(amicus) B, Source Documents

[Nomen Nescio]

B. SOURCE DOCS

The following source documents are available on file and not included in
the printed version:

Stacy Brooks, second affidavit
Stacy Brooks, testimony volume one
Stacy Brooks, testimony volume two
Stacy Brooks, our own summary of vols one and two

Bob Minton, second affidavit
Bob Minton, testimony volume one
Bob Minton, testimony volume two
Bob Minton, our own summary of vols one and two

(our summaries are for our internal purposes
and don't really add any new information).

[Anonymous]

1 you don't know that, then you can't --
2 THE WITNESS: Okay.
3 A So anyway, Judge Baird -- I mean, it was -- you
4 know, he had to post a $20,000 bond. Sandy Rosen was the
5 attorney who was trying to -- everything he could to get the
6 judge to put him in jail for coercive, whatever,
7 incarceration. And it was only, you know, by the skin of
8 his teeth that he avoided sitting in jail for a week before
9 the deposition went forward.
10 Well -- so then Mr. Dandar in December started
11 calling and, you know, saying, "Look --"
12 BY THE COURT:
13 Q December of --
14 A Of 2001. Just now.
15 Q Okay.
16 A And started saying, you know, "I need more money,
17 you need to help, you've just got to help he me out, this
18 kind of stuff." And I was up in New Hampshire with
19 Mr. Minton, and I was saying, "Don't you dare give him any
20 more money. Don't even think about it. Do not give him
21 another penny." And Mr. Minton was telling Mr. Dandar, you
22 know, "No, I can't do it," whatever.
23 Now we're going into January. Mr. Dandar wants
24 Mr. Minton to meet him. And I know about this because I was
25 there and I heard these conversations. He wants him to meet
0193------------------------------------------------------------------

1 him in Nashville. He wants him to meet him in the Cayman
2 Islands. You know, "Please, please." He's e-mailing him.
3 He's -- and I saw the e-mails. "Please, you know -- please,
4 you can't let me down. You know, you've got to come through
5 for the case." You know, this kind of thing. All caps, you
6 know. E-mail all caps.
7 And Bob is like, "Oh, God, you know, this is
8 terrible." And I'm saying, you know, "Don't give him any
9 more money. He doesn't care what's going to happen to you.
10 He's only trying to get more money, you know, for his own
11 reasons." And I was totally -- had a break with Mr. Dandar
12 by that time.
13 And so finally, Mr. Minton said, you know, if you
14 want to come up to see me at my house in New Hampshire, you
15 can. And that's when --
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q Did -- did Mr. Dandar come up to New Hampshire?
19 A Yes, he did.
20 Q When was that?
21 A I think it was the last weekend -- weekend in
22 February, and he brought Dr. Garko with him.
23 Q What happened at that meeting?
24 A The first thing -- pretty much the first thing
25 that happened was Mr. Minton absolutely broke down and got
0194------------------------------------------------------------------

1 hysterical. He was crying. You know, he was very, very,
2 very distraught about feeling that he couldn't trust --
3 sorry, it's making me shiver -- that he couldn't trust
4 Mr. Dandar; he couldn't trust Dell Liebreich; he couldn't
5 trust the estate. That he felt like he was being used.
6 EXAMINATION
7 BY THE COURT:
8 Q This is February of 2002?
9 A Yeah. Just now.
10 That he felt that Mr. Dandar had this group of
11 people that were -- that had launched a smear campaign
12 against him on the Internet.
13 Your Honor, you probably don't frequent the
14 Internet very much, but --
15 Q I'm petrified to even think about looking on one
16 of these here now Internet. I might like to look just to
17 see, but I'm afraid somebody might turn it into something
18 suspicious in this case. So I have never looked. I'd like
19 to. If the lawyers give me permission, I wouldn't mind
20 fishing around and seeing what in the world's out there, but
21 I'm afraid somebody's --
22 Q You can't even --
23 Q -- going to make it --
24 A You couldn't even believe it. You couldn't
25 believe what you'd see.
0195------------------------------------------------------------------

1 This newsgroup, ARS --
2 MR. LIROT: Just listening.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 THE COURT: Sit down, Counselor. If you've got
5 an objection -- if you don't, sit down.
6 A This newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology, is a
7 place -- it's where Mr. Minton first found out about
8 Scientology. You know, he frequents it all the time. It's,
9 you know, for the critics --
10 BY THE COURT:
11 Q What is it?
12 A It's a newsgroup. It's sort of like a bulletin
13 board. It's sort of like an electronic bulletin board.
14 People go in there and post messages. And then somebody can
15 go in and post a response to that message and then somebody
16 else can and then somebody else can and then you end up
17 with, you know, sometimes a hundred or more, basically,
18 conversations going on about a subject.
19 And you know, I have asked Mr. Minton, so many
20 times, "Please, stop looking at this stuff." But you know,
21 he's -- he's an Internet person. And you know, all these
22 critics go on this thing and, you know, he wants to see what
23 they're saying.
24 So it's a very good place to go to attack him, if
25 you want to upset him.
0196------------------------------------------------------------------

