(THIS IS RAW RAW RAW UNCORRECTED OCR) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND POR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE CF FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL t IEl3REICH Plaintiff, vs. Case No. OQ?5G82?C1 Section 11 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.;

JAniS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI;

and DAVID HOUGHTON, Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.'S, MOTION TO COMPEL LMT, INC. TO RETURN TO DEPOSITION; FOR A FINDING OF CONTEMPT; AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF COERCIVE SANCTIONS AND ftALNTIFe5_MQT_, ION FOR COERCIVE SANCTIONS COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON by and through the Personal Representative, DELL t tEl3REICH, and through its undersigned attorney, and hereby responds to Defendant, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.'s Motion to Compel LMT, Inc. to Return to Deposition; for a Finding of Contempt: and for the Issuance of Coercive Sanctions, and Plaintiff's Motion for Coercive Sanctions against Defendant, CHURCiwI OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.(SCIENTOt.OGY) and its counsel, Kendrick Maxon, as follows:
1. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION ,_FO.R ..SAM TIONS 1. Plaintiff moves for coercive sanctions against Defendant, SCIENTOLOGY, and its m house counsel, Kendrick Moxon, for their continued violation of the requirement of good faith pleading per Rule 1.110 of FRCP, and F.S.§57.105.

SCIENTOLOGY , through Kendrick Moxon, apparently in following SCIENTOLOGY "scripture",the attached Marluel uo Dissemination of Material, Vol 2 of the Red Volumes. p 157, highlighted portions describing using litigation to attack and harass, has repeatedly poisoned this action with baseless accusations of unethical and criminal conduct against Plaintiff and her counsel, which is contained in the counterclaim filed by Scientology and who now demands that these scandalous accusations be made a finding of fact by the current motion against LMT, Sob Minton, and Stacy Brooks. These outrageous and baseless accusations include the following:

"Liebreich and Bandar have also misused process by purchasing testimony of fact witnesses ....effectively money laundering ...engaged in activities calculated to infect the jury pool .... to harass and intimidate witnesses ...forced defendants to relinquish their rights . encumber valuable properties (of SCIENTOLOGY) ...." ' 2. All of the above is absolutely false. Discovery on these baseless allegations has shown it to be absolutely false, yet Moxon and SCIENTOLOGY continuo to assert them and now demand that they be MADE A FINDING OF FACT? BY COURT ORDER!

'See page 27?28 of current SCIENTOLOGY'S Motion for coercive sanctions against LMT, et al.

Page 2 of 10 litigant, it must reign in this Defendant and its in house counsel now.

3. This is not the first time SCIENTOLOGY has abused the court system. In fact it is very litigious and has a history of this conduct.

Woteu urteparty to:o o:owuitconiinuouxly and unaucct:rsftrlly axes the litigation process to bludgeon (lie opponent into Stlt111115Ji0i1, Mo." actions trltrst tic closely scrutiovized too, consfitutionall ht)p1icsitioars.

Church of Scientology of California v.Woltersheirn, 42 Cal. App. 41h 628. 49 Cal. Rplr 2d li?t) (1996).

4. Another court also found that the Church of Scientology organization had teen playing "fast and loose with the judicial system" and levied $2.9 million in sanctions against it for "destruction and concealment of documents, refusal to comply with many court orders, needless delay, and multiplication of the proceedings by the Church of Scientology] and [its] fillings of frivolous motions and of offensive anti unreasonable motions." Religious Technology Center v. Church of the New Cwltrzafior), No. 94?55781, slip op. et 13, 1996 WL 111443 (9th Cir. April 11, 1996).

5. In l?TC;_,v. Scott, 82 F.3rd 423 (9th Cir. 1996), the court held that since RTC, part of the nominal corporate structure of the Scientology enterprise,' failed and refused to produce documents dismissal was affirmed. In aaotf, the court remarked that RTC had "After carefully examining the record and attempting to understand the nominal corporate structure of Scientology, it is apparent to the court that it is something of a deceptise visas. Real control is exercised less formally, but less tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the SEA Organization, more commonly referred to as the SEA ORG "Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.

S,, 26 CL. CT. 713, 7113 (1992).

Page 3 of 10
destroyed documents and refused to comply with court orders to produce documents and repeatedly filed multiple motions which were offensive and unreasonable.

6. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal held that the Church of Scientology intended to defraud the iRS. United Stales v. Zofin, 905 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir.

