR. WEINBERG: On that tape, thought 24 particular, certainly were. 25 MR. McGOWAN: Perhaps if we have a list of-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71 1 witnesses and issues, we could then, with 2 Mr. Bunker's help, go through the tapes, make a 3 privilege log and say, here is such and such a 4 witness, do it that way. 5 THE COURT: That will work. Okay. We'll get 6 it done but as I said, I have been a trial lawyer 7 many years before I was a judge but when you have a 8 jury out on a big case and you tried probably on 9 contingency fee, you don't want to sit down with 10 some judge and have her talk about a bunch of tapes 11 that somebody asked you to go through so I'm not 12 going to bother him except I told him when he's done 13 have him see me and that will probably be next week. 14 MR. MOXON: Okay. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Very good. 16 THE COURT: Continue, Mr. Dandar. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q Quickly, Mr. Minton, did you have a chance to look 19 at the first amended complaint? 20 A I did. 21 Q Is the word "Murder" used in reference to the 22 killing of Lisa McPherson? 23 A Mmm -- 24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, that is not what the 25 original question was, it was was the word murder in-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72 1 there. 2 THE COURT: No, he was asking what changed from 3 the first to the second. That is how I gathered the 4 question {}. 5 A Well, the word "Murder" is used in Paragraph 38 6 concerning the introspection run down. 7 Q Read it, please. 8 A The introspection -- paragraph 38, the 9 introspection rundown, even according to L. Ron Hubbard, 10 must be followed strictly and by Scientology trained 11 personnel as defined by Scientology. Otherwise, it can be 12 extremely dangerous and to those who wish to abuse the 13 introspection run down, according to L Ron Hubbard, can be 14 used to murder that person or cause a person to go 15 completely and utterly insane or to commit suicide." 16 Q Does it allege that in the case of Lisa McPherson 17 the word "Murder," is that used? 18 A I think that the term "Murder" here is one of 19 these allegations by innuendo. 20 Q Oh, okay. So the first amend complaint, after you 21 gave me the first check of $100,000, does not say 22 Scientology murdered Lisa McPherson? 23 A It doesn't. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Judge -- 25 A But that is your copy.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Sorry? 3 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I suppose that is 4 subject to some -- in light of the allegation 5 intentional killing and language that it relates the 6 introspection run down to murder and allegation that 7 Lisa McPherson in that amended complaint was on the 8 introspection run down, so I think as lawyers we 9 would argue that in light of the characterization of 10 murder and introspection run down paragraph 38, but 11 that is not for Mr. Minton to -- 12 THE COURT: No, it's not. And that was not 13 exactly as I understand what Mr. Minton said had 14 happened after he gave the money, so -- 15 MR. DANDAR: I'm just interested in the 16 church -- 17 THE COURT: However, in fact, the word "Murder" 18 was used in some of the later complaints, I believe. 19 MR. DANDAR: No. 20 THE COURT: Well, I thought I saw it. 21 MR. DANDAR: What he just read from is actually 22 words of Mr. Hubbard in his own publications. 23 THE COURT: Right. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: That is. 25 MR. MOXON: That is not true.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: He just makes it up, your 2 Honor. I asked Mr. Dandar to produce a document by 3 Mr. Hubbard saying the introspection rundown can be 4 used to murder somebody. 5 THE COURT: That is what it said in that 6 complaint. 7 MR. LIEBERMAN: But he just said it is in the 8 writings of Mr. Hubbard. He makes it up. It's the 9 same kind of thing we have in the fifth amended 10 complaint, your Honor. It is just made up. He just 11 says it and it's not true. 12 THE COURT: Well, all I know is what I heard he 13 read and that sounded like something he was reading 14 putting in his complaint that came from a writing of 15 L. Ron Hubbard. I don't -- 16 MR. MOXON: It is not, your Honor, absolutely 17 not. 18 THE COURT: Well, there is a lot of stuff said 19 in this hearing, such as Judge Quesada takes bribes, 20 Judge Schaeffer takes bribes, Judge Schaeffer was 21 before the whatever. There is a lot of stuff that 22 has been said here that is not true but you know we 23 all have to just move on and not get terribly upset 24 and jump up and down or else I'll be jumping up and 25 down all of the time so really we need not do that.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 1 Move on. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Mr. Minton, there came a time when you or the LMT 4 retained the services of Patrick Jost, is that correct? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q Patrick Jost is a money laundering expert from the 7 U.S. treasury department, is that correct? 8 A Mr. Yost is somebody I have been acquainted with 9 since 1995. He was an official at the financial crimes 10 enforcement division of the U.S. treasury department. He 11 was an expert in money laundering and conducted many money 12 laundering investigations for the U.S. government and he 13 specialized in something that came into the news after 14 September 11th, Holowa, and even though he had left Fin. 15 Cen. by that time, he went back and did some work for the 16 government in connection with middle eastern grips (F I N C 17 E N. 18 Q How is it you became familiar with him in 1995? 19 A We met down in Washington with Arnie Lerma. 20 Mr. Yost suggested -- made a number of suggestions to me at 21 that time. And, you know, we stayed in touch. 22 Q Well, was it about money laundering? 23 A No. 24 Q What was it about? 25 A Mmm, it was about a man who lived on a mountain in-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 1 New Hampshire whose name I can't remember who he thought 2 would be a good private investigator to delve into 3 Scientology. 