1 And so from the time that Mr. Minton informed
2 Mr. Dandar that he was longer in the wrongful death case,
3 that was in September, I think, of 2001, a campaign was
4 launched on this newsgroup that was saying very, very
5 hurtful things about Mr. Minton, about me, about the LMT,
6 you know, about how --
7 Q Like what? I mean, a lot of money had been given.
8 What was -- what was being said?
9 A You know -- God, you'd have to read these things
10 to believe it. That, you know, Mr. Minton was working for
11 Scientology all along; that he was selling everybody out
12 from the very beginning; that I was an agent for
13 Scientology; that, you know, we were betraying everybody;
14 that the Lisa McPherson case was the most important thing in
15 the world and that we were doing everything we could to
16 destroy the case now. And you know, this may not sound like
17 terrible things to you, but after what Mr. Minton had done
18 for the case, it was very hurtful to him. Particularly to
19 feel that Mr. Minton -- Mr. Dandar was encouraging -- at
20 least encouraging this.
21 Q But you have no way of knowing that.
22 A Yes, we did.
23 Q Okay.
24 A Yes, we did.
25 Q How was that?
0197------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Because the people who were writing these things
2 were posting that they were talking to Mr. Dandar.
3 Q What does that mean, posting? I don't understand
4 the Internet.
5 A Posting means you write a thing on your computer
6 and then you punch a button that says "send now" and it gets
7 posted. You know, like if you take a piece of paper and
8 post it on the bulletin board? You send it electronically
9 and it gets posted on this newsgroup. And then once it's
10 posted, everybody else all over the world, they log on --
11 Q I mean, are they saying -- I guess what I'm asking
12 you is, you said, yes, we do know. Is that -- is that
13 because it was saying that --
14 A Yes.
15 Q -- Ken Dandar says --
16 A Yes.
17 Q Well, these -- these people that were saying these
18 awful things, surely you didn't -- didn't necessarily -- you
19 didn't believe anything else they were saying, why did you
20 believe that?
21 A It wasn't --
22 Why do we believe that they were talking to Ken
23 Dandar?
24 Q Yeah.
25 A Just from the things that they were writing, it
0198------------------------------------------------------------------

1 looked like he really was giving them information and giving
2 this one woman permission to start a -- a -- a thing on --
3 on the Internet to try to raise funds --
4 Q Did he tell you he was that desperate to get more
5 money?
6 A Mm-hmm.
7 Q Did he tell you he was pretty desperate, that he
8 was running out of money?
9 A Oh, yes.
10 Q And he wasn't going to be able to continue the
11 case without it?
12 A Yes.
13 Q So you really felt he was desperate?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Okay.
16 A I think he really was.
17 So anyway, I was describing this conversation when
18 they came up to New Hampshire.
19 Q So what you had said, I think, is that Mr. Minton
20 broke down.
21 A Yes.
22 Q And you said he couldn't trust anybody and --
23 A No. He said he couldn't trust --
24 Q -- he couldn't trust Ken and couldn't trust
25 Ms -- trust Ms. Liebreich.
0199------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yeah. And then -- sorry -- and then there were a
2 lot of conversations that were had. I had a very lengthy
3 conversation with Mr. Dandar, just the two of us, about some
4 of the attacks that have happened against me, against
5 Mr. Minton --
6 Q What attack? I mean, I don't know what -- I don't
7 know what you're talking about.
8 A Smear campaign --
9 Q On the Internet again?
10 A -- whispering campaign.
11 On the Internet and -- within the critic community
12 there, you know, I -- you know, I felt that there had been a
13 fairly concerted effort to drive a wedge between me and
14 other critics of Scientology, you know, sort of basically
15 to -- to isolate us.
16 Q What -- at this point in time --
17 A From our friends.
18 Q -- you hadn't come forward and recanted. You'd
19 lied for the case. Mr. Minton had provided an inordinate
20 amount of money, more money that I can imagine. I mean, why
21 in the world would -- I mean, why would Mr. Dandar be
22 suggesting anything about this when everything you had done,
23 as you've just testified here, was at his request? And plus
24 a lot of money to boot.
25 A But --
0200------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Why would you
2 think this?
3 A Why would I think what?
4 Q That Mr. Dandar was out trying to drive a edge
5 between the critics and you.
6 A Well, in fact, your Honor, it turned out to be the
7 truth, and he said so at -- in New Hampshire to us.
8 Q Well, why? Was it 'cause there was not enough --
9 more money?
10 A Because he was trying to put -- I mean, this is my
11 belief. That --
12 Q What did he say?
13 A -- he was trying to put pressure on Bob to
14 continue funding the case, and that he knew how important it
15 was to Bob to be well thought of in the critic community.
16 And he knew how bad it would make Bob feel that the whole
17 critic community was turning against him because he was
18 stopping the funding.
19 Q So in your mind the whole thing then, this whole
20 thing being done by Mr. Dandar, was wrapped around money --
21 A Yes.
22 Q -- it wasn't as if you haven't -- you, Mr. Minton,
23 hadn't done plenty to help --
24 A Yes.
25 Q -- to the tune of lying for him, as your testimony
0201------------------------------------------------------------------

1 is, to the tune of giving a whole slew of money. So you
2 think all this happened because Mr. Dandar, gee, he'd only
3 had 1.8 million at that time?
4 MR. FUGATE: I think it's 1.8-50 --
5 THE COURT: -- 8-something.
6 MR. FUGATE: Yeah.
7 BY THE COURT:
8 Q And he needed more.
9 A That's right.
10 So Mr. Dandar said, "Listen, I will get them to
11 stop this" --
12 Q Who is -- who is they? I'll get them?
13 A These people that he had~--
14 Q The Internet people.
15 A Yeah, the Internet people --
16 Q Okay.
17 A -- that were posting this stuff. And he said,
18 "I'll get them to stop." I mean -- and in fact, later he
19 called -- he called to speak to Mr. Minton, but he was
20 asleep and I spoke to him. And he called to say, "Listen,
21 these people, the people that were doing all this posting
22 and everything, said that they'll stop doing it if you guys
23 will take a certain thing off of our Web site." You know
24 what a Web site is?
25 Q Mm-hmm. Well, I don't know if I do or not, but --
0202------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well, it's just a place where people can go to get
2 information.
3 Q Right. What is "our Web site," though?
4 A The LMT Web site.
5 Q Okay.
6 A The LMT Web site. "If you guys will take this
7 stuff off of your Web site that they don't like." Well, I
8 wasn't sure that Mr. Minton would agree to do that, if I
9 asked him, so I made a unilateral decision to take it off --
10 to have it taken off myself without asking him that.
11 We had it taken off and -- you couldn't believe
12 how instantly the criticism and the attacks stopped on the