199()) cert. denied 113 L Ed.2d 244 (1991). The court held that the Church of Scientology lied to the court in reference to whether or not it had tapes which implicated the Church in tax fraud CSI, RTG and CST are "management churches."

Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., at 717 CST is "inextricably linked to other Scientology Organizations." Church of Spiritual Tt'chnoloqy v. U. S., at 731. CST is linked by a cat's cradle of connections to RTC, CSI, and through them, to the rest of Scientology, thereby deleting its claim of disinterest in the activities of other organisations. Church of Spiritual:rochnotoqy.,v. U.S.

at 732. CST is nothing but a way to shelter income from taxation? At 737.

WHEREFORE. Plaintiff requests coercive sanctions for this abuse, including the striking of all pleadings of this Defendant, quashing the Pro Hac Vice order for Moxon, costs, and attorney fees to the ESTATE, and other relief deemed proper lay the court.

If. 6'LAIN t~ FE'S RE;~PONSE TO SCIENTOLOGY'S MOTION FOR__SANCTtONS 1. Although the SCIENTOLOGY Motion per se is not directed toward the ESTATE, the Motion contains outrageous misrepresentations of fact to which the ESTATE is compelled to respond. The accusations against the ES'T'ATE and its counsel for Misconduct are also outrageous misrepresentation of the facts. This is simply another Page 4 of 10 attempt to create smoke, hide the dead body of Lisa McPherson inside the Fort Harrison Hotel and distract the court from the issues of this case.

2 This Motion, similar to most recent motions and pleadings tiled by SCIENTOLOGY is violative of the good faith requirement contained in Rule 1.10, FIa.R.Civ.P. arid §57.105, Florida Statutes, requiring pleadings be made in good faith.

3 The Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. was not "incorporated as a for profit company by Plaintiff's counsel." P'laintiff's counsel is not an incorporator of the Lisa McPherson Trust, Plaintiffs counsel simply, at the request of Robert Minton, forwarded the incorporation papers to the Secretary of State. Robert Minton was the sole incorporator of the Lisa McPherson Trust as evidenced by the public record.

4 Furthermore, the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc, was not incorporated by Mr Minion "as the proposed recipient of the hoped?for proceed s of this case." The truth of the matter is that the ultimate beneficiaries, i.e., the uncles and aunts of Lisa McPherson, have stated repeatedly in their depositions that they wilt be donating the proceeds of this case to a non?profit organization. Since Mr.

Minton has formed a for profit corporation, it would therefore be excluded from any consideration.

5 It was riot the words of Mr. Minton who classified his loan to Plaintiff's counsel as his "piece of the litigation" as SCIENTOLOGY attests in its Statement of Facts on page 3 of its Motion. Quite to the contrary, it was Mr.

Weinberg who used the phrase "piece of the litigation." See Exhibit 4 to the Motion, i e , the deposition of Robert Minion, elated January 13, 1998 Page 5 of 10
G. Mr Minton has repeatedly testified in the depositions in this case that he expects nothing out of this litigation except repayment without recourse of only the principal amount. SCIENTOLOGY classifies Mr. Minton's loans as "his investment in this litigation." (p3. SCIF_NTOLOGY's Statement of Facts).

However, these are again the misleading words of SCIENTOLOGY and are not the words of Mr? Minton? Therefore, SCIENTOLOGY is intentionally misleading the court.

1. SCI ENTOLCUGY spins the testimony of Mr. Minton and concludes at the first paragraph that Mr. Minton worked out a deal with Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff, citing u64?65 of Minion's deposition, January 13, 1998. Looking at those two pages, it is obvious chat there is no deal between Plaintiff , Plaintiff's counsel and Mr. Minion. Quite to the contrary. Mr. Minton states chat Plaintiff hart agreed to give the bulk of any proceeds of this case to a cult?awareness type organization. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust. In reviewing Plaintiff's deposition, any organization receiving any proceeds must be a non?profit organization. The LMT is for?profit.

tj Therefore, the continuation of argument that Mr. Minton has an investment plan far this litigation is absolutely baseless, scandalous and a total fabrication. It is time for the court to reign in counsel for SCIENTOLOGY and stop this unnecessary pleading, especially pleadings based upon outright lies, 9. The first order of May 15, 2000, restricted discovery of the Lisa McPherson Truss, Inc. to produce financial records regarding the paymene to any person identified at any time as a witness m this case and produce videos in the custody or control of the Lisa Page 6 of 10
McPherson Trust, and any statements of any person identified presently as a witness in this case.

