From Dandar's closing argument.

III. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" RESULT FROM EXTORTION.

A. The Law of Extortion.

Florida Statutes, 836.05, entitled "Threats; extortion," provides:

Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(Emphasis added).

A threat is "malicious" for purpose of an extortion offense if it is made intentionally and without any lawful justification. Alonso v. State, 447 So.2d 1029 (Fla 4th DCA 1984).

Coercion and duress, such as threatening to turn one over to the Internal Revenue Service, constitutes criminal extortion under 863.05. Berger v.

Berger, 466 So.2d 1149 (Fla 4th DCA 1985). In Berger, the husband demanded that the wife sign his settlement and custody agreement or he would turn her over to the IRS. The wife had her own attorney. That was held to be extortion, since his legal right to insist on his proposed agreement and his legal right to turn her over to the IRS was motivated by his desire for pecuniary gain. Likewise, Rosen's and Rinder's threats to Minton are extortion since they are conveyed for Scientology's pecuniary advantage not to pay death damages and to have Minton pay Scientology.

Neither actual intent to do harm nor ability to carry out the threat is essential to prove that extortion occurred. In establishing extortion, it is sufficient that the threat of injury was against a person other than the person actually threatened, such as Minton's wife and their daughters.

Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla 2nd DCA 1994).

Appellee argues that the statute applied only to threats involving individuals, and should not be so construed as to include within its proscription threats directed primarily against a corporation. With this contention we are unable to agree. The nature of the entity against whom the threat is primarily directed is of importance only in determining whether such a relationship exists between the entity and the person to whom the threat is communicated as would be calculated to coerce the victim to meet the demands of the extortioner in order to prevent the threat from being carried out. It therefore is of no consequence whether the threat is primarily directed against the victim himself, his loved ones, his friends or a corporation with which he is actively identified and in which he owns an interest.

State v. McInnes, 153 So.2d 854, 858 (Fla 4th DCA 1963).

B. The Motive for Extortion.

The Scientology intelligence operation writings of Mr. Hubbard encourage the use of extortion, whether it is uncovering real crimes of its enemies or manufacturing evidence, the goal is to present that investigation so that the enemy sues for peace. Jesse Prince, former Deputy Inspector General International in RTC, three positions down from Miscavige, testified as to these intelligence operations against the enemies of Scientology and the applicable policies which promote it.

  25 Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third
  201 1 paragraph on Exhibit 113 states, "Even if you don't have
  2 enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason
  3 is, it is only those people that have crimes that will
  4 attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being
  5 found out when attacked back."

  6 Is this considered a scripture of the Church of
  7 Scientology?

  8 A During -- during my tenure in Scientology, this
  9 document was not considered to be any type of scripture.

  10 This was a training material to train a person in
  11 intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

  12 Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking
  13 about -- answering the question about if this relates to the
  14 noisy investigation when this document, in the third
  15 paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word
  16 "loudly."

  17 A Yeah.

  18 Q And what is a noisy investigation?

  19 A A noisy investigation -- I believe we covered that
  20 the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted
  21 the document in the church.

  22 But it's basically to go around and arouse the
  23 neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that
  24 Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations
  25 about the person that may or may not be true. And according
  202 1 to Scientology's Manual of Justice, which is a further
  2 document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go
  3 through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy
  4 investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of
  5 it.

The following are some of the church policies or instruction material in evidence issued by the Church of Scientology to destroy its enemies.

"Battle Tactics"

We ourselves fight on a basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. [the enemy] Just go all the way in and obliterate him.

One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes every enemy territory. He raids and harasses. All on a thought plane -- press, public opinion, governments, etc.

Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well then legal gets an easy in.

Ex. 157, "HCO Policy letter of 16 February 1969"

Dept. of Govt Affairs

In the face of dangers from Govts or courts there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) Find out if we want to play the offered game or not, (2) If not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks, (3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail, (4) don't try to get any money out of it, (5) Make every attack by us also sell Scientology, and (6) Win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend.

Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best.

The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.

Ex. 109-C, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960"

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

Ex. 169, "Ability" The Scientologist, p157.

How to do a NOISY Investigation

...how to go about dealing with attackers of Scientology. Soon as one of these threats starts you get a Scientologist or Scientologists to investigate noisily. You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors, anyone, and 'phone 'em up and say, "I am investigating Mr/Mrs ....... for criminal activities as he/she has been trying to prevent Man's freedom and is restricting my religious freedom and that of my friends and children, etc..... You say now and then, "I have already got some astounding facts, " etc., etc. (Use a generality) .... It doesn't matter if you don't get much info. Just be NOISY.

Ex. 109J, "HCO Executive Letter of 5 September 1960.

Investigation When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we resort to Investigation.

When we need somebody haunted we investigate.

When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts. Remember that by investigation alone we can curb pushes and crush wildcat people and unethical "Dianetics and Scientology"

organizations. It 's almost funny. We sometimes learn nothing useful and yet because people heard we re investigating their consciences sent them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. There's power in the question alone!

Investigation by Outside Sources

Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. it's very effective. Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta source or a squirrel organizaion.

Procedure on Entheta Press

In the case of a bad magazine article which is signed, use the following procedure:

1. Tell them by letter to retract at once in the next issue.

2. Hire a private detective of a national-type firm to investigate the writer, not the magazine, and get any criminal or Communist background the man has. (Because all subversive activities foolishly use criminals they "have something on" and men who have been paid to attack, attack us, you'll have data incoming from the detective agency if they do their work well.

3. Have your lawyers or solicitors write the magazine threatening suit.

(Hardly ever permit a real suit -- they're more of a nuisance to you than they're worth.)

4. Use the date you got from the detective at long last to write the author of the article a very tantalizing letter. don't give him your data on him. Just tell him we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in and talk about it. (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion and slander -- people at that level often will, just to commit suicide -- and publish it in a paid ad in a paper if you get it.) chances are he won't arrive. but he'll sure shudder into silence.

5. Give any new data you have from the detective to your attorneys for their use against the magazine.

Investigating A Squirrel

A person or an organization using Dianetics or Scientology wrongly or without rights, or a wildcat magazine, is best shut down or shut up by hiring a private detective. Tell the detective "We don't care if they know you're investigating them for us. In fact, the louder the better."

Detectives cost dozens of dollars or pounds. They save thousands.

When you get their data, give it to your attorneys for any action they want. Or post it.

Ex.. 122, Manuel of Justice, a Scientology publication.

So it is therefore within the province of this church, which does have a criminal history, to do whatever is necessary to protect Scientology, even if it means breaking the law.

  151 17 THE COURT: Show me where you're reading from.

  18 MR. WEINBERG: I see it. It's the third
  19 paragraph.

  20 THE COURT: Okay. "If attacked on some
  21 vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any
  22 organization, always find or manufacture enough
  23 threat against them to cause them to sue for peace."

  24 What is this?

  25 THE WITNESS: This is a policy letter, your
  152 1 Honor. This is a church policy letter that is a
  2 policy letter for the department of government
  3 affairs, which is a department or a section or a
  4 unit within the Scientology organization, that
  5 basically talks about -- you know, things having to
  6 do with tax matters, legal activities, whatever, for
  7 an organization.