13 Internet.
14 Q What Web site is this? The LMT Web site?
15 A We took some information off of our LMT Web
16 site --
17 Q What information?
18 A It was some little snippets of this movie, The
19 Profit -- I don't know.
20 Q You mean you could actually watch some little
21 snippets?
22 A Like a minute. I think there were five one-minute
23 snippets of the movie.
24 Q Okay.
25 A And these people were really mad about those
0203------------------------------------------------------------------

1 snippets being up on the Web site.
2 Q Why? These are -- I don't even know who's who.
3 Are these the anti-Scientologists --
4 A Yeah.
5 Q -- or the pro-Scientologists?
6 A The anti-Scientologists.
7 Q The anti-Scientologists.
8 A Listen, your Honor, the anti-Scientologists have
9 been angrier at us and more threatening at us and more
10 intimidating of us than Scientology ever even thought of
11 being. I'm not kidding. That's how we feel.
12 Q Okay.
13 A So you know, if we --
14 Q There are those, you know, that might say the same
15 thing about Mr. Minton?
16 A About what?
17 Q About Mr. Minton. That he might -- that the -- he
18 was part of this antigroup, right?
19 A Yes.
20 Q They may say that he was just as dangerous anti as
21 the Scientologists were pro.
22 A You know, your Honor, the way I look at it now is,
23 this is -- you know, people have turned this whole thing
24 into a holy war, and both sides, you know, are dug in to
25 their perspective. And you know, what's needed in this
0204------------------------------------------------------------------

1 whole thing is dialogue. That's how I feel about it.
2 Q Maybe what's needed is resolution.
3 A Resolution would be wonderful. But dialogue could
4 perhaps start that path.
5 In any case, at the end of that -- at tend of that
6 weekend Mr. Dandar -- when Mr. Minton broke down on
7 Saturday, I think Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko both realized
8 that Mr. Minton was seriously, seriously distraught about
9 the situation. And what Mr. Dandar did was, on Sunday
10 morning before they left, he got out the questions that you
11 had ordered Mr. Minton to answer that he had previously put
12 the Fifth Amendment to. He got out those questions and he
13 started coaching Mr. Minton on how to answer the questions.
14 Q Okay.
15 A And --
16 Q Go ahead.
17 A And this was in my presence. I saw this myself.
18 He was coaching Mr. Minton to answer the questions
19 untruthfully.
20 Q Like what? Which ones?
21 A Well, this is where this fat man thing came up.
22 For example --
23 (There was an interruption in the proceedings.)
24 THE COURT: I'm not going to have it.
25 Mr. Bailiff, you go out there and you find out if
0205------------------------------------------------------------------

1 anybody else has got a phone on. Talk to them one
2 at a time. Next person whose phone goes off in this
3 courtroom is going to be barred permanently. I'm
4 not going to have it. If you've got a cell phone
5 out there, turn it off.
6 Go on ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: What was I saying?
8 MR. FUGATE: I don't even remember. That was
9 sort of an interesting tune.
10 I think you were talking about --
11 THE COURT: It was, and that's why -- it's very
12 disconcerting, because out of the clear blue you
13 start thinking da-da, da-da, da-da-da-da-da-da.
14 MR. FUGATE: She was talking about -- I know
15 what she was talking about. She was talking
16 about --
17 You were talking about Mr. Dandar --
18 THE WITNESS: Oh, coaching.
19 MR. FUGATE: Going through the questions.
20 THE WITNESS: The coaching. Oh, yeah. And you
21 wanted to know an example.
22 THE COURT: Right.
23 THE WITNESS: And I said, "This is where the
24 fat man came up."
25 THE COURT: Right. The fat man came up.
0206------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY THE COURT:
2 Q I only care about coaching, I suppose, on issues
3 that have been brought to my attention that may be relevant
4 to what I'm doing. That would be as to the money and as to
5 the agreement and as to -- I don't know, you can -- I know
6 the money and the agreement. If there's something else, you
7 can raise it.
8 A The money.
9 Q The money meaning the two checks, that there was
10 nothing wrong with it.
11 A There were --
12 Q At that time was there two checks?
13 A Well, there weren't two checks yet. There
14 weren't --
15 Q Okay. One check.
16 A -- two checks until a couple days later. But
17 there was -- there were questions that were going to that
18 issue, and then there were also questions that were going to
19 the issue of funds to the LMT.
20 Q Okay. Let's talk about the check. And you said
21 he told him how to handle it. What did he tell him to say?
22 A Well, he said, "You only have to concern yourself
23 with the checks you've written, Bob. You know, what's the
24 problem here? You only have to concern yourself with the
25 checks you've written."
0207------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Okay.
2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
3 BY MR. FUGATE:
4 Q What did you understand that to mean?
5 A Don't talk about that other $500,000 check because
6 you didn't write it. You didn't actually write the check.
7 Q And what did you understand "you didn't actually
8 write it" to mean?
9 THE COURT: I've never had this kind of money.
10 How does one get somebody to send $500,000 without
11 the --
12 THE WITNESS: It was a bank -- it was a bank
13 check.
14 THE COURT: Well, you just pick up the phone,
15 call your bank, say, "Send $500,00"0? Is that how
16 it works? I don't know. I'm not rich.
17 THE WITNESS: It seems -- it seems to be
18 something like that.
19 THE COURT: Really?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
21 BY MR. FUGATE:
22 Q So in --
23 THE COURT: How do they know it's the right
24 person on the telephone?
25 MR. WEINBERG: It's a little more than that.
0208------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: I would hope so. Otherwise give me
2 the number.
3 MR. FUGATE: I can't help you 'cause --
4 THE WITNESS: I don't really know.
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY THE COURT:
7 Q So he said, "You only have to concern yourself
8 with the checks you've written"?
9 A Yes, your honor.
10 Q Okay.
11 A And there was another thing about the fat man, but
12 that doesn't concern that particular check, so --
13 Q Okay.
14 A In any case, it was my understanding that
15 Mr. Dandar now understood how distraught Mr. Minton was
16 about having to -- about putting himself in danger by
17 perjury, and that Mr. Dandar was now helping him ease his
18 concerns by helping him -- by coaching him about how to
19 answer the questions so that he wouldn't be caught, I guess.
20 So then they left --
21 Q They being?
22 A Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko. And I said, "Don't even
23 think the thought of giving him any more money. I hope
24 you're not." And Mr. Minton said, "Well, you know, I just
25 kind of feel like I'm in so deep now that it's really not
0209------------------------------------------------------------------