4 Q And did you retain that man on the mountain? 5 A I didn't. 6 Q Okay. And did you retain the services of Mr. Yost 7 beyond that after LMT was formed? 8 A He did -- he did work for the LMT, yes. 9 Q And what work did he do for the LMT? 10 A Mmm, I wasn't involved in his day-to-day 11 activities. But generally speaking what he was doing was 12 compiling information based on letters and statements given 13 to the LMT by people who had been involved in Scientology 14 and tried to categorize them into various areas where he 15 thought Scientology may be vulnerable to prosecution in some 16 way, civil or criminal prosecution. 17 Q Did it have to do with money laundering? 18 A No. 19 Q Did someone cause a book on the U.S. penal system, 20 the federal code on criminal statutes concerning money 21 laundering, to be brought into the LMT? 22 A I was never aware that one was there. 23 Q In the summer of 2001 when money laundering was 24 being questioned or raised by Mr. Moxon in the deposition of 25 Ms. Brooks in the LMT, was that when the book on the U.S.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 1 crimes was brought in for review at the LMT? 2 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form, is that when 3 the book? 4 THE COURT: Sustained. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q In the summer of 2001 was the book on money 7 laundering crimes brought into the LMT office? 8 A Not to my knowledge. 9 Q Do you have any knowledge of the crimes book being 10 brought into the LMT offices? 11 A I have never seen it, I have never heard of it 12 being there. I don't know anything about it. 13 Q Did Patrick Yost -- was he assigned any task to 14 look at your transactions bringing money into the country or 15 into the LMT to see if it would violate any U.S. laws on 16 income tax evasion or money laundering? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you send Patrick Yost to France to confront or 19 to see Michelle Pisante , the attorney, to demand or 20 request your money back? 21 A I don't think so. 22 Q Well, what are you saying? You don't know? Or 23 you are not sure? 24 A Well, I didn't request him to do that. 25 Q Do you know that he actually did that?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 1 A Well, I know that he got pretty infuriated with 2 Pisante for not providing the materials that Pisante 3 promised to provide him and they had numerous disputes and 4 Mr. Yost would complain substantially to Ms. Brooks. I 5 never discussed with Mr. Yost anything concerning his 6 dealings with Pisante. Ms. Brooks dealt exclusively with 7 Patrick's activities, other than it related to the Swiss 8 investigation. 9 Q So Mr. Yost was involved to assist you in some way 10 with the Swiss government's investigation concerning the 11 allegations of money laundering? 12 A Yes. He was familiar with the players involved, 13 the people in the Swiss money laundering offices in Zurich 14 and Geneva. He knew some of the police there that he had, 15 you know, cooperated in in his capacity as a federal agent. 16 And so he met with the judge and some of the police people 17 on more than one occasion to discuss the matter. 18 He also compiled an affidavit, an extensive 19 affidavit, which he submitted to them, you know, explaining 20 this whole situation in terms of what this business was in 21 Nigeria, that there was never any money laundering involved, 22 there was never any forgery of financial documents, whatever 23 the other charge was. 24 Q Well, did you use his services in any way 25 whatsoever concerning the money that you brought into the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79 1 country? 2 A No. 3 Q The UBS checks written to Courage Productions, how 4 did the Church of Scientology get a copy of that? 5 A I gave it to them. 6 Q How did you get a copy of it? 7 A The same way I got a copy of the checks that I 8 gave them that were made payable to you. I called up and 9 asked for them. 10 Q Who did you call? 11 A The financial institution. 12 Q Which one? 13 A Mmm, I'm pleading the Fifth amendment on that. 14 Q Is that the financial institution that you have an 15 account or accounts in that sent the money for these checks? 16 A I'm pleading the Fifth amendment on that question. 17 Q I may have asked you this before but pardon me if 18 I did. Did John Merrett know that the Operation Clambake 19 money that came in, the $300,000, did he know before it came 20 in and at the time it came in that it was your money? 21 A Well, not only did he know it, but he even -- when 22 he was trying to get his friends involved he told me these 23 people were so trustworthy and so loyal to him that they 24 could go pick up cash if I wanted them to. 25 Q Now, before we get back ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 1 A From me, cash of mine. 2 Q Okay. Before we get back to the New Hampshire 3 weekend visit, isn't it true that the reason that you 4 canceled your trip to Nashville to see me was because Mark 5 Bunker was in the hospital? 6 A I don't believe Mark Bunker was in the hospital in 7 January. 8 Q Do you recall telling me that? 9 A Mmm, I don't remember telling you that. If he was 10 in the hospital, it might have been an excuse not to see 11 you. But I don't recall that he was in the hospital in 12 January. 13 Q Now, on the weekend Dr. Garko and I were at your 14 New Hampshire house, on Sunday do you recall me, you, Stacy 15 Brooks and I believe Dr. Garko, maybe, I can't say, sitting 16 down in your living room and you starting to talk about the 17 motion to show cause with Judge Schaeffer? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you recall you and I and I believe Stacy Brooks 20 and Dr. Garko going over the questions that you raised and 21 plead the Fifth amendment to before -- in the deposition 22 that was involved in Judge Schaeffer's court? 