  8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace"

  9 mean?

  10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means
  11 basically that a person just wants to end
  12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and
  13 all walk away as happy as possible.

  14 BY MR. DANDAR:

  15 Q Like a disengagement?

  16 A Yes.

This is not simply testimony, it is the unrebutted policy letters of Scientology! This court suggested to the defendants to bring in their expert to rebut. The defendants failed or refused to do so. Jesse Prince described one chilling experience where he halted an operation that would have certainly resulted in the death of a targeted enemy.

  205 13 Madam Court Reporter, read back that question
  14 before I interrupted him.

  15 THE REPORTER: The pending question is, "In
  16 your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you
  17 go about finding or manufacturing threats against
  18 the critics?"

  19 The witness began to answer, "Well, there's
  20 several ways that I've -- I've seen it done --"

  21 A Yes.

  22 As far as out-and-out manufacturing information --
  23 And again, I want to clarify that. During the
  24 time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in
  25 Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls
  206 1 technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training
  2 of things.

  3 Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about
  4 this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from
  5 me until that point. So I -- I actually had a very short
  6 amount of time there. But as what I've seen as far as
  7 manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person --
  8 Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to
  9 Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John
  10 Nelson used to be a person that was the CO -- the commanding
  11 officer of Sea Org --
  12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

  13 A -- International.

  14 MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How's he
  15 know this?

  16 THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

  17 MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

  18 THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the
  19 parties.

  20 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.

  21 BY MR. DANDAR:

  22 Q Were you in charge of the parties?

  23 A Yes. The party was working in one of my
  24 divisions.

  25 At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a
  207 1 private investigator to investigate a fellow named John
  2 Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in
  3 Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

  4 THE COURT: At what?

  5 THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the
  6 Commodores Messenger Organization.

  7 BY MR. DANDAR:

  8 Q And that was an elite organization?

  9 A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs,
  10 which eventually became Church of Scientology International.

  11 CSI.

  12 Q All right.

  13 A And he had started his own splinter organization
  14 with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was
  15 perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology.

  16 So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick
  17 Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room
  18 next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that
  19 they would know when he was coming and going; and when he
  20 left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was
  21 to call the police when he came, to say he was a -- a heroin
  22 dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

  23 I found out about that because the private
  24 investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back
  25 to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, "Look,
  208 1 this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets
  2 convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence."

  3 I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither
  4 did the private investigator. He was coming back.

  5 I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki
  6 Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation
  7 and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away -- not
  8 to do that particular operation.

  9 This was an instance of manufacturing information
  10 that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had
  11 personal knowledge of. I've heard other things about that.

  12 And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. --
  13 Q Well, what year was this?

  14 A That this occurred?

  15 Q Yes.

  16 A This happened in 1985.

  211 11 Q All right. So what happened -- what was the
  12 operation against Mr. Mayo?

  13 A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

  14 And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a
  15 business place, office complex. They were on the first
  16 floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his
  17 office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also,
  18 a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray
  19 Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int
  ...

  22 A -- was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a
  23 deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as
  24 well as Nancy Mainy.

  25 And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

  212 1 were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced
  2 Abilities Center to provide information about financial
  3 accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole
  4 the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the
  5 Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent
  6 in there to not only glean information but to disrupt
  7 activities, covertly disrupt activities.

  219 2 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you
  3 identify that?

  4 A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along
  5 with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual
  6 of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude
  7 of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind
  8 of gives the thought process, the -- the basis of it. It
  9 comes from Klausewitz.

  10 Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is
  11 directed against the enemies of Scientology?

  12 A Correct.

  13 Q And then the third -- actually, the fourth
  14 paragraph from the bottom it states -- states, quote, One
  15 cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.

  16 This policy letter goes to -- applies to former
  17 Scientologists as well as someone who's an -- an enemy, who
  18 has never been a Scientologist?

  19 A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a --
  20 as an enemy.

  220 10 Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph
  11 states, "Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It
  12 eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence
  13 and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close
  14 quote. What is PRO?

  15 A Public relations officer.

  16 Q And intelligence is what?

  17 A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or
  18 department or division of Scientology organizations.

  19 Intelligence having to do with the prediction.

  20 Again, it goes back to this issue we have here,
  21 intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to
  22 predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states
  23 that in the issue. So intelligence would predict or would
  24 start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data
  25 collection, covert data collection, amass as much
  221 1 information about the situation as possible, then proceed
  2 accordingly.

  3 Q That's the -- does that include the use of the
  4 private investigators?

  5 A Yes

  222 3 A 116 is a document in the same vein of the
  4 documents we've been studying before. It's the public
  5 investigation section. And this basically has to do with --
  6 "investigates attacking individual members and see the
  7 results of the investigation, get adequate legal and
  8 publicity."

  9 So this again is similar to what we've gone over
  10 here before.

  11 Q So it's in a series of the other exhibits on how
  12 to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

  13 A Correct.

  14 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 117, entitled
  15 Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

  16 A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It
  17 talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. "An attack
  18 on Scientology --" well, you know, the basic principle is,
  19 never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the
  20 attacker. That kind of thing.

  21 Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late '60s.

  22 Were they still in effect when you were in your management
  23 position at RTC?

  24 A Very much so. And they're still in effect today.

  223 4 Q And how do you know they're still in effect today?

  5 A Because of that time track that was submitted into
  6 this courtroom of specific things that have -- that have
  7 occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over
  8 specifically what has happened to me because of my
  9 involvement in this case and other cases.

  230 9 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 119. Can you
  10 identify this, please?

  11 A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February,
  12 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those
  13 activities within the Scientology organization.

  14 Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the
  15 caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that?

  16 A Because I think that it, again, just like these
  17 other issues that we've seen, goes along in the same vein,
  18 in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself,
  19 including what it says it'll do here: Create the greatest
  20 possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a
  21 government or whoever to protect Scientology.

  237 16 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the
  17 reason why we have this document in here is because
  18 it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing
  19 pattern of conduct, where if there's a perceived
  20 enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a
  21 specific program to remove him from any position.

  22 That's the first thing it says in this document, you
  23 know, to remove this person from his job so that
  24 he's not a threat to Scientology.

  25 And -- and it goes on where, you know, they had
  238 1 some college -- the person pretend to be a college
  2 student and write a letter -

  243 18 Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on
  19 this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court's
  20 attention?

  21 A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the
  22 Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, "When we
  23 need somebody haunted, we investigate."

  24 This talks about not only people inside of
  25 Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of
  244 1 Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists;

  2 people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They
  3 don't have to be a Scientologist. And it -- and it -- this
  4 is -- this document itself explains the basis of
  5 intelligence, investigation, how it's used, how you handle
  6 bad press. And it -- it's just kind of like a little
  7 handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to
  8 have that function within Scientology.

Frank Oliver, who quit as an OSA member in 1992, also confirmed this policy of finding or manufacturing evidence to make the enemy sue for peace when he testified about seeing illegally obtained credit information, bank records, airline reservations, and phone records of those Scientology was targeting. He also was involved in investigations concerning the Cult Awareness Network, CAN, which was infiltrated by Scientology and eventually bankrupted. Scientology now runs CAN after purchasing its name from the Bankruptcy Court. Oliver, beginning at 290, July 15, 2002.