1 going to make any difference at this point."
2 Because you know, Mr. Dandar had really, really
3 begged him to give him enough money to get him through the
4 trial. And he had really appealed to Mr. Minton's
5 commitment to this case; commitment to, you know, his
6 anti-Scientology work. You know, "you've come this far, you
7 know, don't -- you know, please help me, you know, get this
8 thing through to the end." You know, that kind of thing.
9 And so, you know, Mr. Dandar made several phone
10 calls to Mr. Minton; you know, "Have you written it? Is it
11 coming?" I found out from Mr. Minton that he had, in fact,
12 written another check -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- not written
13 another check, but caused another check to be issued.
14 Q One of those magical phone calls?
15 A One of those phone calls.
16 Q Right.
17 A You know, I don't have --
18 Q That none of us knows how to do.
19 A But -- but --
20 Q I mean, I know this is true, this is how it
21 happens, I just don't really -- we'll ask Mr. Minton when he
22 comes in. I mean, there must be a code or something. I
23 mean, it's late in the day. There's just got to be a code.
24 Just got to be able to call and give a number.
25 MR. WEINBERG: He'd probably like to tell you
0210------------------------------------------------------------------

1 that off the record.
2 THE COURT: I wasn't going to ask him that, but
3 there's got to be some things that one goes through.
4 Go ahead. I'm sorry. We'll probably stop at
5 the end of your case 'cause I just really have a
6 huge headache.
7 So if you could --
8 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm --
9 THE COURT: Not you, him. He's -- if you could
10 get done with the direct --
11 MR. FUGATE: I'll try to shut up, Judge --
12 THE COURT: -- of the witness that we were
13 going to finish today.
14 MR. FUGATE: Okay.
15 A So he sent the check.
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q All right. And was there any more discussion, to
19 your knowledge, about that check to Mr. Minton -- to your
20 knowledge, with Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar about whether that
21 should be reviewed -- that check?
22 A Yeah.
23 Q And what was that?
24 A Well, then -- I mean, you know, this was the
25 beginning of March, and meanwhile, you remember that I'm
0211------------------------------------------------------------------

1 having Mr. Howie call and initiate settlement talks with
2 Scientology. So now --
3 EXAMINATION
4 BY THE COURT:
5 Q You're trying to negotiate a settlement with
6 Scientology. In the meantime --
7 A And meanwhile, Mr. Minton is continuing --
8 Q -- putting out a quarter of a million bucks --
9 A Right.
10 Q -- to try to help --
11 A I'm saying, "Jeesh, don't --"
12 Q Tough to negotiate a settlement like that.
13 A Don't -- how are we going to settle it if you're
14 continuing to fund the case? Exactly.
15 And so Mr. Minton is being a little bit sheepish
16 about that. And then we get word from Mr. Howie that, you
17 know, these two contempt hearings are going forward in --
18 you know, in the beginning of April, in which Mr. Minton is
19 going to be put in jail for contempt either by Judge
20 Schaeffer or by Judge Baird.
21 Q Or both.
22 A Or by both.
23 And so --
24 Q Would it please you to know that I've never put
25 anybody in jail for contempt in 21 years?
0212------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A You haven't? Because your Honor, you said on the
2 record one time that you'd be perfectly happy to put
3 somebody in jail for six years --
4 Q Well, I don't know if I said for six years, but I
5 have always said that, and that's what I use to get results,
6 but --
7 A I'll tell you something. We believed you. And
8 that was a lot of the reason why --
9 Q The maximum time that anybody can be put in jail
10 for criminal contempt is five months and 29 days.
11 A Is that right?
12 Q That is right. So that is the maximum sentence,
13 okay. So if anybody ever told you differently, that's it.
14 A Well, I --
15 Q And I guess I did put one defendant in jail once
16 for that amount of time. I couldn't even remember what it
17 was. He started swearing at me in court. And we had -- he
18 was on the floor, swearing at me. He called me every rotten
19 name in the book. And finally called me a woman. I mean,
20 that was the -- bailiff arrest him -- he was calling F --
21 all in all I figured I had to do something. I didn't know
22 what it was because I'd never used this contempt power that
23 I had. And I did it very poorly, I might add. But I tried
24 to get a contempt hearing going so that the next several
25 people appearing wouldn't think that was good procedure.
0213------------------------------------------------------------------