23 A Yes. 24 Q All right. Do you recall me telling you, after we 25 went over the 80 or 90 questions there was nothing in there-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81 1 that you should plead the Fifth amendment to? 2 A No, I don't remember you telling me that because I 3 couldn't plead the Fifth amendment to them, I was ordered to 4 answer them. If you gave me that advice, that wouldn't have 5 been very helpful. 6 Q And isn't it true the advice I gave you was to 7 simply tell the truth, there was nothing for you to hide? 8 A I wouldn't characterize your advice to me that 9 way, no. 10 Q Now -- just a minute. Now, after I left New 11 Hampshire, there came a time, within ten days or so, that 12 you called and said that you had arranged to have this 13 person in Europe send a check to me. Do you recall that? 14 A No. 15 Q Do you recall having a telephone call with me in 16 March of 2002 where you said -- you asked whether or not the 17 Court here had issued any type of interrogatory or 18 deposition to a bank in Switzerland? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And do you recall telling me that you were 21 concerned about that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And do you recall telling me that if that was 24 happening, that I needed to find out about it and let you 25 know?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 1 A I did. 2 Q And do you recall telling me that if it wasn't 3 something issued by this Court, that you were even more 4 concerned that somebody had found and discovered some 5 information of your banking activities in Switzerland that 6 greatly concerned you? 7 A I wouldn't have said had it not been issued by 8 this Court, I mean, it would have either been issued by this 9 Court or not issued. 10 Q Okay. But generally you do recall the telephone 11 conversation and you do recall being concerned that 12 something was happening at your banks in Switzerland? 13 A I was concerned that there was some inquiry. 14 Q Okay. And you never told me the name of those 15 banks. Correct? 16 A I don't know whether I did or not. 17 Q And I never asked you the name of those banks. 18 Did I? 19 A Mmm, I think the name of dress near bank came up. 20 Q Is that in Switzerland? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Is that one of the banks that sent a check to the 23 UBS, for one -- one of the UBS checks in evidence? 24 A I'm going to plead the Fifth amendment on that. 25 Q Now, isn't it ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83 1 THE COURT: Could I get a time reference on 2 this? When was this call? 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Do you recall when the call was, Mr. Minton? 5 A I don't. 6 MR. DANDAR: March of 2002. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, it was sometime in March. 8 THE COURT: Yes, okay, this was just recently. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, March of 2002. Yes. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q Did you tell Stacy Brooks that you were having a 13 check sent to me? 14 THE COURT: Are you talking about. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Time? 16 THE COURT: About the $250,000? 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q In February or March of 2002? 19 A Yes. 20 Q When did you tell her the first time? 21 A Mmm, I don't remember. 22 Q Was it before, or after, I got it? 23 A I'm not sure. I think she might have been there 24 when I caused it to be issued. 25 Q All right. And what does that mean, get on the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84 1 phone and tell somebody to do it? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Was she upset about that? 4 A She thought it was not -- she thought I was being 5 stupid to do it, but, you know, I said, "Look, Stacy, I feel 6 obligated to do it." 7 Q Before you, as you say, caused the check to be 8 issued, the March 2002 check, had you already -- you or 9 Stacy Brooks made contact with Mike Rinder? 10 A No -- oh, March 2nd? 11 Q Yes? 12 A Sorry, let me go back so you know the full story 13 here, there is no attempt to hide anything. February 4 or 14 thereabouts, Mr. Howie -- this is the first time the subject 15 of any settlement discussions with Scientology came up. 16 Q February? 17 A February 4th, approximately. 18 Q Okay. 19 A Mr. Howie felt Ms. Brooks -- Ms. Brooks and 20 Mr. Howie had been discussing this matter. Mr. How I was of 21 the opinion that this breach of contract case which all 22 Scientology was looking for was basically costs and attorney 23 fees, after I had been added a party, that it would be a 24 reasonable effort to call up his friend, Wally Pope, and 25 discuss what would it cost to settle this.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85 1 Mr. Howie, I believe, discussed with Ms. Brooks 2 the fact that it is only costs and attorney fees here in 3 Pinellas County, for God's sakes, this can't be this huge 4 amount, and if we can save ourselves a couple hundred 5 thousand dollars or whatever it would take to litigate this 6 thing, if we could settle this for some relatively modest 7 number, that it would be worth a try. 8 Mmm, Ms. Brooks didn't think that was something 9 that Scientology would go for. Mr. Howie and I 10 subsequently -- well, subsequently, I authorized Mr. Howie 11 to go ahead and do that. 12 He made a call to Mr. Pope. Two days later, 13 Mr. Pope and Mr. Rosen called back and suggested that, 14 number one, we're not interested in talking about any sort 15 of piecemeal settlements on some specific case, you know, if 16 you want to -- if Minton wants to talk about global 17 settlement, by all means, we're willing to sit down and do 18 that and they suggested a time frame of around the 19 week ending the 22nd of February, just before you came up. 20 And, you know, I thought about it for -- for a 21 while. And went and suggested to -- or advised my counsel 22 that if they wanted to talk about global settlements, let's 23 ask them to put it in writing what they want to talk about. 24 Q Did they put it in writing? 25 A Mr. Pope and Mr. Rosen basically, in a polite-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86 1 way, -- well, I don't think they were particularly polite, 2 but they said forget it. And there wasn't any further 3 contact between any attorneys of mine or by Stacy Brooks or 4 myself with Church of Scientology officials until -- and if 5 you would like for me to get my calendar out -- 6 Q Please. 