Contrary to Scientology's statements in this court that the past criminal conduct of the Guardian's Office, Department 20 a/k/a OSA, was the action of a few misguided and unauthorized zealots, such as Mrs. Hubbard, the courts have recognized that those criminal actions were authorized by Mr.

Hubbard as well.

Plaintiff's allegations that the Hubbards controlled the Guardian's Office of the Church is corroborated by the findings in (US.v Heldt ) United States v. Hubbard, et al, 668 F.2d 1238 (C.A.D.C.1981).

(Exhibit B to plaintiff's opposition to defendant Lisa's motion for protective order filed October 15, 1981. The indictment there covers the same general time span as this case.) The Court of Appeals found the Hubbards to be the first and second highest officials in the Scientology organization. Id. at 1243.

McLean v. Church of Scientology of California, 538 F.Supp. 545, 548 (M.D.

FLA 1982).

After a small group were convicted in the Snow White Operation of Department 20, such as Mrs. Hubbard, that did not stop criminal activity of this church. The Florida Bar v. Vannier, 498 So.2d 896, 897(Fla. 1986).

"The Church, or its agents, were involved in numerous civil and criminal cases throughout the United States during and following this period of time. In the seizure of documents from the Church's Los Angeles headquarters, it was revealed that Vannier was an undercover agent for the Church." Vannier was the attorney for Gabe Cazares, Mayor of Clearwater, embattled in litigation with Scientology.

Even in this case, this defendant, COSFSO, engaged in improper activity by tampering with the Plaintiff's expert witness, Jesse Prince, by sending in an undercover private investigator into his home. Employing the written commands of Mr. Hubbard of conducting a "noisy investigation," finding the crimes of Mr. Minton, or manufacturing evidence so that Minton begs for peace most likely resulted in huge bonuses for those involved.

  194 18 Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked
  19 about your position with the Religious Technology Center;

  20 you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing
  21 investigations involving litigation and other critics of
  22 Scientology. And I'm showing you today Plaintiff's Exhibit
  23 113, entitled Intelligence Actions. Can you identify that
  24 document?

  25 A Yes.

  195 1 Q And what is it?

  2 A This is a document -- a document written by L. Ron
  3 Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about
  4 predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating
  5 individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

  6 And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives
  7 to be enemies or suppressive persons.

  8 Q Against whom? They're enemies of whom?

  9 A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These
  10 are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of
  11 Scientology.

Scientology's motive to extort Minton is apparent. The Lisa McPherson case is Scientology's worst PR FLAP. The story had gained national press exposure. It occurred at the "mecca of technical perfection" in the first "Scientology City." The Estate had seemingly unlimited funding and more than sufficient evidence of culpability not only of the "tech" but also the leadership of Scientology.

As Minton told Nancy Many, former OSA volunteer, on March 12, 2002, Scientology would stop at nothing to stop the Lisa case from going to trial in June 2002.

  156 18 A Been to Sandown, New Hampshire, to his place in
  19 Sandown, New Hampshire; that the trial date was set for
  20 early June; and they, meaning the Scientologists, were going
  21 nuts and would stop at nothing to prevent that trial from
  22 happening.

  23 And he said that it was -- that he was in
  24 negotiations with the Church, settlement negotiations, and
  25 that that also was going well, but the sticking point had
  157 1 been that no more money was to go to Ken Dandar.

  2 BY MR. DANDAR:

  3 Q From the Church -- the Church was saying this to
  4 him?

  5 A The Church was saying this to him, that we could
  6 settle but no more money to Ken.

But Scientology had been pressuring Minton as early as 1997 to stop funding this case. What was different in 2002 that enabled it to succeed?

Extortion, and in particular, extortion that threatened Minton's wife and daughters.

Minton admitted at this hearing that Rinder was the "triggerman" and Moxon was aiming the gun. Minton at 1850 on May 30, 2002, volume 14, and page 1894, May 30, 2002, volume 15.

Minton admitted to Prince in 2002 that Scientology had obtained a copy of the May 2000 UBS check, even though Minton could not obtain a copy.

  384 17 Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when
  18 Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by
  19 Scientology of a UBS check?

  20 A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made
  21 reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the
  22 last one that I did, the April 2002.

  23 He called me just in grief, crying. He's like,
  24 "It's over. They got me. You know, I'm going to jail."

  25 He's just
  385 1 THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You
  2 want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.

  3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week
  4 prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th.

  5 So we're talking like maybe March 21st or something
  6 like that. You know, the week prior to going to New
  7 York.

  8 BY MR. DANDAR:

  9 Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit.

  10 A Okay.

  ... 16 A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks
  17 and --
  18 BY MR. DANDAR:

  19 Q Well, let's back up.

  20 Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, "It is
  21 all over." What else?

  22 A He said that, Mmm, "I'm going to jail. I have
  23 been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after Therese
  24 and the kids."

  25 And he was just completely despondent about that.

  386 1 Q And this was before the New York City meetings?

  2 A Yeah.

  3 Q Okay.

  4 A Yeah. So then --
  5 Q But he didn't go into detail as to why he thought
  6 he was going to jail?

  7 A No, he wouldn't tell me then. I wanted to know,
  8 what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new
  9 thing has happened? He wouldn't tell me.

  10 Q Okay.

  11 A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional
  12 information. She didn't know what the heck had happened.

  13 But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there
  14 that day.

  15 Q To New Hampshire?

  16 A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an
  17 idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I
  18 had no idea that this was a significant incident.

  19 But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten
  20 a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that
  21 he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this
  22 $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to
  23 prosecute him on it.

  24 Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy
  25 of this UBS check?

  387 1 A No. He said he didn't know how they got a copy
  2 because he can't get a copy of it. He said, "I tried. I
  3 can't get a copy of it."

  4 Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.

  5 And he was just beside himself.

  388 13 MR. DANDAR: He's reading from Paragraph 9 on
  14 Page 3.

  15 BY MR. DANDAR:

  16 Q Am I right?

  17 A Yes. But, you know -- yes, that was on Page 3,
  18 Number 9, during the time period, what I'm talking about
  19 here.

  20 And before I wrote this affidavit on the
  21 attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first
  22 page that -- that Scientology had gathered enough
  23 information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted,
  24 convicted and jailed.

  25 MR. DANDAR: He's looking at his handwritten
  389 1 attachment.

  2 THE COURT: Oh, okay.

  3 THE WITNESS: Yes.

  4 MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first
  5 paragraph.

  6 THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?

  ... 17 I don't mention the check specifically, but
  18 what I mention is, is the information that
  19 Scientology had gotten, information that said they
  20 were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.

  21 You know --
  22 BY MR. DANDAR:

  23 Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation --
  24 the first conversation where he's crying?

  25 A Yes. They discovered information about him that
  390 1 threatened his wife and children's future. You know, again,
  2 he's suicidal. And then --
  ...

  391 1 And then he's telling me, you know, they have
  2 got this check. And, you know, and he says --
  3 basically, it's come down to me or Ken Dandar,
  4 somebody has to die here.