1 I threaten a lot. I've never held anybody in
2 contempt except him.
3 A Well, we believed you.
4 Q I don't hesitate -- I wouldn't hesitate to use it.
5 I mean, I'm sure your lawyer or somebody said I'm not happy
6 with the fact that you and Mr. Minton have admitted that you
7 committed perjury. I'm sitting here today, you know? I'm
8 sitting here today, it's quarter to 6 on a Friday afternoon,
9 trying to buy a new house. I'm absolutely beat. I'm
10 sitting up nights reading this that you see. And I'm not
11 saying that it's just you all. But certainly I know it's
12 you all because you said it is.
13 Now, you know, I don't know what you thought
14 before, but I mean, we're going to have to come to some --
15 some day there's going to be a day of reckoning. I'm not
16 saying I'm going to put you in jail. Please don't think I'm
17 threatening you. Wouldn't do that to you. But you just
18 don't get to commit perjury in any judge's court. Say
19 you've committed perjury and then expect the judge to say,
20 "Well, thanks a lot for coming in."
21 I mean, do you understand what's going on here?
22 What you've caused, helped to cause? And I'm not saying
23 it's just you. Do you understand that you've created some
24 chaos here?
25 A Your Honor, I understand it very well.
0214------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Okay. Let's try to get through the
2 direct, if we can.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 THE COURT: And as I said, I don't mean to be
5 threatening. Now that you know I've never held
6 anybody in contempt in 21 years. I used to teach
7 it. I used to have a wonderful time teaching it to
8 new judges. And I'd always tell them, "Don't do
9 it." If you have to hold somebody in contempt you
10 don't have control of your courtroom. So you know,
11 I thought I had pretty good control of my courtroom
12 so I didn't have to use it.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
14 BY MR. FUGATE:
15 Q My question was --
16 THE COURT: Don't be afraid just because you've
17 heard from somebody that I said that. I mean, as I
18 said, I'm very frustrated. I'm very frustrated that
19 we're -- we're having to go through this. We're
20 going to go through it Monday. We're going to go
21 through it Tuesday. And I've got a couple motions
22 they want me to hear about the issues in the case.
23 And I'm having to deal with all this.
24 So it is frustrating and --
25 THE WITNESS: At best. At best.
0215------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: All right. If I were you, I would
2 never do it again.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I promise I never
4 will.
5 BY MR. FUGATE:
6 Q All right. My question was, was there any other
7 discussion, to your knowledge, between Mr. Minton,
8 Mr. Dandar about whether or not to reveal the last $250,000
9 payment or check?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. And what was that?
12 A Mr. Minton had by now gotten in touch with his
13 counsel, not only in Florida but also in Boston. And he was
14 now aware that he was going to have to tell the truth about
15 these checks.
16 Q And the "he" is --
17 A Mr. Minton.
18 Q Okay.
19 A And he told Mr. Dandar that --
20 Q He, Mr. Minton?
21 A -- in a phone conversation.
22 Q He, Mr. Minton, told --
23 A Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that he was going to
24 have to tell the truth about the checks. And Mr. Dandar got
25 very distraught about that. And said, "Bob, you know, you
0216------------------------------------------------------------------

1 only have to testify about the checks you've written. You
2 don't have to bring that up."
3 THE COURT: When was this, ma'am, again?
4 THE WITNESS: Sometime in mid-March.
5 BY MR. FUGATE:
6 Q Of 2002?
7 A Yeah. And then we -- Mr. Minton and I had a
8 meeting in New York with Sandy Rosen, Mike Rinder and
9 Monique Yingling, who's another attorney for Scientology.
10 And we sat down with them, with Mr. Minton's Boston counsel,
11 Steve Jonas.
12 Q Steve --
13 A Steven Jonas.
14 THE COURT: Boss? Did you say boss?
15 THE WITNESS: Boston.
16 THE COURT: Oh, Boston.
17 A Boston.
18 And Mr. Minton and I went into this meeting with
19 every intention of settling with Scientology and getting out
20 of this litigation altogether, in whatever way -- well, not
21 in whatever way, but by severing all ties. And we sat down
22 and we told them that --
23 THE COURT: This is going to go on for a long
24 time, isn't it?
25 THE WITNESS: No. He's almost over. It's like
0217------------------------------------------------------------------

1 another two sentences, if you want me to hurry.
2 THE COURT: Oh. Are we on your affidavits, you
3 mean?
4 THE WITNESS: No. We're on the settlement
5 talks.
6 THE COURT: Oh.
7 THE WITNESS: And I'll make it fast.
8 THE COURT: I'm talking about your direct
9 testimony. I'd like to get through the direct. How
10 much longer is it?
11 MR. FUGATE: If she said two sentences, I'm
12 guessing two sentences, Judge.
13 THE COURT: I'm guessing two hours. Go on
14 ahead.
15 MR. FUGATE: I didn't say how long they were
16 going to be.
17 THE COURT: I know.
18 A Anyway, we told them that we wanted to walk away;
19 that we wanted -- Mr. Minton was going to stop funding; that
20 I was going to stop providing any declarations; that I would
21 withdraw my declarations that I already filed; that we
22 didn't want anything more to do with Scientology litigation
23 anymore and to please just let us walk away.
24 Well, much to our horror, what they said was
25 that --
0218------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Who's they? Tell us -- let's say
2 who said what.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Rosen.
4 THE COURT: Mr. Rosen.
5 A Mr. Rosen said that they would be more than happy
6 to sit down with us and talk settlement once we set the
7 record straight in the Florida cases. And we said, "What do
8 you mean?" And he said, "Well, we have reason to believe
9 that you have not been forthcoming in your testimony in
10 discovery in those cases. And before we'll talk to you
11 about settlement in any way, you're going to have to set
12 those records straight."
13 And that night Mr. Minton and I called Mr. Dandar
14 and --
15 THE COURT: Do you remember what date this was?
16 THE WITNESS: I think it was --
17 THE COURT: Day?
18 THE WITNESS: Maybe it was March 28th.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Are we still in the dep- --
20 am I -- am I --
21 MR. FUGATE: I think you've gone beyond now. I
22 think she's talking about why she --
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 A And -- no. 'Cause I'm telling you about another
25 conversation that happened about the checks.
0219------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Actually, I did ask that, so --
3 A Yeah.
4 EXAMINATION
5 BY THE COURT:
6 Q So you called Mr. Minton -- Mr. Dandar --
7 A Mr. Dandar.
8 Q On March 28th.
9 A On March 28th, and told him that -- and Mr. Minton
10 told him that he was going to have to start telling the
11 truth about what had been going on. And --
12 Q He, meaning Mr. Minton, told he, Mr. Dandar --
13 A Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar --
14 Q -- was going to have to start telling the truth.
15 A No. No. Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that
16 Mr. Minton was going to have to start telling the truth.
17 Q I got you.
18 A And you know, it was sort of warning him, you
19 know, sort of letting him know that this was happening.
20 And -- and we had a little bit more of a
21 conversation on that night, but basically we ended it that
22 night by Mr. Dandar saying, "Look, let's get together in
23 Cleveland. I have to go to Cleveland for a heart --"
24 Q -- checkup.
25 A "Checkup. And let's meet there --"
0220------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just
2 trying to --
3 A Yeah. Checkup.
4 Q Okay.
5 A Well, next night -- so then the next day we went
6 into the settlement talks again and -- and we said, "Listen,
7 you know, we'll get started on setting the record straight,
8 but we want you to put back -- push back these two contempt
9 hearings that are just about to come up next week."
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
11 BY MR. FUGATE:
12 Q Continue the contempt hearings?
13 A We want you to continue those contempt hearings so
14 that, you know, Mr. Minton doesn't have that hanging over
15 his head while we're trying to sort this out.
16 Well, Mr. Rosen said, "We're not stopping
17 anything. You know, those things are going to go forward as
18 scheduled. You know, we'll be glad to arrange for -- you
19 know, to pick back up on the settlement talks when you've
20 set the record straight. But you know, you'll have an
21 opportunity to do that in these hearings down in Florida or,
22 you know, however you want to do it. But we aren't
23 continuing with the settlement talks until that happens and
24 we're not putting off anything."
25 Well, then we were really, really upset. And then
0221------------------------------------------------------------------

