September 18th & 19th, 2001 - During the deposition in the McPherson case Robert Minton invoked his 5th Amendment right on almost every question concerning his finances. He based his refusal to answer these questions upon the fact that the Church of Scientology in Germany had previously filed a criminal complaint for bribery against Hamburg city official Ursula Caberta for having accepted a loan from Minton.
At the beginning of the deposition Minton declared that he had destroyed all his financial records, despite the subpoena from May 2000 and the subsequent court orders to have certain documents preserved and produced, which would show his financial contributions to attorney Dandar and witnesses in the case [Exh. No. 115]:
[ ... ] Moxon: "All right. At your last deposition you indicated you were going to conduct a search at that time, and you would be producing documents at the next deposition. Have you conducted a search of your home and any offices in New England?"
Minton: "Yes."
Q: "Do you have any documents to produce?"
A: "I don't."
Q: "Did you search your bank records?"
A: "I don't have any bank records." [ ... ]
Q: "You don't have any in your possession?"
A: "That's right."
Q: "How many bank accounts do you have?"
A: "Eight."
Q: "Where are the records for your bank accounts?"
A: "I just get rid of them. I don't have any desire to keep them."
Q: "So you shredded all the records for your bank accounts?"
A: "Shred, burn, thrown in the trash. Whatever."
Q: "When did you do that?"
A: "More or less as they come in." Q: "Bank statements too?"
A: "Yes." [ ... ]
Q: "And since your last deposition, you've destroyed all the bank records that had come in since that time?"
A: "You know, pretty much, they come in, I throw them out." [ ... ]
Q: "Please identify all bank accounts you've used to transfer money to the Lisa McPherson Trust."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer that question."
Q: "Identify any foreign banking institutions you've utilized to wire money to the Lisa McPherson Trust."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Identify any bank accounts or financial institutions you have utilized to provide funds to Stacy Brooks."
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Have you transferred any money to LMT other than through wires, bank wires?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege." [ ... ]
Q: "Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since January of 1998?"
A: "I believe I have." [ ... ]
Q: "All right. You've given him money during the year 200, didn't you?"
A: "I think so." [ ... ]
Q: " And is it your – just want to understand. Your testimony is you don't remember whether or not you gave Mr. Dandar any money during the year 2000?"
A: "I probably did. I don't remember it." [ ... ]
Q: "And in May of 2000, you said you gave him over a million dollars, right?"
A: "That's right." [ ... ]
Q: "What bank or financial institution in Switzerland have you utilized for the purpose of causing funds to be transferred to the Lisa McPherson Trust?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
Q: "Have you gone to any banks or financial institutions outside of Switzerland, Germany, or the United States for the purpose of acquiring funds to transfer to the Lisa McPherson Trust?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [ ... ] Q: "Did you withdraw any funds from any other financial institution in Europe for the purpose of transferring that money to the Lisa McPherson Trust for payment back to you?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
Q: "Did you transfer any funds through the Lisa McPherson Trust from Europe, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of taxes?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [ ... ]
Q: "Ms. Brooks indicated in her deposition that there were funds from a German bank that were sent to LMT. Do you remember that?"
A: "Yes, I do."
Q: "Do you have any knowledge of that?"
A: "I do."
Q: "What knowledge do you have?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [ ... ]
Q: "Were the funds that were sent to the LMT actually your money from Germany?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment." [ ... ]
Q: "Do you know what the source of funds were that were transferred from Mr. Heldal-Lund to LMT?"
A: "I refuse to answer that question based on my Fifth Amendment."
September 28th, 2001 - Following the deposition on September 18th and 19th the Church of Scientology moved to let the court overrule Minton's self-incrimination claims and to compel him to respond to all the questions, which he had refused to answer [Exh. No. 116].
October 11th & 12th, 2001 - On these days Minton's deposition in the "breach of contract" case took place. Likewise as during his deposition in September, Minton refused to answer all questions by Scientology attorney Samuel Rosen that concerned his financial payments to the LMT and the estate's attorney Kennan Dandar [Exh. No. 117]:
[ ... ] Rosen: " [ ... ] Am I correct, sir, that you've - in connection with these payments to Mr. Dandar or his firm, am I correct that you have not committed any crime?"
Minton: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege."
Q: "Do you believe that you have committed any crime by the payments to Mr. Dandar?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege." [ ... ]
Q: "Mr. Minton, did you testify previously in deposition that as of May of 2000 you had given Mr. Dandar or his firm the aggregate amount of $ 1,050,000?"