7 A -- I can tell you the exact date. Until 12 noon 8 on Saturday, March 16th. At which time I called Mr. Rinder 9 in Los Angeles. 10 Q Well, why did you call Mr. Rinder? 11 THE COURT: Could I -- I was writing real hard 12 here and I must have missed something. Everything 13 was put on hold by everybody with this agreement 14 that nothing until March 16th? 15 THE WITNESS: No, nothing was put on hold. {} 16 the idea that if we wanted to -- you know, my 17 suggestion was that if we were going to have any 18 kind of meetings about global settlements, you need 19 to put it in writing. And they basically said, you 20 know, F off. 21 THE COURT: Get a hat -- 22 A I'm sorry, get a hat. 23 THE COURT: That is a nice way to say it. 24 A I'm sorry. 25 THE COURT: That is the in court way of saying-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 1 it. 2 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Well, -- 5 A So -- 6 Q February 4, though, was Mr. Howie approaching 7 Mr. Pope? 8 A Correct. And then a couple days later Mr. Pope 9 and Mr. -- 10 Q Rosen? 11 A -- rosen called Mr. Howie back. 12 Q And said we are not going to put it in writing? 13 A No, they called back to say, which I just said -- 14 Q Okay, global -- 15 A -- global settlement, if you want to talk the 16 global settlement, the weekend of February 22nd might be -- 17 THE COURT: Wait a second, I never got the 18 answer to my question. 19 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. 20 THE COURT: I heard March 16, something about 21 everything is going to be on hold until -- 22 THE WITNESS: No no, nothing on hold. 23 THE COURT: You just called on March 16th? Is 24 that it? 25 THE WITNESS: Right.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: As of March 15th, that night, 3 Stacy and I talked about this quite extensively and, 4 you know, I decided that the time had come to try 5 and settle all outstanding differences with 6 Scientology so that we could get out of this trouble 7 that we were in down here. 8 THE COURT: The week of February whatever it 9 was you said just kind of came and went, nobody did 10 anything? 11 THE WITNESS: That is right. Once they -- you 12 know, after Mr. Rosen and Mr. -- 13 THE COURT: Just a second. That just makes too 14 much noise. 15 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, after Mr. Pope and 16 Mr. Rosen said we're willing to talk about a global 17 settlement, it was then up to us to go back to them 18 and say, okay, let's sit down the week of 19 February 15th or 16th, whatever, and eventually, you 20 know, I went back through Mr. Howie and said, you 21 know, before we even think about sitting down, we'd 22 like to see what you propose in writing. 23 And they said get a hat. 24 THE COURT: Right. 25 THE WITNESS: I'm learning, your Honor, I'm-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89 1 sorry. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 THE WITNESS: So then no further contact was 4 had until that Saturday, March 16th, at which time 5 sometime around noontime, you know, to give it 6 9:00 o'clock in the morning California time, I 7 called Rinder. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Why would you feel so comfortable about calling 11 Mike Rinder when you were represented at that time by at 12 least two attorneys and Stacy Brooks was represented by an 13 attorney and of course Mr. Rinder is represented by at least 14 Mr. Rosen, Mr. Pope, Mr. Drescher, Mr. Abelson? I mean, why 15 would you just get on the phone and call Rinder? 16 A Why not? You know, I mean, clearly Mike Rinder is 17 somebody that -- that I have demonized more than almost 18 anybody else in the Church of Scientology. You know, when I 19 met with them back in '98, Rinder was -- you know, Rinder 20 was very nice, courteous, you know, he kept his word when we 21 were entering into this FACTNet settlement, you know. 22 And Stacy firmly believed that, look, Mike Rinder 23 is a person who will keep his word. And, you know, I think 24 that if we're going to start talking with these people, we 25 have to start talking with Rinder just to let him know that-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 1 we want to set up something. And so. 2 Q Stacy -- 3 A So -- 4 Q I'm sorry? 5 A And so when I called him, you know, basically what 6 I said was that, you know, that we were -- that we were so 7 overwhelmed by this whole litigation mess down in Florida, 8 that we wanted to get out of it, we wanted to get out of it, 9 we wanted to settle any outstanding differences, we didn't 10 want to bother them any more, we didn't want them to bother 11 us any more, you know, everybody just go about their life. 12 And, Mmm, he said, "Okay, I hear what you're 13 saying. I think we can -- I think we can sit down sometime 14 in the near future. I'm going to have to, you know, get the 15 lawyers lined up and I'll call you back." 16 And then sometime the Monday or Tuesday of the 17 following week, he called back and, you know, I don't know 18 which date it was, but -- the 19th or 20th he called back 19 and suggested that we meet in New York on the 28th and the 20 29th. No further discussions were had, just that we're 21 going to meet in New York on the 28th and 29th. 22 He said, "Look --" one thing he did say, 23 additionally, sorry, was that, you know, "I think it's going 24 to be necessary for Jonas and rosen to enter into some sort 25 of confidentiality agreement," he said, "Because, you know,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 1 that time when we met back in '98 we weren't very happy to 2 see you splash all these discussions all over the Internet, 3 so there's going to have to be some sort of confidentiality 4 agreement that keeps that from happening this time." 5 And, you know, that is the way it was set up. And 6 then, you know, he probably called back -- well, I'm not 7 sure whether he called back or Jonas was in touch with 8 Rosen, but by the beginning of the following week, the 25th 9 of March, I think that was the date of the Rosen and Jonas 10 letter, the 25th or the 26th, the confidentiality agreement. 