1 that night we called Mr. Dandar again. And that was the
2 famous phone conversation where Mr. Minton said, you know,
3 "You're going to have the blood of -- my blood and the blood
4 of my family on your hands if you -- if you won't agree to
5 drop this case."
6 EXAMINATION
7 BY THE COURT:
8 Q Why was he asking him to drop the case? Was that
9 a demand made by Mr. Rosen?
10 A No. No.
11 Q Where did it come from? Where did Mr. Minton pick
12 this up?
13 A Well, it was because that was the only way we
14 could think of to save the case from having what's now
15 happening happen. Where all this -- you know, he and I are
16 both having to recant testimony. You know, the critic
17 community is in an uproar. We're in all this trouble. And
18 you know, we were trying to shortcut, shortcircuit the whole
19 process by just getting him to drop the case. You know,
20 hoping to avoid having to testify that Mr. Dandar had
21 encouraged us to commit perjury.
22 And you know, all these different things that were
23 going on in our mind, we thought that Mr. Dandar would be
24 more -- would rather have that, have the -- you know, have
25 the case dropped than go through all this.
0222------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q So what was it that --
2 A That's what we thought.
3 Q I don't know. I've read this somewhere. I've
4 read so much I don't remember. But somebody says under
5 oath, or maybe not under oath, that the request to have the
6 case dropped came from the Scientologists. If you want
7 to -- us to discuss this, you're going to have to get the
8 case dropped. This case, dropped.
9 Are you suggesting that was never said? Was it
10 just something that you and Mr. Minton came up with?
11 A Well, I've been trying to get them to drop the
12 case since the summer before, your Honor.
13 Q Well, when you met with the Scientologists --
14 whoever, Mr. Rosen and Mr. who?
15 A Mr. Rinder and Ms. Yingling.
16 Q And Ms. -- is it a Ms.? It's a woman,
17 Ms. Yingling.
18 A It's a woman, yes.
19 Q Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen -- did they tell you
20 before they would settle the case you had to get this case
21 dropped? Before they would settle with you, whatever it was
22 that was, you had to get this case dropped.
23 A No, your Honor. What they said was, "You -- you
24 have to set the record straight in this case. We have
25 reason to believe that if the truth really comes out in this
0223------------------------------------------------------------------

1 case, that this case will -- that the judge will probably
2 throw it out. We have reason to believe --" you know,
3 basically it was like that. "We have reason to believe that
4 there's been so much -- God -- you know, whatever, bad -- so
5 much bad stuff that's happened in the case that that may
6 well be the result it."
7 Q Okay. So you called Mr. Dandar that night and
8 asked him to drought drop the case.
9 A Yes.
10 Q That was March the 30th, I take it?
11 A That was March the 29th.
12 Q Oh, okay, March the 29th. Right. Okay.
13 A And you know, he got very upset. He said,
14 "There's no way. You know, this case is too important. I
15 can't believe you're saying these things. You know, I can't
16 believe you would do that --"
17 Q Did he know you were meeting with Mr. Rosen and
18 Mr. Rinder? I mean, had you all told him that?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay.
21 A I believe so.
22 Oh, oh, yeah. And you're -- you know, they're
23 threatening you. They've got something on you. You know,
24 this is when this all started.
25 And you know, Bob was very upset. I was very
0224------------------------------------------------------------------

1 upset. Mr. Dandar was very upset. Everybody was very
2 upset. And so then -- and I'm sorry this is -- I'm going to
3 do this as fast as I can.
4 But your hearing then happened the next Friday,
5 where Mr. Minton was on trial for contempt, for criminal
6 contempt. And that was the hearing when Mr. Moxon was going
7 through, you know, this -- this history of -- of discovery
8 with Mr. Minton. And you know, I'm sitting there in the
9 courtroom and I'm listening to all this.
10 And then he gets to this one -- I can't remember
11 what the affidavit was about -- but you know, it was the one
12 that just didn't match anything else that Mr. Minton had
13 said. You might remember that. And I thought, oh, you
14 know, she's going to find him guilty.
15 And then Mr. Howie got up and he did this judgment
16 of acquittal argument and found this technicality. And you
17 had to throw it out and find him not guilty on a
18 technicality.
19 Q I didn't have to throw it out. I threw it out
20 because he didn't -- Mr. Moxon didn't meet the -- didn't
21 make it stick.
22 A Right.
23 Q In other words, it was -- there was a technical
24 error. And by law, he was not guilty.
25 A Right. But --
0225------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q A judgment --
2 A But --
3 Q -- of acquittal. It had to be.
4 A But as far as we were concerned, it was a miracle.
5 Q Okay.
6 A Because if that technicality hadn't happened, he'd
7 be in jail. You tell me now you don't put people in jail,
8 but --
9 Q No. I never have. I was not happy with
10 Mr. Minton.
11 A Well, we believed with all our heart that you
12 would have put him in jail.
13 Q Okay.
14 A And we -- and at that point, after that hearing
15 before you, and you admonished him that you -- he was -- I
16 don't think you said this exactly, but what you meant was,
17 "You got away with it this time, but you better not try it
18 again." That's what I heard.
19 Q Sounds like me.
20 A Yeah. And that's what Mr. Minton heard too. And
21 so the next day we went over to Wally Pope's office, and we
22 spoke to Mr. Rinder and Ms. Yingling. And we told them that
23 we were ready to start the process of correcting the record.
24 And there came a point during that afternoon where
25 Mr. Minton was ready to start telling them what had really
0226------------------------------------------------------------------