A: "I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege." Q: "The question is did you testify to that earlier. You cannot assert privileges to something you've already testified to, sir." [ ... ]
Q: "Do you stand on your Fifth Amendment invocation of that?"
A: "I do." [ ... ]
November 19th, 2001 - In the McPherson case judge Schaeffer granted Scientology's previous motion to overrule Minton's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege to the majority of the questions he had refused to answer during the deposition in September [Exh. No. 118]:
" [ ... ] The Court finds that Mr. Minton has waived his asserted Fifth Amendment Privilege as matters involving direct or indirect payment of money or otherwise by him to the Lisa McPherson Trust, to Kennan Dandar, to any fact or expert witness involved in this case, or to any representative or family member of Lisa McPherson. [ ... ] "
December 7th, 2001 - Following the ruling by judge Schaeffer the Church of Scientology moved for an immediate compliance with the order from November 19th. In its motion Scientology's attorney Kendrick Moxon stated [Exh. No. 119]:
" [ ... ] Mr. Minton has neither filed a writ or any motion to stay the Court's Order, the time for which has now passed. Because counsel for Mr. Minton has procrastinated and stalled on his deposition literally since May of 2000, and during which time four orders have issued requiring his appearance; because Mr. Minton has admitted that he destroyed considerable evidence in the interim; and because arranging for a hearing near the holidays will be difficult; defendant requests that Mr. Minton be ordered to appear forthwith, and to comply with Court's ruling. [ ... ] "
December 18th, 2001 - The court issued a new order, which granted the motion from December 7th by the Church of Scientology and compelled Minton to appear for deposition on January 23rd 2002 [Exh. No. 120]. Minton's attorney John Merrett subsequently filed a motion for a protective order in the McPherson case and in the "breach of contract" case.
January 4th, 2002 - The Church of Scientology responded to the protective order in the "breach of contract" case with a motion to hold Minton in civil contempt. It also moved for an imposition of sanctions on Minton [Exh. No. 121]:
" [ ... ] Plaintiff Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization (‘the Church') hereby moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Rules 1.380 and 1.410 (f) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) finding Mr. Minton in civil contempt for his knowing and intentional destruction of documents subject to subpoenas lawfully issued herein; (2) an OSC why Minton should not be held in criminal contempt; and (3) imposing appropriate penalties for Mr. Minton's contempt, including incarceration, fines, and compensation to the Church for its expenses arising from Mr. Minton's contempt.
"Notwithstanding numerous orders to Robert Minton to provide discovery, and notwithstanding the several sanctions for his failure to obey court orders and failure to provide discovery, Robert Minton has continuously refused to comply. Worse, Mr. Minton has admitted that he intentionally engaged in destruction of documents that were within his control and were responsive to the subpoenas that were served upon him.
"Mr. Minton's document productions are essential to the issues raised in the counterclaim. Minton has provided at least $ 1.3 million in funding to plaintiff's attorney. He has stated that he expects a $ 100 million judgment in this case, and that he or the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., (‘LMT'), a for-profit corporation that he established in Clearwater, would receive the bulk of any proceeds from his investment in that anticipated result.
"Mr. Minton has also supported plaintiff's efforts by funding of LMT for several million more, much of which has been used to pay witnesses and consultants for plaintiff's attorney; and Mr. Minton has provided even more support directly to plaintiff's witnesses by giving them large sums of money. He also operated LMT, in part, to generate adverse media in the community where all of the jurors live, and paid for large and inflammatory "demonstrations" on busy thoroughfares outside the Church, seen by thousands of potential jurors and their families. Mr. Minton's coordination of these matters is thus important evidence both in the main action and the counterclaim.
"Since the Church's original subpoena was served on Mr. Minton on April 21, 2000, Minton, through his attorneys, has filed nineteen motions for protective orders, appeals, petitions for writs of certiorari, and motions for stay in the unsuccessful attempt to prevent his deposition from being taken and documents produced. Judges Moody and Quesada have issued ten Orders requiring Mr. Minton's appearance, and Judge Quesada issued two orders in late 2000 and January 2001, sanctioning Mr. Minton for his discovery obstruction. When Mr. Minton finally appeared on September 18 and 19, 2001 for the continuation of his deposition, his testimony revealed that there were numerous documents responsive to the subpoenas issued to him in April and May 2000, that he had destroyed during the time that he was stonewalling discovery and seeking protection of the courts.
