IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-2750-CI __--_---_---_----_------~--------------- X .

ORGANIZATION, INC., .. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ..

:

Plaintiff, vs.

.

DELL LIEBREICH, individually and as :

personal representative of the estate of LISA MCPHERSON, . .

------ --------------"------------------- X Defendant.

..
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE W. DOUGLAS BAIRD Circuit Court Judge PLACE: PINELLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida DATE: August 31, 2001 TIME: 1:30 - 2:lO p.m.

REPORTED BY: CINDY R. FRENCH, RPR Court Reporter Sixth Judicial Circuit Notary Public, State of Florida __--------_------------------------------- HEARING ------------------------------------------ Pages 1 - 34 ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS P.O. BOX 35 -----------------------------------------------



A P P E A R A N C E S
SAMUEL D. ROSEN, ESQUIRE Paul, Hastings, Janofsky SC Walker, L.L.P.

5th Floor 75 East 55th Street New York, New York 10022-3205 Attorney for Plaintiff

TRACY E. LEDUC, ESQUIRE Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A.

911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN M. MERRETT, ESQUIRE 11250 Old St. Augustine Road Suite 15-393 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Attorney for Robert Minton -----------------------------------------------


c 3 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: Okay. We're here this morning on the Court's order to show cause. This is initiated on behalf of the Plaintiff in this 5 case initiating this hearing, and, therefore, 6 the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove a prima 7 facie case. And then the burden will then a shift to the Defendant to show cause pursuant 9 to the order.

10 So are you prepared to go forward?

11 MR. ROSEN: Yes, Your Honor, we are. Your 12 13 Honor, may I also introduce my co-counsel from Mr. Pope's office filling in for Mr. Pope.

14 MS. LEDUC: Tracy Leduc.

15 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, may I just 16 approach to hand up a couple of items?

17 THE COURT: Certainly.

ia MR. ROSEN: This is an affidavit of mine 19 respecting the damages on the contempt. This 20 is a bench memo on the remedies that the Court 21 has the power to impose for civil contempt.

22 And this is a copy of the Supreme Court of
c, 23 Florida decision in Parisi which discusses 24 contempt remedies.

25 And may the record reflect that I gave
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


4 , copies of the affidavit and memorandum to Mr. Merrett just before Your Honor came in.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, we're here today, as you've indicated, on an order to show cause 6 directing Mr. Minton to appear and show cause 7 why he is not in contempt of Your Honor's order 8 directing that he appear for deposition on the 9 3rd of August of this year.

10 There are a series of documents that are 11 pertinent to this motion. They are all already 12 13 in the Court's file. However, I have extra copies if the Court cares to have them marked 14 as exhibits.

15 The first one is the subpoena duces tecum 16 for the deposition of Mr. Minton. This is a 17 subpoena dated the 22nd of May, 2001. The 18 second document is Mr. Minton's motion to quash 19 or modify that subpoena, filed with this Court, 20 signed by Mr. Merrett, and it bears the date of 21 the 24th of May of this year.

22 23 The next document is the Court's order entitled, Order on Defendant's and Minton's 24 Motions for Protective Order. That's an order 25 Your Honor signed, and it bears the date of the
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



5th of June of this year. Under that order Mr. Minton was directed to appear within 30 days, i.e., by June 29, 2001, within the State of Florida to comply with the subpoena duces tecum that I have previously indicated and identified.

The next document which is part of this proceeding is the order that Your Honor signed on the 25th of July, 2001. It is entitled, Order Compelling Deposition of Robert Minton on August 3, 2001, and finding Robert Minton in contempt.

This is the order Your Honor issued after the hearing for Mr. Minton's contempt for failing to appear, to comply with the prior order and appear for deposition by the 29th of June. And this order then adjudicated him in contempt and also directed that he appear on the 3rd of August, 2001.

The next document is the official transcript, certified transcript of the proceedings of August 3, 2001. The official transcript was filed with the Court, and we have the notice of filing dated the 10th of August, 2001. As that transcript shows,
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 6 Mr. Minton did not appear.