1 been going on and he started to gag, and he went outside and
2 he was really sick at the thought of doing this. But you
3 know, I said, "This is our only hope. It's our only hope.
4 We have to do this and we have to trust them."
5 You know, because -- you know, here we are, now
6 we're talking to Scientology, you know, these people that we
7 have been fighting for so long, that -- you know, or these
8 horrible, evil people. And you know, now we're -- we're
9 going in there and now we're going to start telling them the
10 truth about what's been going on. I mean, it was like --
11 you know, it was -- it was just almost unbearable. And --
12 Q Well, we've already established that what you were
13 going to tell them the truth about were two things that were
14 fairly insignificant except for the fact that Mr. Dandar was
15 a part of it. You were going to tell them about an
16 agreement that was perfectly all right. You were going to
17 tell them about a -- some checks that were perfectly all
18 right.
19 A Well, it may seem that simple to you now, but to
20 us at that time, what we were about to do was change sides,
21 totally turn our backs on all the people that we had been
22 working with so hard, admit to perjury, admit to discovery
23 abuse. I mean, pretty serious discovery abuse. And we
24 were -- we really had no idea what was going to happen to
25 us. But we didn't feel that there was any other choice that
0227------------------------------------------------------------------

1 we had.
2 And I wish I could tell you that, you know, I woke
3 up one morning and I thought, I have to tell the truth
4 because it's the right thing to do. But really what
5 happened was that Saturday --
6 Q That would have been March 30th?
7 A No. That was after the day after your hearing, so
8 it was April 6th.
9 Q Okay.
10 A Really what happened was that Saturday we went
11 outside in the front parking lot of Wally Pope's office and
12 said, "We have no choice but to recant our testimony and put
13 ourselves on the mercy of these courts."
14 And that's what happened.
15 MR. FUGATE: I have no more questions.
16 THE COURT: All right. Seems like a good time
17 to take our break. Now, look, this is an awfully
18 long weekend. I am going to permit you, ma'am --
19 you're still on the stand. Cross examination will
20 come on Monday. I'm going to treat this like I
21 would treat something and I'm going to let you talk
22 to your lawyer.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: But I am not going to let you --
25 you are on the stand. You cannot talk to anybody
0228------------------------------------------------------------------

1 else. Now I understand how tough that might be, but
2 clearly, obviously, that means Mr. Minton, he's a
3 witness, the rule's been invoked --
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: And you can't talk to any of these
6 people. You can't talk to any of those people.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Okay? But I'm not going to
9 preclude her from talking to her lawyer 'cause I
10 think that's -- it's a long weekend and she ought to
11 have somebody she can talk to about what's going on
12 if she needs to. Is that fair?
13 MR. LIROT: To speak with her attorney and no
14 one else.
15 THE COURT: With her attorney.
16 MR. LIROT: That's fair.
17 THE COURT: She can speak to -- you can speak
18 to anybody you want to, but you just can't --
19 THE WITNESS: But not about this.
20 THE COURT: Not about this. Not about your
21 testimony. Not about what your testimony that's
22 going on, it's going to go on. But you can talk to
23 your lawyer about anything involving this case. Is
24 that okay with you, Counsel?
25 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge, we just as a reminder
0229------------------------------------------------------------------

1 ask her to comply with all the requests for
2 production and all the documents that were shown to
3 her at those meetings.
4 THE COURT: I'm sorry.
5 MR. LIROT: Meetings with Scientology. We'd
6 like her to bring those with her on Monday.
7 THE COURT: What? I don't know what you're
8 talking about?
9 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, there was a request
10 to produce that was filed as a request to produce --
11 THE COURT: In the other case?
12
13 MR. MCGOWAN: Pardon?
14 THE COURT: In the other case or in this case?
15 MR. MCGOWAN: No, in this case.
16 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
17 MR. MCGOWAN: But it's a request to produce,
18 like a 30-day request to produce, that asks for all
19 the documents that admits extortion and blackmail
20 and so forth.
21 THE COURT: I saw that, but I thought that
22 was -- honestly I thought that was in the other
23 case.
24 MR. MCGOWAN: It was in this case. But in
25 either case, it was a 30-day request to produce.
0230------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Okay. To be honest with you, what
2 does that mean? They've had 30 days to produce it?
3 MR. MCGOWAN: They've had 30 days for these
4 documents that they'll tell you don't exist.
5 THE COURT: Well, look, if you've got them and
6 you can bring them, please don't make me have
7 another hearing, Counsel.
8 MR. MCGOWAN: I won't, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: So she's got a notice to produce
10 and it's going to be something they need for their
11 cross examination and you've got them in hand,
12 forget the 30 days. Give them to her, let her bring
13 them in so that they can talk to her about it.
14 Okay?
15 MR. MCGOWAN: Certainly.
16 THE COURT: I don't want to have another
17 hearing after 30 days, and she doesn't either. Fair
18 enough?
19 MR. MCGOWAN: I think no one does, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. LIROT: Judge --
22 MR. MCGOWAN: Your Honor, if it -- if it please
23 the court, I have another case besides this one, and
24 I have a commitment at 9:00 Monday morning. I'll be
25 out of it by about 10:15.
0231------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: You know what, I think I remember
2 my secretary telling me we didn't start until 1:30
3 on Monday?
4 MR. MCGOWAN: Oh, is that right?
5 MR. FUGATE: 1:30 on Monday and then 9:00, if
6 we go, on Tuesday.
7 THE COURT: If we go? Come on, Mr. Fugate.
8 MR. FUGATE: I'm just telling you what you said
9 to me, Judge.
10 THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Who else do you have
11 to call in your case?
12 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Minton.
13 THE COURT: And then at that time you're going
14 to rest?
15 MR. FUGATE: Yes.
16 THE COURT: And then at that time I'm going to
17 hear legal argument from you, is that right?
18 MR. LIROT: Yes, please.
19 THE COURT: We might get that far, maybe, by
20 Tuesday. Maybe. I doubt it. But we might.
21 You understand, ma'am, the admonition I've
22 given you?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: If they come in and ask you, "Who
25 have you talked to over the weekend" and you say,
0232------------------------------------------------------------------