11 And the next time any talking took place was in 12 New York on the 28th. 13 Q Okay. Now let's stop there and go back. It's 14 your testimony that Stacy Brooks told you that Michael 15 Rinder, the one that tried to get her to perjure herself in 16 1994 against Graham Berry -- 17 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Wait, stop, it is too complicated 19 already. You have to break that down in pieces, you 20 can't start at the beginning and end and stick 21 something in the middle that might have a different 22 answer. 23 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q Isn't it true {}, Mr. Minton, do you know, that-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92 1 based upon the signed notarized or notarized declarations of 2 Stacy Brooks in 1994, that she stated in those declarations 3 that Mike Rinder came to her and her husband, Vaughn Young 4 and tried to get both of them {} to sign declarations 5 stating that their prior affidavits were false? 6 A I -- I didn't know that at the time. But since I 7 have learned from Ms. Brooks that -- that she believes that 8 Rinder's affidavits about those affidavits are more accurate 9 than hers {}. 10 Q Did she tell you she lied in those affidavits in 11 1994? 12 A She told me exactly what I just said. 13 Q More accurate? What does that mean? 14 A That it was a more truthful representation of what 15 had happened when Mr. Rinder and some other guy came up 16 there. 17 THE COURT: We'll just have to have Ms. Brooks 18 back on the stand because my recollection of her 19 testimony was quite different from that. But we'll 20 just have to see. Maybe she -- 21 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 22 THE COURT: -- wants to tell us she wasn't 23 truthful in her testimony. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q Mr. Minton, as of March 16, before you made the-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93 1 phone call from New Hampshire to Mike Rinder in California, 2 did you investigate the activity of your banks in 3 Switzerland that you had told me previously about you were 4 concerned about? 5 A No. 6 Q You just let it go? 7 A There wasn't anything to check. 8 Q Well, what was the reason why you called me up and 9 asked me if the Court had issued any type of interrogatory 10 or subpoena to your banks in Switzerland? 11 A This was -- it wasn't Switzerland. It was Los 12 Angeles, as I recall. 13 Q That is another matter. That is where there is a 14 branch of the dress near bank, correct? 15 A Yes, that I think is what we were asking about -- 16 talking about. 17 Q No, there is another phone call, Mr. Minton, where 18 you called me up, after I left New Hampshire and said "Did 19 the Court issue any type of commission or interrogatory or 20 subpoena to banks in Switzerland that caused you a lot of 21 concern? 22 A Well, dress even bank is a bank in Switzerland and 23 the way it was being gone about, as I have determined from 24 seeing the document, was that there was an attempt to get 25 information about Switzerland from Los Angeles.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94 1 THE COURT: What documents have you seen? 2 THE WITNESS: I think it was a motion for 3 discovery of -- to get checks that were issued to 4 Ken Dandar. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q And that was from the -- that was in March of 7 2002? 8 A No, I don't think I saw it then. 9 Q Mr. Minton, do you recall calling me up, after I 10 left New Hampshire, telling me that you had heard or 11 received information that someone -- there was a new 12 prosecutor and a new judge in Switzerland who were -- had 13 renewed interest in your financial dealings either in 14 Switzerland or Nigeria? 15 A There was a new judge and a new prosecutor who had 16 a renewed interest in the Abacha case. 17 Q And in that conversation, did you ask me to find 18 out if someone from this Court, either Mr. Moxon or the 19 judge or somebody, had caused any type of letter, 20 interrogatory, commission or subpoena to be issued to your 21 banks in Switzerland? 22 A No. It was concerning dress near bank, Los 23 Angeles, to try to get to dress near bank, Switzerland. 24 Q By the way, do you know why the Church of 25 Scientology stopped in their efforts to get to those bank-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95 1 records? 2 A I don't. 3 Q Did that have any -- did that have any -- was that 4 discussed at your meetings with Mr. Rosen? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is that a statement 6 based on the 2d DCA? What -- he just said do you 7 know why the Church stopped, and is he testifying? 8 I mean, what -- 9 MR. DANDAR: I'll -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: What are you talking about? 11 MR. DANDAR: I'll rephrase the question. 12 THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Minton indicated 13 it's his belief that -- well, maybe -- 14 MR. WEINBERG: No, his statement wax -- his 15 question -- 16 THE COURT: Wait a second. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 18 THE COURT: Was it your belief the Church of 19 Scientology was trying to dig into your bank records 20 over in Switzerland? 21 THE WITNESS: Well, my belief was they were 22 trying to use dress near bank in Los Angeles to dig 23 in dress near bank in Switzerland, specifically 24 concerning this transfer that came from dress near 25 bank Switzerland to the LMT.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96 1 THE COURT: And you didn't want the Church of 2 Scientology digging into your Swiss bank account. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, I was interested if they 4 were doing that. 5 THE COURT: Well, let me just make this clear. 6 You didn't want them to be doing that, you wouldn't 7 want me looking into your bank accounts in 8 Switzerland, would you? 9 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't want you looking in my 10 bank accounts anywhere {}. 