We offer the transcript solely to demonstrate that Mr. Minton did not appear on the 3rd of August as directed, We do not offer it for the truth of the matters asserted by Mr. Merrett, who on the record at that deposition purported to give explanations and excuses for Mr. Minton's nonappearance, which on its face would, of course, be hearsay 10 anyway. So we offer the transcript to 11 establish that Mr. Minton did not appear for 12 deposition on the 3rd of August, 2001, as Your 13 Honor had directed.

14 If Counsel disputes that, we're prepared 15 to put on witnesses, including myself, who were 16 there on August 3, 2001. I do not understand 17 18 this issue to be disputed. And if I am wrong, I assume Mr. Merrett will correct me.

19 THE COURT: Just a minute. I think the 20 record needs to be clear, first of all, that 21 apparently Mr. Minton is not present, correct?

22 MR. MERRETT: That's correct, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Certainly, he has a right to 24 know and be aware of the basis for this 25 hearing, the reason for this hearing. So,
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



7 1 I Mr. Merrett, I presume that -- and, of course, 2 a copy was served on counsel for Mr. Minton.

3 So I assume that the fact that he did not 4 appear on the August 3rd -- or at the time for 5 the August 3rd deposition is not disputed; is 6 that correct?

7 MR. MERRETT: That's correct, Your Honor.

8 MR. ROSEN: The next document, Your Honor, 9 addresses the observation you just made of 10 Mr. Minton's nonappearance.

11 The next document is the order to show 12 cause directed to Robert Minton that Your Honor 13 14 entered on the 24th of August, 2001. And that is the order which says -- directs 15 Mr. Minton -- directs that Mr. Minton, quote, 16 shall appear before Your Honor at 1:30 p.m.

17 18 today to show cause why he is not in contempt of Your Honor's prior order.

19 Now that we have learned -- and we have 20 learned just a few minutes before Your Honor 21 did -- that Mr. Minton is not appearing in 22 response to that order, our application will be 23 for a second order of contempt. We have, I 24 believe, the first order. And we've 25 established the nonappearance of Mr. Minton on
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 8 1 August 3rd and, therefore, his violation of 2 your prior order. And we are going to be asking for certain remedies for that contempt of your prior order.

But we now have another contempt committed today at 1:30 p.m. today. And we're going to ask for additional remedies, including a second 8 order adjudicating Mr. Minton in contempt for 9 not appearing today.

10 That is the -- all of those documents 11 12 which I've referred to, Your Honor, as I said -- 13 THE COURT: They are all included in the 14 court file. So the Court can take judicial 15 notice of those documents.

16 17 MR. MERRETT: That's correct. And if Your Honor wants extra copies, we have them.

18 THE COURT : I don’t think that will be 19 necessary.

20 MR. ROSEN: The last part of our 21 presentation on the order to show cause which 22 brought us here today for contempt of Your 23 Honor’s June -- excuse me, July 25 order -- 24 that was the one that compelled Mr. Minton to 25 appear on August 3. The last part of the case
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



9 that the Plaintiff will present on that is the damages that we ask Your Honor to award to the Plaintiff for that contempt.

Your Honor's order does provide a fine payable to the Clerk of the Court. I have handed up to Your Honor an affidavit of the attorney's fees and costs expended by the Plaintiff as a result of, A, the nonappearance on August 3, and, B, the presentation of the 10 contempt, including through today, on an 11 estimated basis of the legal fees as well as 12 the expenses.

13 If, as I've indicated, if Mr. Merrett 14 chooses to dispute any portion of that 15 affidavit, I'm prepared to take the witness 16 stand. And I think, as the affidavit indicates 17 at paragraph 12 on page 4, the total amount we ia seek on the -- for the contempt by way of 19 damages for the contempt as of the July 25 20 order is $19,483.50.