14 The order of the court directed to LMT, dated May 23, 2000, was a Protective Order, granted in part and denied in part., brought on behalf of Robert S.

Minton concerning his second deposition in this case for May 24, ?000. The subject matter of the deposition was limited to the witnesses knowledge of payments to, pressures upon or relevant statements of persons who are "witnesses to,.the.facts,of dais case" or who have been identified by a party as its own expert witness, or payments to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel.

11. More particularly, V4 of that order restricted and prohibited deposition questions Concerning "dealings with or knowledge concerning persons who have not been identified by a party as his own expert witness and who do not have knowledge,cipscribed in the most recent complaint filed herein." Neither this order nor the May 15, 2000 order has been rescinded.

12. The question goes to who is a witness in this case, SCIENTOLOGY is using the death case of Lisa McPherson to conduct overt investigation of its critics.

The court clarified what is a witness in this case by its May 23, 2()40 order limiting it to only persons who have "facts of this case."

13. As it does in this case and all other litigation involving Scientology, SCIENTOLOGY has abused the discovery process and has requested information and has engaged in scheduling depositions of people who do not have persona!

knowledge of the facts of this case. This is nothing more than an exploratory expedition of SCIENTOLOGY Page 7 of 10 through its investigative arm, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA), operated locally by Ben Shaw, who attends every deposition in this case.

14. Plaintiff demands the court to reign in this discovery abuse and limit discovery to relevant facts of the death of Lisa McPherson and nothing more. Contrary to the assertions of SCIENTOLOGY on p6 of its current motion, Ken C)andar has not represented the Lisa McPherson Trust. Inc. During the first deposition of LMT, Inc., Mr.

L..eipold represented LMT. Moxon extensively questioned Mr. Leipold as to who he represented Moxon knew the: truth then as he does now, but he misrepresents the truth to the court.

Al the first hearing concerning SCIENTOLOGY's Motion io Compel. LMT was not represented at the hearing but Plaintiffs counsel agreed to relay the order of the court to LMT. Contrary to the assertions of SCIENTOLOGY, Plaintiff s counsel never procrastinated m setting depositions.

15 The last spin by SCIENTOLOGY counsel is contained on p14 of their motion alleging that Plaintiff's counsel sought to intervene to stop the discovery by filing a new motion for Protective Order before Judge Shaeffer. The oral argument was heard on August 19, 2001. The troth of thr, matter is counsel for the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions due to the recalcitrant SCIENTOLOGY counsel. Kendrick Moxon's scheduling of deposiuans which were in direct conflict to other depositions scheduled in the case, notably of expert witnesses. This Motion for Sanctions was granted. Judge Schaeffer recognized what was transpiring, as stated on p t4, but not as SGIENTOLQGY's counsel suggests. Rather, what was going on is that counsel for SCIENTOLOGY was ignoring the Local R tiles in setting of depositions when counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for third parties Page 8 of 10
had given Mr Moxan, counsel for SCIENTOLOGY, several dates in which to candtrot his discovery depositions of these "witnesses" who have absolutely no personal knowledge ;of the facts concerning this case.

16. It is only within the imagination of counsel for SCIENTOLOGY, Kendrick Moxon, who is able to conclude that LMT did not produce all available videos.

Testimony at deposition was that alt of the videos of which LMT has custody or control were produced. I ?MT also produced all the financial records of ail tile employees and disclosed the source of funds received for operating expenses even though it was not a requirement of any court order.

17. Plaintiff brings this ,esponse to the motion since it is the apparent intent of SCIENTOLOGY to distract the trier of'fact, as well 3s this court from the true issues of this case and this abuse of discovery is expending valuable time far the ESTATE and its counsel, running up expenses to the ESTATE for the litigation of this case, The court needs to reign in SCIENTOLOGY and stop this abuse of discovery.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ES PATE OF LISA McWHERSON by and through tile personal Representative, DELL LtEBREiCH, respectfully request sanctions in the form of attorney fees and costs be entered against the Defendant, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., and its counsel pursuant to §57.105, FIa.Stat. for the continuing abuse of the discovery process.

Page 9 of 10 l HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by FAX this 29th day at August, 2001, to the attached service list.

KENNAN?G DANDAR~, ESQ.V~ DANDAR & DANUAR, P.A.

5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Past Office Box 24597 Tampa. Florida 33623?4597 813?289?3858tr=AX: 813?287?0895 Florida Bar No. 289698 Attorney far Plaintiff

Go Back