11 THE COURT: No, so you had a concern that they 12 were doing that? 13 THE WITNESS: Well, I was just wanting to know 14 if they were. 15 THE COURT: You don't seem to want to answer 16 this question. 17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: It seems real simple. 19 THE WITNESS: I'll try. 20 THE COURT: You had a concern that they were 21 doing this? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 THE COURT: Yes. So your objection is 24 overruled, counsel. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was a different-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97 1 objection. It was -- 2 MR. DANDAR: We don't need to talk about it. 3 The question was withdrawn. 4 THE COURT: Yes, I think the question was 5 asked, the question can was answered and I think it 6 is relevant -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: I had no problem with what you 8 just discussed with Mr. Minton. It was a different 9 question. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q How did the Church of Scientology discover that 12 you had banking relations or accounts with the dress near 13 bank in Switzerland? 14 A I don't believe that is in evidence. 15 Q Well, what you know -- 16 A What they discovered, which they discovered from 17 Ms. Brooks, was that dress near bank, Switzerland, sent 18 money to the LMT. 19 Q And when Ms. Brooks testified about getting money 20 did she mention the dress near bank in her testimony, 21 getting money from Switzerland, the anonymous $500,000? 22 A Mmm, you know, I think it was always talked about 23 as just dress near bank because, you know, it was on the -- 24 in the bank records. 25 Q What bank records?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98 1 A The LMT bank records. 2 Q So when the Church of Scientology subpoenaed the 3 bank records of Bank of America on the account of LMT, those 4 bank records then showed that the LMT received a wire 5 transfer of $500,000 from dress near bank? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q And did it also show that the LMT received the 8 $300,000 check from Operation Clambake? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And don't you think that if the LMT records showed 11 $300,000 from open racks clam bake, that would raise a big 12 question mark in anybody's mind since the man that operates 13 Operation Clambake has no way to afford a $300,000 check? 14 A I don't know what he can afford. The Church of 15 Scientology knows more about him than I do. 16 Q How do you know that? 17 A Well, because they have had a lot of interaction 18 with him because of his website, you know, copyright 19 infringement notices in norway, I believe. 20 Q So the Church of Scientology, out of any other 21 organization in the world, since they had all this 22 interaction with him, would know that man no way would have 23 $300,000 to donate to the LMT? 24 A Well, let's -- 25 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, excuse me, I don't-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99 1 know what the basis for the question is, how he 2 would know what the Church would know. 3 THE COURT: Well, he can ask to see what this 4 man thought, because I think that is what is 5 important. 6 THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know what 7 Mr. Heldal-Lund's financial situation is. I know 8 he's in -- that he is, from what I understand, in a 9 senior position in a major oil company. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Isn't he a computer tech kind of person? 12 A Well, he may be a senior computer tech kind of 13 person in a high position in a major oil company, but he's 14 very -- I mean, Norway has a huge offshore oil industry. He 15 lives in the middle of this offshore oil industry in star 16 SREUPBG guner or something Norway. 17 Q Isn't it true that when Ms. Brooks answered the 18 question about the money from Operation Clambake and the 19 anonymous $500,000 wired into the account of LMT, you were 20 furious? 21 A No. 22 Q Didn't you become agitated because you wanted her 23 to plead the Fifth amendment to that? 24 A Let me just tell you something, Mr. Dandar. A 25 corporate representative cannot plead the Fifth amendment.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 1 Let me tell you where the Fifth amendment started being 2 plead by me. As a result of that chart, that RICO chart or 3 whatever you want to call it, John Merrett and I figured 4 out, well, we'll just say we are afraid of being prosecuted 5 under RICO so we'll just plead the Fifth amendment. 6 Stacy Brooks couldn't do that. This is why we 7 didn't want Stacy Brooks to know about the $300,000 or the 8 $500,000, to protect her from having to answer any questions 9 about it. 10 Q Well, you certainly could have been deposed about 11 it as chairman of the board of the LMT. 12 A At the time I was chairman of the board, but she 13 was the president, shareholder, a -- 100 percent shareholder 14 and chief operating officer of the company. 15 Q So are you telling me somebody like Stacy Brooks, 16 in that position at LMT, would have no source of knowledge 17 of these funds when she was deposed? 18 A She didn't. She didn't know they came from me. 19 Q Another thing you were worried about being 20 criminally prosecuted for in a spin of the truth was the 21 loan that you made to Ursula Caberta? 22 A I have near been at all concerned about being 23 prosecuted in any way, civil Lee or criminally, concerning 24 that innocence $75,000 loan to Ursula Caberta. 25 Q I know it is innocent. That is why I said spin,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101 1 but the money loaned to Ursula Caberta, you plead the Fifth 2 amendment to that, too, didn't you? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q Because you were worried -- 5 A No, no, just listen here. 6 THE COURT: You have to be real careful once 7 you start justifying your basis for pleading the 8 Fifth amendment, you may have waived it. I mean, he 9 doesn't have any business getting into -- maybe you 10 don't want to claim the Fifth amendment on that any 11 more. If you don't, that is okay. 12 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't on that. 13 THE COURT: But if you want to claim the 14 Fifth -- 15 A All I want to explain is on what basis the Fifth 16 amendsment basis was claimed in that Heller versus Caberta 17 case when Dan Leipold represented me in Boston, you know, if 18 I was being accused in Germany of having unduly influenced a 19 foreign government official, perhaps this was an issue here 20 in the United States in terms of the foreign corrupt 21 practices act which I was very familiar with because of my 22 dealings in third world debt activities. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Okay. You -- 25 THE COURT: I just have to ask -- oh, I didn't-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102 1 want another little whatever this was, this last 2 little revelation was, but do you recall that Mr. 3 Moxon wanted to ask you whether or not Mr. Lund was 4 involved in money laundering? 5 THE WITNESS: I don't remember him asking me 6 that. But Mr. Moxon, you know, was pretty -- 7 THE COURT: Your deposition of 9/18/01, Page 8 142, question line 6, "Did you have any discussion 9 with Mr. Lund --" wait a second. Well, this is all 10 about Mr. Lund, lots and lots of questions about 11 Mr. Lund. 12 Page 143, line 14 "Do you know if Mr. Lund is 13 involved in money laundering? 14 Answer:i'm asserting my Fifth Amendment 15 privilege." so there was quite a curiosity, it seems 16 like in this deposition, of -- of 9/18/01. 17 THE WITNESS: That was September? 18 THE COURT: Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, practically anything to do 20 with money in that I believe I was taking the Fifth 21 amendment on. 22 THE COURT: Yes, that is true. And I didn't -- 23 I did want to get that on the record. I think I may 24 have with your lawyer last night that you did say 25 that at the very beginning of that deposition on-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103 1 Page 12, first of all let me just say generally at 2 this stage I don't intend to answer any questions 3 concerning my financial affairs. I will be 4 asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege on each and 5 every question concerning payment of money to 6 anybody who fits within the general framework of 7 Scientology's "Enterprise chart." 8 And you did. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q When they found out about the dress near bank, the 12 bank to which you -- today you plead the Fifth amendment to 13 in identifying it as being one of the sources to the UBS 14 checks, that -- 15 THE WITNESS: Mmm -- I don't think I -- I don't 16 think I revealed any bank (put in answer form. 17 Q Okay, then I stand corrected. Let me back up and 18 try to think. 19 THE COURT: Well, the record will speak for 20 itself on that. Think whatever you want to ask, if 21 you could maybe ask the question. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Isn't it true the dress near bank was one of the 24 sources of funds that has your account that resulted in one 25 of the checks that -- the UBS checks?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104 1 A No. 2 Q Was the dress near bank involved at all in any way 3 with either the UBS checks or the wire transfer to the LMT 4 of 500,000? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object to the 6 first part of that. He just answered it. He said 7 it didn't have anything to do with the UBS checks. 8 So can you ask the second chart? 9 MR. DANDAR: I don't understand why the defense 10 Church of Scientology objecting to questions rather 11 than his own counsel. 12 THE COURT: Well, because there is a dual fold 13 here. One of them is relevance. Too many questions 14 and on and on. Apparently Mr. Howie is only here to 15 see if he gets into a privilege or that type of 16 thing but he's really not a party to this particular 17 hearing. 18 MR. DANDAR: All right. 19 THE COURT: They are. So there is really -- 20 you are up against two folks. 21 MR. DANDAR: All right. Well, actually more 22 than two here. 23 THE COURT: Well, yes, that is very true. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q Okay.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105 1 THE COURT: Five lawyers, six lawyers. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Two. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 THE COURT: Two lawyers against six. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q Dress near bank had nothing to do with the UBS 7 checks, correct? 8 A As far as I know. 9 Q Well -- 10 A No, I don't -- no, I don't think they did. 11 Q Well, how come you are not certain? 12 A I'm certain. I'm certain. I don't think they 13 did. 14 Q All right. Did the dress near bank have anything 15 to do with the $500,000 wire transfer to the LMT? 16 A It came from the dress near bank. It's on the 17 statements. It's transferred by dress near bank, New York, 18 by order of dress near bank, Switzerland. 19 Q In January 2002 did you have a telephone call with 20 Jesse Prince where you were expressing to him that you were 21 extremely upset and -- and maybe expressed to him that you 22 didn't want to live any more? 23 A I might have. I might have. I have had suicidal 24 thoughts at times. 25 Q What caused that?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106 1 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, what was the date? 2 MR. DANDAR: January, 2002. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Okay, sorry. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q What caused you to become that way in that month 6 on that day? 7 A It wasn't something that happened on that day. 8 Q All right. 9 A People don't get so depressed so quick. 10 Q What -- 11 A So there wasn't anything particularly that 12 happened that made me feel that way -- 13 Q All right. 14 A -- other than the cumulative effect of this 15 litigation mess that I'm in here in Florida. 