21 We would also ask for a new prospective 22 23 fine both on the contempt of the July 25 order, as well as on the contempt of Your Honor's 24 order to show cause of August 24.

25 We verily believe that Mr. Minton's net
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER SC ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


x 10 c 1 worth is in excess of 50 million dollars.

2 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object at this point to counsel's speculation being made any part of the record.

MR. ROSEN: We believe -- we are prepared to put on evidence of Mr. Minton's 7 expenditures, including his admission of the 8 money given to Mr. Dandar, his ownership of the 9 building in Clearwater, purchase of homes in 10 this area, etcetera.

11 And based upon the case law, the Johnson 12 case, which is cited in our brief at page 4, as 13 well as the Parisi case, which I've handed up, 14 15 at pages 7 and 8 of the slip that I've handed the Court, one of the critical factors in 16 determining the amount of the purge fine or 17 purge amount, if you will, on a contempt is the 18 financial circumstances of the contemnor. The 19 theory being that the fines and prospective 20 fines should be sufficient to make the 21 contemnor smart, so to speak, in terms of to 22 compel his compliance. And that, obviously, 23 varies, depending upon the financial 24 circumstances of the individual.

25 In this circumstance we ask -- we'll be
ROBERT A, DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 11 1 asking for a prospective fine of 1 million 2 dollars, which we believe is only 2 percent of Mr. Minton's net worth.

We also will be asking, Your Honor, for orders of adjudication, two separate orders of contempt, one for the July 25 order and one for the August 24 order, with a proviso that if 8 Mr. Minton wants to set foot in the State of 9 Florida and come into this court to move to 10 vacate either of those, he may do so.

11 12 We think the appropriate thing to do at this point, given Mr. Minton's nonappearance, 13 is to enter the adjudication of contempt orders 14 15 and have a proviso allowing that if Mr. Minton chooses to set foot in the State of Florida, he 16 can ask this Court to reconsider, if you will, 17 as opposed to putting the burden on us and the 18 Court of rescheduling hearings that we have to 19 come down for and Mr. Minton doesn't show up.

20 Thank you, Your Honor.

21 MR. MERRETT: Thank you, Your Honor. May 22 it please the Court. I guess the first thing 23 that I need to make sure the Court is aware of 24 is that we do most vigorously contest the 25 proposition of $20,000 as to reasonable
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


12 1 attorney's fees for drafting a two-page motion 2 for a deposition which involved a grand total 3 of approximately 15 minutes for appearance at 4 this hearing.

5 I also question the amount claimed for 6 meals over a four-day period of being something 7 in excess of a thousand dollars and the hourly 8 rate of $575 to be, frankly, preposterous.

9 With respect to Mr. Minton's lack of 10 presence here, there are two things of which 11 the Court needs to be aware. The first is that 12 the order drafted by Mr. Pope here with the 13 Court's signature did not call for personal 14 appearance.

15 16 There is a specific distinction in the law. And I would tender to the Court a copy of 17 the case of S.S. vs. Department of Children and 18 Families in which it was held that a provision 19 in a court order stating that a party will be 20 defaulted -- the words were, if you do not 21 22 appear -- a failure to respond to this notice or to appear at this termination of parental 23 rights hearing will result in default, was held 24 25 not to command personal appearance and a default entered when the party appeared through
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



13 counsel was held to have been improvidently entered and was vacated by the appellate court.

That, however, is not the principle reason for Mr. Minton's absence. Mr. Minton was taken on -- I think it was the night of the 29th -- I don't know because I was here, not there -- and was admitted to Parkland Medical Center in 8 Derry, New Hampshire with pneumonia and remains 9 in the hospital. I have a letter from his 10 physician. It was faxed down to me yesterday 11 just after noon.

12 MR. ROSEN: Do we get a copy?

13 MR. MERRETT: It's not my copy of the 14 Parisi case. Additionally, Your Honor -- 15 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, let the record 16 reflect I've asked Mr. Merrett for a copy of 17 what he just handed you.