  5 And I'm like, you know, this was such a
  6 complete turnaround. These are people I worked with
  7 now for years. We have all been on one accord,
  8 doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now

  9 Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.

Ken Dandar also testified, as confirmed by Minton, that during the Good Friday telephone calls between the two on March 29, 2002, Minton confirmed these threats not only involved him going to jail, but the threats also involved his wife Therese and their two daughters. That call was confirmed by Dandar in writing to Minton on March 30, 2002:

March 30, 2002

Bob:

Your call yesterday was disturbing to me on a professional and personal level. I do not know what extortion Scientology, through Rinder, Rosen and Yingling are perpetrating against you, but it appears to be one that has pushed you over the edge. It was extremely incendiary for Stacy to say that the "blood" of your wife, daughters, and you will be on our hands!

It is beyond me how you could ask Dell and me to dismiss the case and just walk away.

With all due respect to you, this lawsuit against Scientology is not about you. It is about the death of Lisa McPherson, a homicide. Contrary to what Scientology has attempted to make the courts and world at large believe, you do not, never have or ever will control this lawsuit against Scientology in any way, shape or form.

Following your call to me, I called Dell. I advised her of our telephone conversation. She in no uncertain terms told me that will never walk away from the case. Her directive to me was at it always has been. That is, do not relent in the effort to carry out the wishes of Fannie. Fannie instructed Dell and me to tell the world what Scientology did to her daughter and to make Scientology be accountable for causing Lisa's death. When I went to visit with Fannie in Texas, Dell, in front of me, promised Fannie, whom she dearly loved, that she would carry the case to the end. I made the same promise. That is a promise that neither Dell nor I will ever break under any circumstances.

I am a lawyer with ethical obligations to my client, Dell. I take those obligations very seriously. I have only one client in this wrongful death lawsuit against Scientology and that is Dell and not you or Stacy Brooks. As you well know, Dell has been and always will be in charge of the litigation. Your personal loans to me were unconditional. I was free to spend that money as I saw fit. You repeatedly stated under oath in your depositions that you trusted me, which I hope you still do, to spend the money as I sought fit. You confirmed in your original and only letter that the loans to me were without any strings and would only need to be repaid if and only if the Estate of Lisa McPherson determined that it has been reasonably compensated, after payment of fees and costs.

Now that you know that Dell will never walk away from the case, you must also know that she prays for you and your wife and daughters every day as she does for wife, my daughter and me. If I knew in the beginning that there were problems with your finances, I would have never accepted your loans. Had you remained silent in the background, Scientology would never have known about you and your desire to fund the case to defray the costs of the litigation. You chose to start the LMT against my professional and personal advice and of Dell. You appointed me as an "advisor" whose advice you never followed. Dell agreed to serve on the board to try to provide advisory input, but she too was ignored.

I still do not know what problems you face now that are so great that you would insist that Dell heed the demands of SCN and walk away from the Lisa case. That has placed great stress on Dell and I because that will never be considered.

Dell and her family will never make a deal with the devil. You should not be so foolish to do so either. The devil will never honor its deal.

Does this make Dell and I heartless? I would hope that you do not see it that way. We are extremely concerned for you, your wife, and your daughters. I am insistent that you and Steve are smart enough to figure out a solution that does not cause harm to you and your family.

You need to get your life in order, Bob. I know I have no business in saying that, but that comes from the heart and it is not the first time I said it. No matter what happens, I will forever say that there is no one in the world like Bob Minton. You are the most genuine, honest, modest, and sincere person I have ever met. I will always be here or anywhere in the world to help you. You can ask me for anything, except for those things that do not require me to compromise my ethics as a lawyer and my values as a person. Dismissing the case because Scientology is attempting to extort and blackmail you is a request I cannot nor will ever honor. From what I know so far, it is my opinion that Scientology and its counsel are blackmailing and extorting you. I am outraged, but then I have no respect for anyone who works for Scientology.

Steve told me yesterday after I talked with you that he does not believe that the demand is a total walk away. It is more like demanding the Estate take less than it expects. It is totally unethical for Rosen, Yingling and Rinder to meet with you and make any demands on the Estate. You have no power or authority to negotiate with anyone, never mind Scientology, for the Estate. Scientology certainly cannot be afraid to negotiate with Dell and me. Therefore, I believe Scientology and its unethical representatives are not acting in good faith. They are simply again trying to interfere and undermine the litigation against them and our relationship.

The court has set our third mediation for April 19, something Rosen conveniently forgot to mention to Steve. The case has never been as strong as it is now!

You always told me that the Nigerian thing is a bunch of lies and all your transactions have been proper. That is why you need to be strong and fight for your rights. If you need me, I will fight there with you. However, I will never put myself in any situation, which presents a conflict of interest. Scientology has never succeeded in intimidating me and they never will.

I have said quite a bit now, but I need you to know exactly where Dell and I stand. We hope this does not mean that you will never talk to us again. We hope that your attorneys can figure out a way to resolve the issues favorably. When you first got into this, after you made a settlement with them in FACTNet, you certainly knew what evil Scientology is capable of spawning. Yet you plowed right in as one of the bravest men in the world. You need to find that strength now.

Pray for God's wisdom. Dell and I will continue to pray for you and your family. Prayer does work!

Ken

This confirms the subsequent Prince testimony above. It also shows that Minton going to jail has nothing to do with the two contempt hearings in Florida, since his wife and daughters had no involvement in that.

The first letter from Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, of April 1, 2002, did not respond to the above e-mail. The second letter from Jonas of April 11, 2002, introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Ex. 12, also does not rebut the extortion in this e-mail of March 30, 2002.

I received your letter of April 10, 2002, and have the following comments. We did speak on March 29, 2002 and I did tell you that Scientology had made certain demands (I did not mentioned threats) towards Mr. Minton. One of them was their request that Mr. Minton bring about the dismissal of the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case.

I did not offer to go into detail about the discussions between Mr.

Minton and Scientology and, in fact, told you that through me Mr.

Minton had entered into a confidentiality agreement that would prevent either Mr. Minton or me from going into detail about those discussions. We did not discuss your signing or being bound by such an agreement. ...

Steven A. Jonas

This Jonas letter in addition to the Yingling notes confirms, contrary to Minton's and Brooks' hearing testimony, that Scientology demanded that the McPherson case be dismissed.

Scientology did not rebut this testimony of extortion, not at all.

C. The Evidence of Extortion.

"Wrongful death No Money or other support, withdrawal of JP and SB affidavits, commit to be Ws, effort to try to exert influence over- Dandar and Leibrick to resolve matter.

SJ say can't commit to making case go away [page 6] SR - hope this is not harbinger of things to come because extremely disappointed - SB& JP already arc not W's - Dandar has told Ct would not be W's"

"MR - until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have disengagement.

MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how"

"SR believes BM can he very persuasive with Dandar"

Yingling notes of March 28, 2002.