"Some of the destroyed documents were the only copies in existence. The Church therefore requests that Mr. Minton be held in indirect criminal contempt for his destruction of those records. Further, appropriate sanctions for those contempts [sic] should be imposed, including incarceration, fines, compensation to the Church for its expenses herein, and compensation for other losses which could result from these acts. [ ... ] "
Mid-March of 2002 - A hearing was held in the "breach of contract" case. A continuation of Minton's deposition from October 11th & 12th was ordered for April 9th to give Minton the chance to purge himself from contempt.
At this point Minton's attempts to conceal his financial activities from the opposing party in the lawsuits finally came to a halt. It followed a series of surprising moves by Minton that culminated in a telephone call on March 29th by Minton's Boston attorney Stephen Jonas to the estate's lawyer Kennan Dandar informing Dandar about settlement negotiations between Minton and Church of Scientology representatives.
April 1st, 2002 - Following another telephone call on March 30th, attorney Jonas sent Dandar a letter, stating that the discussions between Minton and the Church of Scientology were confidential and that he could not provide any details about them [Exh. No. 122].
April 5th, 2002 - At a contempt hearing in the McPherson civil case Minton's attorney Bruce Howie stated that a deposition of Minton was scheduled for April 8th and that Minton would answer all the questions regarding his finances truthfully. As a consequence judge Schaeffer then waived to hold Minton in contempt of court.
April 8th, 2002 - A deposition of Minton was held in preparation of a contempt hearing before judge Beard in the "breach of contract" case. The questions by Scientology attorney Samuel Rosen dealt mostly with Minton's financial contributions to the now defunct LMT. Close to the end of the deposition Rosen inquired about Minton's knowledge of the two donations to the LMT from Europe and two payments in the amount of $ 200,000 involving the ex-Scientologist and Canadian citizen Gerald Armstrong [Exh. No. 123]:
[ ... ] Rosen: "During the period of time that LMT was in existence and functioning before it started winding down its affairs soon after July of 2001, other than the monies you contributed to LMT for its operating costs, if you will, are you aware of anybody else who contributed monies to LMT?"
Minton: "Yes."
Q: "Can you tell me who they are?"
A: "Well [ ... ] [Andreas Heldal-Lund] from Operation Clambake in Norway."
Q: "How much did he contribute?"
A: "$ 300,000."
Q: "As far as you know that was his money or Operation Clambake's money, right?"
A: "No. I believe he got it from someone else."
Q: "Anyone else?"
A: "Yes, but I don't know who it was."
Q: "What does that mean, it was an anonymous contribution?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "How much was that?"
A: "500,000."
Q: "How did that anonymous contribution come to LMT?"
A: "In the form of a bank wire."
Q: "An anonymous bank wire of five hundred grand from some third party?"
A: "Well, yeah."
Q: "Any other contributions, any other persons who have made contributions to LMT?"
A: "Jerry Armstrong."
Q: "How much?"
A: "I think it was 100,000."
Q: "Any idea where Mr. Armstrong got his hands on a hundred grand?"
A: "No."
Q: "Was this before or after you loaned him the money to engage Mr. Abbott to bring suit? Before or after that?"
A: "It was after, sometime in 2001, I believe."
Q: "So let me see if I got the sequence correct. Mr. Armstrong was in need of money to pay Mr. Abbott to bring a lawsuit against some Scientology entities in Nevada and you loaned him a hundred grand?"
A: "Right. Well, wait a minute now. You're - you know he didn't make it exactly clear what he was doing with this money at the beginning."
Q: "Let me withdraw the question. At some point in time Mr. Armstrong asked you for a loan of $ 100,000?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "At his request you sent that money to Mr. Abbott, the attorney in Nevada?"
A: "Well, I think the first thing I did is I sent Gerry Armstrong some of the money in one year and then towards right at the end of the year and sometime in the early part of the next year, he asked me to send - I don't know whether it was 75,000 or 90,000 to this Abbott guy."
Q: "Can you tell me what year that was that you sent the money to Mr. Abbott?"
A: "I think it was 2000 – well, yeah I think the money to Armstrong was in '99, I think."
Q: "And the money to Abbott in 2000?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "The money to Armstrong in '99. Did he ever repay any part of it to you?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "All of it?"
A: "Yeah."
Q: "Some of it?"
A: "All of it."
Q: "When?"
A: "Sometime mid 2001." [ ... ]