18 THE COURT: Here, you can look at this if 19 you want it.

20 MR. ROSEN: Thank you.

21 MR. MERRETT: Additionally, in reviewing 22 the sequence of events in the case, if the 23 Court will recall, with respect to the order 24 25 of, I believe it was of June 5, requiring the appearance by June 29th, you have in the
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 14 correspondence in which Mr. Minton, speaking through me, made it abundantly clear he was available the 25th and, if necessary, the 26th for deposition. It was Mr. Rosen who didn't 5 appear. It was Mr. Rosen who declined to 6 appear and said he wasn't available.

7 That correspondence, if the Court reviews a i t , makes it clear that Mr. Minton and I 9 simultaneously and to myself alone were 10 traveling outside of the country up through the 11 end of the preceding week, Mr. Minton did make 12 himself available within the time limits set by 13 the Court, and Mr. Rosen declined to accept it.

14 That, however, is something to be dealt 15 16 with either on a motion to vacate or on appeal.

The actual question here today, notwithstanding 17 Mr. Rosen's focus on prospective events, future ia possibilities and things like that, is the 19 issue of nonappearance on August 3rd.

20 Counsel has already consented by his own 21 22 presentation to the Court's ruling based on the filings and affidavits previously made by the 23 parties. As the Court has noted, those are 24 part of the record, and they are before the 25 Court.
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


15 1 What the Court has as part of the filings 2 made on behalf of Mr. Minton -- and I think the 3 thing that probably most immediately disposes 4 of this issue is a letter dated August 22, 2001 5 from myself to Mr. Rosen. And the reason that 6 this is critical is this, the order that 7 brought us here, your order of last week, the 8 24th, specifically states that the -- that the 9 proceeding that we’re here on is civil 10 contempt.

11 And I'm sure the Court is aware -- I don't 12 know how long Your Honor has been on the bench, 13 but I expect that if you weren't on the bench 14 when Bowen came through on the child support 15 civil contempt, you certainly had to deal with 16 enough support civil contempt to have a look at 17 the fairly basic principles outlined in Bowen 18 and which were reiterated in the Parisi case 19 that Mr. Rosen had.

20 And those are simply this, that civil 21 contempt rests on a two-fold determination by 22 the Court. Number one, that the party 23 currently, the party that is the object of the 24 contempt, is currently disobeying a court order 25 and that the party presently has the ability to
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 16 purge himself of the contempt through compliance.

Now, why that makes this letter of August 22nd so critical is that letter includes six dates, beginning on September 10, on which 6 Mr. Minton is available and will be present, 7 assuming by then that he's been released from a medical care, for deposition. He has 9 actually -- I asked him today, and he's 10 agreeable to being deposed in the hospital. So 11 he's available on all of those dates. He can 12 be deposed at his home, in the hospital or, if 13 he's been released from a doctor's care, on the 14 17th or 19th of September here in Clearwater.

15 The reason that that's critical is this, 16 the analytical basis for the entry of any 17 sanction on a civil contempt motion is its ia necessity to impose or inflict -- which one of 19 these is my -- is its necessity in order to 20 bring about compliance that is obviated by the 21 uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Minton’s current 22 readiness to comply, in fact, has an antecedent 23 ready to comply on any of those dates, the 24 lOth, llth, 12th, 14th, 17th or 19th.

25 If the Court chooses to move beyond that
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



17 question, which is the simplest and the most accurate answer, which is that no coercion is required, and look to the reason for nonappearance at the August 3rd deposition, the Court need look no further than the attachments, particularly the uncontroverted affidavits of Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, which 8 were attached to Mr. Minton's response to the 9 motion for order to show cause.

10 What those lay out, together with the 11 letter attachments that are rather bulky, but 12 13 what those memoranda lay out is the reason why he wasn't here on August 3rd. And the reason 14 that he wasn't here on August 3rd was because 15 Scientology once again, not for the first time 16 in anticipation of a deposition that he would 17 18 be required to come to, undertook action designed to make it impossible for him to 19 attend.