"...until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have disengagement"

Disengagement? Need more be said? Minton was absolutely intent to have disengagement. The policy letters of extortion via "noisy investigations"

and digging up crimes of Minton had worked. In the above meeting excerpt, Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, "SJ," is summing up Scientology demands, which include demanding that the wrongful death case be dismissed, that Minton stop funding the case, and that Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks withdraw their affidavits and not be witnesses. However, the more profound evidence of extortion is found in the language of "effort to try to exert influence over Dandar and Liebreich" followed by Sandy Rosen's comments that he hopes it is not a "harbinger of things to come" because he, Rosen, would be "extremely disappointed." There is no uncertainty that Scientology, through Rinder, is demanding the McPherson case "go away."

"MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how." This is the introduction to Minton of future discussions of making the case "go away," since Jonas already stated that he was not sure Minton could procure the dismissal.

This is also an admission that Minton had no control. Rinder did not approach that subject then because Rinder did not want to discuss his plans in front of Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas. We do know that later in Florida, Rinder instructs Minton how to do it while Minton is without counsel.

The identification of the source of the UBS checks by identifying the account numbers and financial institution originating the funds to the UBS is the key to the extortion of Robert Minton. That is why Minton pled the Fifth Amendment at this hearing.

  23 Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you
  24 hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar
  25 making a lie about the $500,000 check?

  433 1 A No. I got up and left immediately.

  2 Q All right. And when is the next time you were
  3 talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?

  4 A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just
  5 couldn't even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw
  6 that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn't
  7 know what to do.

  8 And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind
  9 something criminal was going on here, I need to do something
  10 to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming.

  11 And I --
  12 THE COURT: When you say to help your friends,
  13 you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and
  14 Stacy Brooks?

  15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

  16 BY MR. DANDAR:

  17 Q So you went, on your own, to Denis's office?

  18 A Yes.

  19 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I should not put words
  20 in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant
  21 Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other
  22 friend?

  23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to
  24 Mr. deVlaming's office and I explained to him that I
  25 had been privileged to know that this was going to
  434 1 happen, that this was going to be created and done
  2 against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.

Minton had called Dandar in early March 2002 asking about any court action here which may be causing his and the "Fat Man's" Swiss bank concerns and the Swiss prosecutors to show renewed interest in Minton. The inference is that this is the time Scientology made progress in getting the UBS check. Scientology noticed Minton's wife for deposition. (See Appendix D.) This all made Minton very nervous and threatened. The inference is Minton's wife did not know of the Swiss bank accounts. The noose was tightening around Minton's neck. Checkmate!

  313 15 But what is interesting about all of this -- and I
  16 still don't know the answer to this -- is that he was
  17 extremely concerned that I hurry up and deposit that check.

  18 I don't know -- I took it to mean that, you know, something
  19 was going on wherever this check came from, because we had a
  20 couple of phone calls about that.

  21 Q You and Mr. Minton had a couple phone calls about
  22 it?

  23 A About something going on in Switzerland, and he
  24 was really, really, really concerned about --
  25 Q Did he say what he was concerned about?

  314 1 A Well, it was after this check came, I deposited
  2 the check, he calls me up and asks me, "Did the court in
  3 Florida send something out to the Swiss banks, like a letter
  4 interrogatory, a subpoena for documents?"

  5 I said, "Not as far as I know."

  6 I asked him, "Why are you asking me this
  7 question?"

  8 He said, "Because something is happening in the
  9 Swiss banks. And there is a new prosecutor in Switzerland,
  10 there is a new judge. They had a hearing about me."

  11 And he suspected Scientology was behind all that
  12 because they were behind the false accusations in Nigeria --
  13 at least he told me they were false. But he was extremely
  14 concerned. And that is when he said I need to hurry up and
  15 deposit the check, because somehow his friends and he were
  16 somehow implicated in whatever was going on in the Swiss
  17 bank.

As far as the evidence discloses, the extortion begins when Rinder tells Minton he has the UBS check of May 2000, when Minton can't get a copy of this check. It continues in the meetings of March 28 & 29, 2002 in Rosen's office in New York.

"SR - now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above."

Page 5 of Yingling notes, where SR stands for Sandy Rosen.

There, solely for the pecuniary advantage of Scientology, Rinder and Rosen threaten Minton with RICO and the Armstrong suit, where damages are in excess of 200 million dollars. Rinder and Rosen give Minton the demand to make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away" before Scientology will even consider "disengagement." Note, this is the word of Rinder or Rosen.

It is not settlement of a case. Neither Minton, Rosen, nor Rinder had any right to settle or dismiss the McPherson case. It is disengagement of the threats, the harassment, the threats to put Minton's wife in jail. (See Minton's Harassment Time Line, Plaintiffs Ex. 4.) "I'm going to jail. I have been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after Therese and the kids." Prince, supra. This is extortion.

  25 Q Isn't it true in that conversation that Bob
  1 Minton said if the case was not dismissed immediately the,
  2 quote, blood and death of his daughters, his wife, and
  3 himself would be on my hands?

  4 A I think he said "the blood."

  5 Q Did he say "blood and death" or just "blood"?

  6 A I think just "blood."

  7 Q Okay.

  8 A But, you know.

  9 Q Do you know what Mr. Minton meant when he used
  10 the word "blood"?

  11 A Yes.

  12 Q What?

  13 A It was a fairly dramatic way of saying -- and I
  14 think he also said that you and he were both going to go
  15 down --
  16 THE COURT: Before you get into the rest of
  17 it, tell him -- he asked you what it meant. So --
  18 THE WITNESS: Well, okay. It was a fairly
  19 dramatic way of -- I mean, he wasn't -- it was just a
  20 dramatic way of saying that they were going to both be
  21 destroyed.

This is not a discussion of "we are going to sue you if you do not pay our damages." This is the coercion and duress of "disengagement." Mr.

Rinder, head of OSA INT, had no right to demand that Minton make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away." Mr. Rosen had no legal justification to threaten Minton with RICO, claiming the magnitude of their damages is their prosecution costs of Scientology critics and defense costs of claims, such as Lopez. Therefore their threats are "malicious" under 836.05 and their actions are extortion. Alonso v.

State, supra. The threats are well preserved in the typed Yingling notes of the New York meetings. For example, on page 13, Rosen states that Minton's deposition in the breach case is not just about whether he encouraged the breach, but it is about all of Minton's "financial information." This is a prime example of how Scientology discovery is a fishing expedition on intelligence gathering on collateral matters. It is per policy of Scientology, it is extortion, and it is all sanctionable.

Threats made to Minton, who, upon demand of Rinder and Rosen, in turn threatens the Estate and its counsel remains a threat under the Extortion statute from the Church of Scientology.

  22 Q Now, Mr. Rosen, in addition to saying he spent
  23 $40,000 on research and other things, he also said to
  24 Mr. Minton that the RICO suit will be filed when the
  25 wrongful death case is won. Right?

  1 A Mmm, that -- that is what is reflected in -- in
  2 the notes. I don't have a specific recollection of -- of
  3 that having been said.

  4 Q At that point in time -- this is probably a silly
  5 question -- do you recall Minton or Mr. Jonas saying
  6 anything in response to that?

  7 A No. The only thing -- the only time that
  8 Mr. Jonas said something about RICO was when -- as I
  9 explained before, when Mr. Minton asked for a total of all
  10 of the damage and -- and Mr. Jonas dismissed that question
  11 and said that he -- he believed that one of the reasons for
  12 the exercise of setting forth what damage the Church
  13 believed Mr. Minton had caused was as a measure of magnitude
  14 for a RICO case.