16 Q When you called Mike Rinder on March 16, 2002 to 17 try to begin discussions of this global settlement, had 18 anyone told you, up until that point in time, that you could 19 get out of the contempt orders of Judge Schaeffer and Judge 20 Baird by making a deal or global settlement with the Church 21 of Scientology? 22 MR. HOWIE: Objection to the extent it touches 23 on attorney-client privilege. 24 THE COURT: Sustained as to that. 25-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Outside of your attorneys, had you had any 3 understanding that by trying to make a deal with 4 Scientology, you could get out of two different contempts 5 orders with two different judges? 6 A It was never discussed with anyone and the first 7 time it was discussed was in New York. 8 Q All right. So you -- 9 THE COURT: Did you hear what he said? 10 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q So now let's go to New York. First, before you go 13 to New York in Mr. Rosen office on March 28, 2002, you had 14 your attorney, Mr. Jonas, from Boston enter into a written 15 agreement with representatives of the Church of Scientology, 16 Mr. Rosen, to keep all of the discussions confidential. Is 17 that right? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q And it's because the Church of Scientology wanted 20 the confidentiality. Is that right? 21 A That's right. They felt that I violated to some 22 extent, the general confidentiality of these discussions 23 that had happened back in 1998. And they didn't want to 24 have a repeat of it. 25 Q And that letter just says we're going to keep it-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108 1 confidential, there is no penalty clause on what the penalty 2 would be, is that right? 3 A That is right. 4 Q Is there another letter that has a penalty clause? 5 A That is the only letter. 6 Q Okay? 7 A I think that is the only communication. 8 Q Okay. So you showed up in Mr. Rosen's office at 9 what time on March 28, which is the Thursday before Easter. 10 THE COURT: Are you getting ready to get into 11 finally whatever this is you wanted to get to? 12 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Because, you know, it's 4:15 and 14 I'll bet we could just stop rather than go for 15 15 minutes and all just get out a little early and let 16 you start that fresh. What can you do in 15 17 minutes? 18 MR. DANDAR: Let me have the witness identify 19 these E-Mails which -- 20 THE COURT: No, counsel, save them. I don't 21 want to hear any more about that this week. I heard 22 all I can stand for one week. Thank you, 23 Mr. Minton. You are excused. Have a nice weekend, 24 everybody, three days. 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109 1 THE COURT: And we're going to meet Tuesday at 2 9. 3 MR. WEINBERG: That will be nine. 4 THE COURT: The request to produce I have yet 5 to hear. However, there is no requirement that 6 anything be produced until I rule on that, 7 apparently it's been brought into question and 8 somebody will ask me to look at it some day and then 9 I'll rule on it. 10 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I do have a short 11 memorandum that we would like to file. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 MR. MOXON: Which is -- if I may -- 14 THE COURT: Wait, let's let Mr. Minton get off 15 the stand. I'm sure he would like to get on his 16 way. 17 THE COURT: Okay, go ahead,. 18 MR. MOXON: It is a courtesy copy, your Honor, 19 which is -- entitled bench memorandum regarding the 20 film the profit. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MR. MOXON: To aid the court's understanding. 23 And I have a -- I made several references in there 24 to a book which gives further information to show 25 why it concerns Scientology and I have a copy of-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110 1 that for the court. 2 THE COURT: I have that. 3 MR. MOXON: You have that? Okay, good. 4 THE COURT: I was given that back when I was a 5 judge in a criminal case and I figured I might need 6 it so I have it. 7 MR. MOXON: Good. Now is the time. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. MOXON: Thank you. 10 THE COURT: It is in with all of the rest of 11 the materials I have. 12 I also have another -- I think I was given 13 three books. 14 MR. MOXON: In one is kind of a large 15 compendium with a lot of information on Scientology 16 that has some of the things that have been discussed 17 here in court, so -- 18 THE COURT: Whatever -- if you will speak, I 19 don't know who is doing the motions, but there is a 20 lot of references made to a book to show that these 21 were not things just being made up, that these truly 22 were part of the Scientology religion and they -- 23 you know, there were little tabs oath. And I have 24 that book and two other books, so I have it. 25 MR. MOXON: I assume Mr. Lirot ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 1 MR. LIROT: I have the film, judge, also our 2 memorandum to accompany the film and I have a 3 courtesy copy for you (this is by Lirot) this is for 4 your viewing only. I guess in response to what 5 Mr. Moxon said, I would prefer you view the film 6 first and if you can't tell from just viewing it 7 what the connection is, I don't think you need to 8 read Mr. Moxon's memorandum to tie it in it in if it 9 is the film that is really at issue so I leave that 10 to your discretion. 11 THE COURT: All right, thank you. 12 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I filed with the clerk 13 submission confidential release agreement which is 14 the Franks agreement you had requested. 15 THE COURT: Oh, yes. 16 MR. FUGATE: It's a memorandum that really 17 addresses that. 18 THE COURT: Is it in here? 19 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Basically, I hoped to have 21 that yesterday afternoon or this morning but I have 22 got it now. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. FUGATE: You asked for it. There it is. 25 Have a nice weekend.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 112 1 THE COURT: You, too. Is that it? My court 2 reporter is told she's done. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25--------------------------------------------------------------------------------