20 He documents in his affidavit back in 21 22 September of last year in the Lisa McPherson death case the Saturday before he was to appear 23 in deposition on a Monday, a Scientologist 24 25 walked out of Fort Harrison Hotel and jumped on him. And he ended up under medical care after
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



ia a trip to the emergency room and was unable to attend that deposition.

What happened, according to the 4 uncontroverted affidavit, you have exhibits, 5 you have copies of the fliers, is that in the 6 days immediately leading up to this deposition 7 for which Mr. Minton was entirely prepared to a appear, he had made airline reservations, 9 continued to make airline reservations, 10 Scientology made the determination that an 11 attack should be mounted on Mr. Minton's family 12 and on his privacy at a very profound and very 13 disturbing level.

1 4 I don’t know if the Court has had an 15 opportunity to read those affidavits or to read 16 17 the attachments. What Scientology did was post on the Internet what purports to be a syllabus ia of mental health treatment of Mr. Minton and of 19 his minor daughters and of his wife.

20 The following day -- and I may have the 21 date wrong. It may have been the same day.

22 23 Scientology papered the neighborhood where his minor daughters lived, including their home, 24 25 with a leaflet accusing Mr. Minton and the children's mother of criminality in financial
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER SC ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



19 -- G transactions with Nigeria.

Now, there is no evidence that any of this sort of thing had gone on for any period of time prior to this. This was not part of an immediately contentious sequence of events.

6 What you have is suddenly in the days before 7 he's supposed to be down here, Scientology a launches an attack at a fundamental point.

9 They attack his family. They attack him. They 10 attack his privacy.

11 The information that you have there is 12 13 uncontroverted that the level of upset that was generated by this deliberate attack by 14 Scientology was such that his therapist told 15 him he shouldn't travel, that he needed to stay 16 home, that he couldn’t go anywhere. And we 17 notified Mr. Rosen of that the following 18 morning, only because I finally got the word 19 from the therapist at midnight the night 20 before.

21 The fact is that Mr. Minton’s 22 nonappearance was procured, as much by anything 23 else, by the actions of Scientology. The 24 25 specific reason for which the Court has been called to deal with this matter today is to
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 20 1 insure through the application of civil 2 contempt that this deposition comes to pass.

That letter of August 22 obviates the need for any further action by the Court. In other words, we stand ready to comply. The only assumption being that Scientology is not going to mount some other attack. I would suggest to 8 you that the actual remedy is to order 9 Mr. Rosen to put his client on a leash and 10 insure that there are no further attacks on 11 Mr. Minton between now and whichever of those 12 dates the Court selects for his deposition.

13 There is no contempt of court. There is 14 no willful noncompliance. There is only a 15 noncompliance occasioned by distress 16 deliberately inflicted by Scientology in order 17 to bring us right here.

18 One of the precepts of Scientology, one of 19 the key things of L. Ron Hubbard that is amply 20 documented in the attachments that you have 21 before you is the drive, the desire, the need 22 to jail and to criminalize its opponent.

23 Scientology regards Robert Minton as its 24 central enemy in the entire world. And this is 25 of apiece with that. These are not things that
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



21 1 I've made up, Judge, or things that I've seen 2 on television or heard on the radio. These are 3 Scientology's own documents that you have 4 before you.

5 There is no willful contempt. There is a 6 successful operation by Scientology to put 7 Mr. Minton in a state of mind that made it 8 impossible, according to his therapist, for him 9 to appear. And he’s ready to appear now.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, I will confine -- 12 1 will ignore most of the remarks that Counsel 13 made because I don't think they are pertinent 14 or appropriate in the courtroom. I will 15 confine myself to a couple of observations.

16 The first is this document, a handwritten 17 document from a -- which purports to be 18 Parkland Medical Center, faxed to Mr. Minton.