In direct contravention of Minton's testimony at this hearing, on page 563 of this hearing on May 7, 2002, Stacy Brooks confirms Yingling's and Jonas' notes that not only was a RICO suit threatened by Rosen against Minton, but that a draft of the RICO suit was in Rosen's hands on March 28, 2002.

  2 Q....And you were telling me about
  3 Mr. Rosen's activities at this meeting. And apparently was
  4 there a large stack of paper represented to be a
  5 racketeering lawsuit shown to Mr. Minton or yourself at that
  6 time?

  7 A Not that I recall.

  8 Q Just discussion about the issue?

  9 A Uh-huh.

  10 THE COURT: "Uh-huh," was that a yes?

  11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes.

  12 THE COURT: Okay. I say that and I'll tell you
  13 why. Uh-huh and uh-uh are very hard to know whether
  14 it is a yes or no on one of those records.

  15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

  16 THE COURT: Okay.

  17 BY MR. LIROT:

  18 Q Did the LMT hire a gentleman by the name of
  19 Patrick Yost?

  20 A Excuse me just a second. He may have held
  21 something up and said this was a draft. I -- that may have
  22 happened. I'm not sure.

Prince testified that Minton did show him a copy of the $110 million RICO suit in April 2002. While Scientology may claim it has a right to pursue a civil RICO suit, threatening to do so for its own pecuniary advantage/gain, i.e., to get Minton to obtain dismissal of the McPherson case or there would be no "disengagement" from Scientology harassment or litigation, is indeed extortion under Florida law.

There can be no doubt that the wife signed the property settlement agreement without having an actual gun at her head.

Equally without question is the fact that she did have independent legal advice and that both her lawyer and a friend cautioned her not to sign it. Nonetheless, she did so. All this being so, at first blush, it would appear she not only signed the agreement voluntarily and with full disclosure, but indeed insisted on signing it. However, the coercion and duress aspect inescapably arises because the husband admittedly insisted that she sign it or he would turn her and her partners in to the Internal Revenue Service. Apparently, the wife had been failing to report substantial cash receipts from the operation of her beauty salon business. Her unrebutted testimony is that fear of the I.R.S. is the only reason that she signed it. (Emphasis added).

We certainly agree that the husband had a legal right to actually turn her in to the I.R.S. and that a claim of coercion cannot be predicated on a threat to do an act which the person has a lawful right to do. However as we have already discussed above, the husband does not have the right to threaten to do it for his own pecuniary advantage.

See Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Berger at 1150.

The obviousness of the plan to make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away" is in the fact that the recantation affidavits also include the Wollersheim case. Dan Leipold, Wollersheim's current attorney, testified that both Brooks and Minton called him on April 8, 2002, to withdraw her declaration and Prince's declaration in hopes of getting the Wollersheim case dismissed.

  14 A I filed the declaration originally, I believe,
  15 sometime in mid-1997, and I received a telephone call from
  16 Ms. Brooks on April 8th, I believe, 2002, in which she told
  17 me that she and Robert Minton were attempting to settle
  18 legal actions against them or settle with the Church of
  19 Scientology, and she wished me to withdraw that declaration
  20 from the -- from the court. And then later that day, Bob
  21 Minton -
  23 A -- he asked me to dismiss that action on behalf of
  24 my client.

Consider the following:

1. Scientology's tax attorney expert, Yingling, present at every meeting

2. The evidence from Minton and Brooks that Minton never expressed to others his fear of tax evasion;

3. Other witnesses' testimony that Minton did emphatically express those fears,

4. No notes of the Clearwater meetings; and 5. Minton's counsel not present

This leads to the conclusion that coercion was placed on Minton by Scientology about his tax evasion.

  189 13 A We had just come from looking at the sound stage
  14 where we were building the set. He didn't seem to be very
  15 interested in it. He seemed to be agitated and upset and
  16 unhappy. So he ordered a drink.

  17 And I said, "What's up?"

  18 He said: "These Scientologists are driving me
  19 crazy. They're following me everywhere. They're harassing
  20 my daughters." He said, "And I'm very, very upset." And
  21 he said, "They're all over me for this Nigerian thing." He
  22 made some business deal in Nigeria.

  23 And I said, "Well, so? What's up with that?"

  24 You know, "They're not going to get anything on you."

  25 And then Patricia was there for some of that

  190 1 conversation. She left. And when she left and he was
  2 talking about that Nigeria money, he broke down into tears,
  3 and he said that he had tax problems with respect to that
  4 money and that that was what was worrying him. And so --
  5 Q Did he say what kind of tax problems he had with
  6 that Nigerian money?

  7 A Yes, said he hadn't paid taxes on that money.

  8 Q And he was in tears?

  9 A Yes.

  9 Q Well, so why was it coming from Operation
  10 Clambake?

  11 A Mmm, see, that was the tax evasion part. It was
  12 as a donation. Right? And I guess if it comes in as a
  13 donation to a company, then rather than Bob bringing his own
  14 money in -- you know, I don't know all of the details of
  15 this, but this was my understanding -- that then he didn't
  16 have to pay taxes because it was a donation to a company.

Minton's refusal, based on the Fifth Amendment, to produce his tax returns or proof of the identity of the source of the originating bank of those funds, creates the reasonable inference under Florida law that the identity of the source of the funds would be viewed negatively toward Minton. Pleading the Fifth Amendment and retaining a money laundering/tax expert formerly with the U.S. Treasury Department, xxxxxxxxxxx, who admitted in deposition that he was retained for this particular expertise, also discloses the most vulnerable area of Mr. Minton to be subject to duress and coercion: his money and the failure to pay taxes.

Minton's former business partner, Jeff Schmidt, was subjected to Scientology's business practice of "Fair Game" via extortion, otherwise known as a "noisy investigation."

  119 6 Q Did you observe any noisy investigation of Bob
  7 Minton?

  8 A Yes.

  9 Q What -- give us some examples.

  10 A Well, the most vivid one that comes to mind is an
  11 operation that was done on his best friend, Jeff Schmidt,
  12 who he had apparently started a company with. Scientology
  13 found out about Jeff Schmidt through its investigation of
  14 Bob Minton.

  ... 17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was there and I
  18 spoke with Jeff Schmidt and Robert Minton. We were
  19 in the financial district in London. And he made it
  20 very clear to me what Scientology had done. And he
  21 was in the process of packing up his office to move
  22 out of the country.

  120 7 Q And Jeff Schmidt was Bob Minton's business
  8 partner?

  9 A Correct.

  10 Q And what happened to him?

  11 A He eventually disassociated himself from Bob
  12 Minton from fear of losing his business practice. He
  13 basically couldn't stand a threat --
  14 What he told me specifically is that a Scientology
  15 investigator came to him and asked him to either provide or
  16 show them how to create information to get Bob Minton; in
  17 other words, to get him in legally, to get him involved in
  18 law enforcement, on the bad end of law enforcement. And
  19 Jeff Schmidt said that he was refusing to do it, and had had
  20 many negotiations with this private investigator.