19 20 The man is in the hospital on the 29th of August. The fax is to his home, area code 603, 21 New Hampshire, number one. Number two -- 22 23 MR. MERRETT: Mr. Rosen -- THE COURT: Excuse me.

24 MR. MERRETT: I'm sorry.

25 THE COURT: Just let him make his
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



22 1 presentation. He didn't interrupt you. If you 4.

2 have something to say, I'm going to give you an 3 opportunity.

4 MR. MERRETT: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 MR. ROSEN: Number two, I must note with 6 disappointment the continued lack of any 7 semblance of professional courtesy.

8 Mr. Merrett obviously knew about this 9 yesterday. We find out that Mr. Minton is not 10 coming when we show up for court here today. I 11 could have gone home yesterday.

12 And that is consistent with August 3rd, 13 Mr. Minton not showing up, and Mr. Merrett not 14 even bothering to tell us. Mr. Merrett comes 15 into the deposition and announces Mr. Minton is 16 17 not showing up.

The next item, Mr. Merrett says we 18 consented to and it is uncontroverted the 19 filings he made by way of the affidavits which 20 were in opposition to the issuance of the order 21 22 to show cause, I, quite frankly, do not understand what 23 possible good-faith basis Mr. Merrett has for 24 25 representing that those filings are, quote, uncontroverted. We controvert every single
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



23 G 1 word of it. Indeed, today we are prepared, if I 2 Mr. Minton were here, to prove outright perjury 3 with respect to those affidavits and to prove 4 willful misrepresentations to this Court by 5 Mr. Merrett.

6 Mr. Merrett continues that there is 7 uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Minton’s a willingness to comply. I don't know where 9 Mr. Merrett gets the notion that this is 10 uncontroverted. I never told him it was 11 uncontroverted. I never told him that we 12 accepted his representations. Apparently -- 13 and this is Mr. Merrett's tactic because we had 14 the same thing on the order to show cause, 15 repeatedly he describes his evidence as being 16 uncontroverted. That is not the case.

17 With respect to the appearance of ia Mr. Minton, in the transcript of the hearing 19 held on the 23rd of August of this year on our 20 application for issuance of the order to show 21 cause, the Court said at page 19, yeah, I think 22 it's appropriate to go ahead and have an 23 evidentiary hearing and some testimony and some 24 25 cross-examination. I think I will consider that best. So if you want to prepare an order,
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 24 get some time, and we will have an order to show cause, and Mr. Minton can appear. If he chooses not to appear and counsel says he has 4 no obligation to appear, okay.

If he has no obligation to appear, then he's forfeited any right to contest these proceedings. If he's chosen to appear through Mr. Merrett and present nothing by way of 9 competent, admissible evidence, nothing, to 10 contest the contempt. There's nothing before 11 you which is competent, admissible evidence of 12 13 anything.

I would point out one other thing, while 14 Counsel is quick to hand up some handwritten 15 note purporting of being on the letterhead of a 16 hospital in New Hampshire, Your Honor may 17 recall that on the 3rd of August, Mr. Merrett 18 made representations that not only Mr. Minton, 19 but he himself, Mr. Merrett, had spoken to 20 Mr. Minton's psychologist.

21 And I believe Mr. Merrett's statement was, 22 I spoke to that psychologist as late as 23 midnight on August 2, and his psychologist told 24 me personally that Mr. Minton should not attend 25 on August 3 because he was in such a fragile
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 25 state that the deposition would cause him to basically lose it and become -- and have need of hospitalization.

That statement is untrue. We asked Mr. Merrett on the record for the name of this 6 psychologist supposedly treating Mr. Minton who 7 Mr. Merrett spoke to. They have refused to 8 provide it.

9 This is not, Your Honor, merely a contempt 10 proceeding. This is a proceeding of outright 11 perjury. There is an affidavit before you
G 12 where if Mr. Minton were on the witness 13 stand -- and you heard Mr. Merrett say it 14 again. There were two things he said he relies 15 upon for why Mr. Minton didn't attend. The one 16 was the posting about his history of treatment 17 of psychs, by psychiatrists or psychologist.

18 I am prepared to show you, Your Honor, 19 there is nothing new in that posting.

20 Scientology didn't even make the posting.

21 Mr. Merrett just continues to say Scientology 22 did it. Some individual, we have no idea who 23 it is -- but that's not even important. What's 24 25 important is here are postings, including by Mr. Minton himself. Every single item -- and
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



26 1 I've numbered them. There are six statements 2 in the posting of August 2 that Mr. Minton says 3 has caused me such angina that I could not 4 attend the deposition. Every one of these 5 statements has been posted to the Internet, 6 many of them by Mr. Minton himself, going 7 back -- 8 MR. MERRETT: 1'11 object at this point 9 based on -- 10 MR. ROSEN: -- going back two years.

11 MR. MERRETT: -- competency. Counsel is 12 testifying -- 13 THE COURT: I told you -- excuse me.

14 MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir.

15 THE COURT: I asked you not to interrupt 16 his presentation. He didn't interrupt yours.

17 And you will have an opportunity to speak. I 18 don't want you speaking over him, number one, 19 20 because it's rude. Number two, because the court reporter can't get down two people's 21 22 statements at the same time.

MR. MERRETT: I understand, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: You're going to be given an 24 25 opportunity to speak.

MR. MERRETT: Yes, sir.
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



27 THE COURT: I've already given you one.

I'm going to give you another one. Do not interrupt him again.

MR. MERRETT: I understand. Is the 5 contemporaneous objection rule waived through 6 the conclusion of his remarks?

7 THE COURT: That's noted.

8 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, as I was saying, 9 this is the evidence I am prepared -- I was 10 11 prepared to present and put Mr. Minton on the stand. I obviously cannot present it with him 12 not on the stand.

13 With respect to the Nigeria, the leaflet 14 that supposedly was distributed in Boston by 15 where his divorced wife and children live, not 16 only was every statement in there, I was 17 18 prepared to prove, previously published, not only was it previously published, the very 19 circular that Mr. Merrett attaches to his 20 papers and tells you was just distributed in 21 Boston and caused his client angina is attached 22 to an affidavit of Robert Minton filed by no 23 other than Mr. Merrett in the case in Florida 24 25 in the Tampa federal court. The date of the affidavit is December 7, 2000.
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


28 Imagine this, Judge, here's an affidavit of Mr. Minton from December 7, 2000, attaching the exact leaflet that Mr. Merrett tells you in an affidavit was just posted for the first time on August 2. I cannot -- and the name of the 6 case, by the way, is Religious Technology 7 Center vs. Ward. I apologize. It wasn't 8 Tampa. It was the federal court of 9 Massachusetts.

10 This is the evidence I would have been 11 prepared to present. I welcome the opportunity 12 to have Mr. Minton on the witness stand because 13 when we're done with this cross-examination and 14 going through these papers, we're not talking 15 about a contempt, mere contempt, Your Honor.

16 We’re talking about outright perjury. And when 17 we're done with the examination and putting in 18 19 this evidence, we're not talking about Mr. Merrett making a mistake. We're talking 20 about willful misrepresentations to this Court.

21 Thank you, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: All right. Anything else, 23 Mr. Merrett?

24 MR. MERRETT: Yes, Your Honor, very 25 briefly. In the first point, there is nothing
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


c 29 1 in the affidavit that says that was the first 2 time Scientology distributed the particular flier in question.

Secondly, if the Court would take a look at the affidavits which are attached as the earlier exhibits to my response, you'll see that contrary to Mr. Rosen's misrepresentation, 8 the fax signature on those affidavits, one of 9 which comes from Robert Minton, are identical 10 except for the date and time to the fax stamp 11 on the letter from the doctor. That is an 12 indication that it was faxed from his house, 13 14 not that it was faxed to him.