  21 Finally his office was broken into and materials
  22 were taken out of the office, and at that point, that's when
  23 Bob and I flew over there to discuss, "Well, okay. What was
  24 taken? What does this mean? What can be done?"

It is utterly inconceivable that Scientology did not threaten Minton.

Minton is now doing what Scientology has demanded him to do to make the McPherson case "go away."

  13 Q Are you aware of any kind of trouble that was
  14 started with Nigeria in reference to the Swiss government?

  15 A I know that certain allegations were brought in
  16 Nigeria. And the private investigator working on
  17 Scientology's behalf did go to Switzerland, talked to
  18 prosecutors, talked to law enforcement, and to use whatever
  19 sway or ability that they had to try to get charges brought
  20 against Bob in

  127 12 Q And how did Mr. Minton feel about losing his
  13 partnership in a Lexus dealership in New England?

  14 A He just broke down and cried. He was like, how is
  15 it possible to live in a country like America and not be
  16 able to stop this, to turn this off in some way?

  17 Q What about any other noisy investigations?

  18 A I guess they went to his mother's house and
  19 basically told his mother that he's crazy and needed to be
  20 incarcerated, and to somehow get the family together to try
  21 to get some kind of incarceration going, or at least get
  22 that idea going something was seriously wrong with Bob.

  132 10 A He -- he called me on the phone and he said,
  11 "Jesse, you won't believe what they're doing now. They're
  12 going after my daughters." "Oh. What happened?" "Well,
  13 she was followed," or, "They papered the neighborhood," or,
  14 you know, "They're passing leaflets out. They're talking to
  15 their friends," his daughter's associates, parents, or
  16 different people, you know, and just kind of doing their
  17 noisy investigation. And this was apparently quite
  18 upsetting to his wife, Therese, who would always -- Bob said
  19 she would ask, "Well, what are you going to do about it?

  20 Well, this can't happen. How do you make this stop?"

  133 7 So for anyone
  8 to -- to have that much done to them, I mean, even in my
  9 time I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy an
  10 individual.

  137 24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton said that he felt that
  25 if he came to Florida, that he was going to go to
  138 1 jail. He had been being told that he was going to
  2 jail.

  139 3 He was concerned that if Scientology was
  4 allowed to have access to his different bank
  5 accounts, that he would end up fighting another war
  6 with Scientology as he did with the John Fashanu
  7 fiasco, and he was just tired of it.

  140 8 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there's another
  9 aspect to this, your Honor. And the aspect is this:

  10 Bob Minton, in his mind, always tried to keep
  11 his family separate from his activities. He was
  12 ready to exhaust every personal resource that he had
  13 for himself to keep the fight going, but he was not
  14 willing to risk that for his wife and his children.

  15 And so when the wife and children became a factor I
  16 guess something happened.

Plaintiff's Ex. 109 is a policy letter introduced into evidence through Prince. It describes manufacturing evidence if real evidence to intimidate the attacker/enemy of Scientology is not discovered.

  8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace"

  9 mean?

  10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means
  11 basically that a person just wants to end
  12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and
  13 all walk away as happy as possible.

  14 BY MR. DANDAR:

  15 Q Like a disengagement?

  16 A Yes.

Per this policy letter, Plainitf's Ex. 109, Scientology has Minton begging for peace, doing whatever Scientology wants so that its harassment of Minton and his wife and daughters will end. This is extortion.

IV. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" ARE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT RESULTING FROM AN ILLEGAL "MARY CARTER AGREEMENT."

A. The Law on Mary Carter Agreements.

Testifying without informing the opposing party and the court that the testimony is pursuant to a settlement or as a precondition to a settlement is known in Florida as a "Mary Carter Agreement." Such secret agreements have been declared "illegal" and "unethical" by the Florida Supreme Court.

Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1993), where it stated that these agreements "mislead judges and juries and border on collusion." At 243. The court later deemed any secret agreement as "charades in trials."

Lamz v. Geico General Insurance Company, 803 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla 2001), reversing the trial court which refused to permit the victim to refer to the victim's insurer as his "uninsured/underinsured motorist" insurer.

Unethical and illegal conduct by lawyers requires bar discipline and court sanctions.

In many instances, Mary Carter defendants may exert influences upon the adversarial process before a trial as well. They may, for example, share with a plaintiff work product previously (or subsequently, if the agreement remains secret) disclosed to them by a nonsettling defendant....In addition, Mary Carter agreements, by their very nature, promote unethical practices by Florida attorneys...In order to skillfully and successfully carry out the objectives of the Mary Carter agreement, the lawyer for the settling parties must necessarily make misrepresentations to the court and to the jury in order to maintain the charade of an adversarial relationship. These actions fly in the face of the attorney's promise to employ "means only as are consistent with truth and honor and [to] never seek to mislead the Judge or Jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law." ... Some courts have even held that a Mary Carter agreement in which the settling defendant retains a financial interest in the plaintiff's success against the nonsettling defendant is champertous in character.

Dosdourian, at 244.

B. The Evidence of the Illegal Agreement.

In addition to the extortion, COSFSO also entered into an illegal Mary Carter Agreement with Minton. If it were not for this court ordering the production of the Yingling notes, there would be no evidence of the demand to make the case go away. One need only apply common sense to the fact that Brooks and Minton went to Scientology first before coming to this court to claim that they needed to recant in order to see through the charade and discover the collusion between them and Scientology to dismiss this case.

The fact that the most vocal opponent worldwide against Scientology and who spent over 10 million dollars is now in collusion with them clearly needs no further explanation as to motivation to now come into court and lie for Scientology. The words of Jesse Prince ring true: Scientology could not get Minton to get the case voluntarily dismissed so they resorted to the next plan: get rid of the attorney or involuntary dismissal.

Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do. The bottom line was Scientology wanted Bob to say that Ken Dandar caused Bob Minton to perjure himself in the breach of contract case in front of Judge Baird. The plan was to get Ken removed from the wrongful death case and get disbarred as an attorney.

Prince April 2002 affidavit at 12, line 22-26, page 6.

  13 Q. All right. Can you tell me about those
  14 meetings?

  15 A. At the present time there's a
  16 confidentiality agreement in place between my
  17 attorneys and the attorneys for the Church of
  18 Scientology and I'm not at liberty to comment.

  19 Q. Why is that? Why a confidentiality
  20 agreement? What is it that -- what is it that the
  21 Church of Scientology has presented to you to
  22 cause this complete reversal of position on your
  23 part?

  24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, to the extent
  25 that counsel is insinuating that the Church
  1 has made any promise or any inducements to
  2 this witness to testify as he has here before
  3 you today on April 19th we waive
  4 confidentiality.

  5 He can just ask him the question --
  6 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

  7 MR. ROSEN: -- did they promise you
  8 anything? And I will not assert any
  9 confidentiality with respect to that.

Notice how cleverly Mr. Rosen couches the waiver of confidentiality by limiting the waiver to promises or inducements made by the Church, which technically excludes threats of any kind.

The collusion of Minton and Scientology was presented to this court when Minton's attorney, Bruce Howie, was ready to produce all of the notes of the New York meetings, until Scientology counsel, Lee Fugate, spoke up and said that Rosen would have to first give his permission!

  63 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, so the record is clear,
  13 I have communicated with Mr. Jonas and resolved our
  14 position on the last page. However, Mr. Fugate's
  15 raising a new issue concerning turning over all
  16 notes of the meeting that I think pertain to these
  17 notes, and I think it's best that we turn them all
  18 over --
  19 THE COURT: You mean to tell me you're ready to
  20 turn them over and Mr. Fugate has some objection?

  21 MR. HOWIE: No. There's -- there's another
  22 issue that Mr. Fugate is -- is raising here,
  23 concerning turning over --
  24 THE COURT: What is it?

  25 MR. HOWIE: -- all the notes.

  64 1 THE COURT: What's the issue?

  2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the issue --
  3 Here's what I would like to do. I want to get
  4 Mr. Rosen's notes. And I want to have those notes,
  5 provide the notes to you. There's -- there's --
  6 THE COURT: I don't understand this. This is
  7 Mr. Minton's counsel. Mr. Minton's counsel has been
  8 contacted by the current counsel and they have no
  9 objection. Why in the world would the church have
  10 any authority to step in and make any statement?

  11 MR. FUGATE: I don't have any authority --
  12 THE COURT: Well, then good. Then you don't
  13 need to be here and we can deal with this today.

  14 MR. HOWIE: Well, your Honor, it's just that I
  15 have to revise my notice of filing and so on. And I
  16 understand there are issues concerning the
  17 confidentiality agreement that Mr. Fugate wishes to
  18 address on Monday, which may affect --
  19 THE COURT: Oh.

  20 MR. HOWIE: -- the issue of the notes.

  21 MR. FUGATE: That's all, Judge. There's no
  22 hide and seek. I don't have any authority over
  23 that. It's an issue that I want to raise with the
  24 court that's been raised with me through counsel.

  25 THE COURT: Who? Which counsel?

  65 1 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Rosen.

  2 THE COURT: Oh.

  3 MR. FUGATE: And that's all, Judge. And I --
  4 you know --
  5 THE COURT: On these notes? On Mr. Minton's
  6 counsel's notes?

  7 MR. FUGATE: On our -- when I say our,
  8 Mr. Rosen's notes.

  9 And I think it reflects on what I understand
  10 are in these notes. All I just want to do is just
  11 bring it to the court's attention and let you look
  12 at those sets and that's it.

  13 THE COURT: Okay.

  14 MR. HOWIE: That's correct, your Honor.

  15 Because much of what Mr. Jonas's notes have include
  16 comments by Mr. Rosen.

  17 THE COURT: I -- oh, I see. All right.

  18 MR. FUGATE: No -- no hide and seek. Nothing
  19 nefarious. I just want to raise an issue with your
  20 Honor and let you look at them and then you decide
  21 whatever you want to do.

  22 THE COURT: We'll take that up Monday. And you
  23 may be excused.

  24 MR. HOWIE: We'll be here 9:00 Monday.

June 7, 2002

  4 23 THE COURT: Now, some notes. Let me start
  24 and go backwards.

  25 Well, Mr. Howie, did you have something for
  5 1 me this morning?

  2 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, I do. I'm
  3 going to go ahead and file the notes of the March 28th
  4 meeting in New York that I received from Steve Jonas,
  5 starting as always with a courtesy copy to the Court.

  6 THE COURT: Thank you.

  7 MR. HOWIE: And I'm filing the original with
  8 the clerk.

  9 THE COURT: All right.

  10 MR. HOWIE: And I'll distribute the copies.

  11 THE COURT: I expect we ought to make this
  12 an exhibit.

  13 MR. WEINBERG: That's fine.

  14 THE COURT: I don't know who -- I think,
  15 Mr. Dandar, it was you that wanted these, wasn't it?

  16 MR. DANDAR: Yes. It would be plaintiff's
  17 exhibit.

  18 THE COURT: So we might make it plaintiff's
  19 next in line, Madam Clerk. What would that be?

  20 THE CLERK: 90.

  21 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Howie.

  22 MR. HOWIE: And that's all I have this
  23 morning, unless anybody needs me.

  24 THE COURT: I don't. And I thank you for
  25 coming and bringing this, and I'll take an opportunity
  6 1 to look through it when I have a minute.

  2 MR. WEINBERG: That was 90?

  3 THE COURT: 90.

  4 MR. DANDAR: Are these all the notes?

  5 MR. HOWIE: Those were all the notes, with
  6 the exception of the last page, which we determined in
  7 conversations with Steve Jonas to be work product,
  8 indicating his mental impressions of what he was
  9 hearing from the Church.

  10 THE COURT: Okay.

  11 MR. DANDAR: I would like that filed with
  12 the Court, to have the Court determine if it meets
  13 that criteria and if it's still protected under
  14 Florida law.

  15 THE COURT: Well, do you want to speak with
  16 Mr. Jonas about that and see if he has an objection
  17 with it?

  18 MR. HOWIE: I'll speak with him.

  19 THE COURT: It's sort of in the nature of a
  20 privilege log or something like that?

  21 MR. HOWIE: Well, it's -- without
  22 representing the contents of it, it's a total of two
  23 lines indicating his mental impression of what he
  24 feels the --
  25 THE COURT: Well, then why don't you -- if
  7 1 you don't think he would have an objection, why don't
  2 you just bring it over and let me take a look at it.

  3 If I agree with you, I'll hand it back.

  4 MR. HOWIE: Let me speak with Mr. Jonas.

  5 MR. DANDAR: There were no notes on the
  6 29th, correct?

  7 MR. HOWIE: No. These are all the notes
  8 that I've been faxed, except for that one page, which
  9 consists of about two lines. And I did not receive
  10 any notes for the 29th. I believe these were strictly
  11 notes for the 28th. That's the way it's been
  12 represented to me.

  13 THE COURT: And there were none from the
  14 29th?

  15 MR. HOWIE: I have not received any from the
  16 29th. I'm not aware of any from the 29th. I assume
  17 that Mr. Jonas provided me with all the notes that he
  18 had.

  19 MR. DANDAR: Since he's going to contact
  20 Mr. Jonas about that last page, could we ask him to
  21 ascertain if there's notes on the 29th?

  22 THE COURT: Could you ask Mr. Jonas, were
  23 those all his notes and he simply did not make any for
  24 the 29th?

  25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, I will ask him.

  8 1 THE COURT: In case there's any confusion.

  2 MR. HOWIE: And I'll try to get through to
  3 him today, although there's sometimes as much as
  4 one-day delay in him getting back.

  5 THE COURT: That's all right.

  6 MR. HOWIE: Thank you very much.

  7. THE COURT: I appreciate if.

  8. (Mr. Howie left the courtroom.)

In the afternoon session, Mr. Howie gave two pages to the court in camera for review. After review, the court held page six was mental impressions and that page was not turned over. See pages 47-48 of June 11, 2002. If Rosen had no problem in letting Minton testify in front of Judge Baird, why did Rosen now have a problem in letting the notes of Minton's lawyer come into evidence? We will never know, since it was never explained.

However, the fact that Minton's lawyers yielded to Rosen's objections is glaring.