Mr. Rosen has made lots of rather crude 15 remarks. I'll be happy to supply the Court -- 16 and I can do it this afternoon -- with copies 17 of reported statements in which Mr. Rosen had 18 been found guilty of misrepresentations to the 19 Court in which he's been fined, in which his 20 firm has been fined time and time and time and 21 time again. So Mr. Rosen is not in a position 22 to discuss that matter.

23 Mr. Rosen has also misapprehended in his 24 25 argument to the Court what is meant by controverted. Number one, if the Plaintiff is
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



30 b 1 not stipulating to a hearing of this matter 2 based on the affidavits and records, and if the 3 court is reversing its earlier ruling of what 4 has been filed is present before the Court and 5 is competent in this hearing, then there is 6 nothing to proceed on because all the Plaintiff 7 has produced is those filings.

8 Secondly, controversion doesn't mean that 9 someone disagrees. It means that there is 10 evidence which would contradict it, evidence 11 12 which would support a finding contrary to the x factual findings which are contained in the -- c, 13 14 which are contained in those affidavits.

The affidavits are uncontroverted. There 15 is no evidence which controverts them. Those 16 matters are before the Court. They are as 17 competent as to matters that the Court has 18 previously determined will be considered.

19 Lastly, Judge, again, the point here -- if 20 we wish to discuss propriety, if we wish to 21 discuss what the real point of what we're doing 22 23 here is, it is to get this deposition taken.

Those dates have been offered. Mr. Minton has 24 offered through me today even to allow the 25 deposition to be taken while he's in the
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER SC ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



-- 31 (L, 1 hospital.

2 For some reason, Mr. Rosen persists in 3 this idea that it's important for him to fly 4 down at this princely sum, which I will 5 reiterate is contested, to fly from New York to 6 Florida to take this deposition rather than 7 taking the deposition in Boston or in 8 New Hampshire.

9 But leaving all of that aside, the 10 underlying point is that Scientology wishes to 11 do something painful and wicked to Mr. Minton.

12 The legal point and the only thing that 13 the court should be concerned with is getting 14 the deposition taken. And that has been 15 accomplished. There are, as I've said, six 16 dates that have been offered. We have tried to 17 get more dates.

18 Mr. Rosen has never responded to that 19 letter -- even though he's had more time to 20 respond to that letter than I have had to 21 prepare for this hearing -- as to whether any 22 of those dates is acceptable or he wants c I 23 others, just like he didn't respond to my 24 25 letter before the hearing on the -- or actually, before the end of June when I said if
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------


32 he wanted to take the deposition after the time 2 set by the Court, just let me know.

3 Judge, your order is going to reflect one 4 of two things, either that the Court is 5 determined to follow the law and to take the 6 steps that are immediately necessary to see to 7 it that this deposition is taken, which is 8 simply to choose one or more of those dates 9 from the letter, or the Court is going to 10 decide to make itself an impostor of 11 Scientology in its attack on Robert Minton.

12 Nothing else that the court can order is 13 necessary or within the bounds of the law, 14 within the framework of what's being requested.

15 16 Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Regarding the order to 17 show cause, does Mr. Minton have anything 18 additional to present?

19 MR. MERRETT: No, Your Honor, nothing 20 other than what's been previously filed with 21 the Court.

22 THE COURT: Okay. The Court will take 23 this under consideration, and I will issue an order accordingly.

25 MR. MERRETT: May I be excused, Your
ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



b 33 1 Honor?

.L 2 THE COURT: Of course.

3 (THEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

4 ********** 5 6 7 a 9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 ia 19 20

21 22


c 23 24 25

ROBERT A. DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES -----------------------------------------------



?A 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 4 5 I, CINDY R. FRENCH, Registered Professional Report certify that I was authorized to and did 6 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings 7 and that the transcript is a true and complete record 8 of my stenographic notes to the best of my ability.

9 10 DATED this 31st day of August, 2001.

11 12 13

14 Sixth Judicial Circuit 15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25
ROBERT A, DEMPSTER & ASSOCIATES

Go Back