1 "I've talked to Mr. Minton about it and I've talked
2 to Mr. Moxon about it, Mr. Fugate about it," I'm
3 going to be livid, right?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Do the best you can. Don't talk to
6 anybody about your testimony. You're on the stand.
7 THE WITNESS: I promise I won't, your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Except him. You can talk to your
9 lawyer.
10 All right. That's it. We'll see you all 1:30
11 Monday.
12 (A recess was taken.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0233------------------------------------------------------------------

1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
4 STATE OF FLORIDA )
5 COUNTY OF PINELLAS )
6 I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
authorized to and did stenographically report the
7 proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
complete record of my stenographic notes.
8
I further certify that I am not a relative,
9 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
10 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
interested in the action.
11
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of May, 2002.
12
13 ______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

[Anonymous]

0094------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 MR. LIROT: Just her knowledge of it.
3 BY MR. FUGATE:
4 Q Are you aware of any factual information, in all
5 your involvement in the case, that, "Lisa McPherson was held
6 against her will in isolation, and when she did not respond
7 to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from
8 David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and
9 watched her die after she no longer had the strength to
10 fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was
11 the chosen option to minimize a public relations flap"?
12 MR. LIROT: Objection.
13 THE COURT: Where are you reading?
14 MR. FUGATE: I'm reading from 44, your Honor,
15 of Mr. --
16 THE COURT: 44?
17 MR. FUGATE: 44 of Mr. Prince's affidavit.
18 THE COURT: Oh, okay. I was reading --
19 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry.
20 THE COURT: -- the complaint.
21 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to go back to
22 that.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 Asked and answered, was that your objection?
25 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge.
0095------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Sustained.
2 MR. FUGATE: The -- I'm reading now from
3 paragraph 34, Judge, of the complaint as it exists.
4 BY MR. FUGATE:
5 Q "The decision made by Scientology through the Sea
6 Org by David Miscavige and carried out by Karduzinski,
7 Johnson and Houghton, was only due to their desire to
8 protect Scientology from bad public relations."
9 Were there any facts known to you to support that
10 allegation?
11 A No.
12 Q And when it says that, "The defendants, in total
13 conscious disregard for the rights of Lisa McPherson,
14 willfully, intentionally, wantonly --"
15 THE COURT: Asked and answered, Counsel. You
16 already went through that. She said there were no
17 facts to support that.
18 MR. FUGATE: Okay.
19 THE COURT: If that's what your question was.
20 MR. FUGATE: That's what my question --
21 THE COURT: That's what I thought.
22 MR. LIROT: Thanks, Judge.
23 BY MR. FUGATE:
24 Q And from your conversations with Mr. Dandar, did
25 you understand that he understood there were no facts to
0096------------------------------------------------------------------

1 support that?
2 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained. And --
4 Well, I mean, she's already told us that he
5 didn't know the -- they didn't tell him the
6 affidavit was false, so how in the world could he
7 know that the complaint was false?
8 MR. FUGATE: Well, let me ask that.
9 BY MR. FUGATE:
10 Q Did you tell him that the end cycle comments in
11 there were false?
12 A Yes. Jesse and -- I did object to using that term
13 because it wasn't something that was going to be --
14 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge, unresponsive.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 A It wasn't something that was going to be credible.
17 I mean, it was something that was going to be easy for
18 Scientology to -- to discredit.
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q And did he put it in anyway?
21 A Well --
22 Q He being Mr. Dandar?
23 THE COURT: I mean, if you know. I don't know
24 if you were there --
25 THE WITNESS: I don't --
0097------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: -- discussed it between --
2 THE WITNESS: I wasn't there for him to write
3 this, but --
4 THE COURT: Well, then she can't testify about
5 that.
6 BY MR. FUGATE:
7 Q You were there for the drafting of -- and input
8 into the Jesse Prince affidavit, is that correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you -- did you say you assisted in the
11 drafting of the fifth amended complaint that we were just
12 reading from?
13 MR. LIROT: Asked and answered.
14 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to overrule it
15 because I think maybe she did say that she was. I
16 don't really understand it, if she wasn't there,
17 the --
18 A I didn't understand -- I didn't get your question.
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q I don't want to confuse you either.
21 I had asked you, did you take part in the drafting
22 of the fifth amended complaint?
23 A No. And with regard to the drafting of
24 Mr. Prince's affidavit --
25 Q Mm-hmm.
0098------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A -- I wasn't -- I don't believe that I was at the
2 office for its drafting. I may be wrong about that. But --
3 MR. FUGATE: Excuse me, your Honor, I can't
4 hear from conversation that counsel --
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry. All right, folks, same
6 thing back there. I mean, both sides have got to be
7 quiet so that she can hear, Mr. Fugate can hear and
8 so that I can hear.
9 A I don't recall whether or not I was actually there
10 for the drafting of the affidavit. I believe I was, but I
11 don't recall. What I do know, I was -- what I do know, my
12 involvement was in the drafting of his affidavit was many
13 conversations, as I said, in which I coached him on the
14 correct state of mind.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q To be able to put in what's in this affidavit as
17 the end cycle and the orders and the stuff that we just went
18 through and read.
19 A Well, to be able to basically create the scenario
20 in which the Scientology leadership would have directly
21 ordered her death.
22 With regard to -- that's why I'm saying, with
23 regard to end cycle, I would not have suggested that that be
24 used because I didn't think it was credible and I suggested
25 it not be used. But it's very inflammatory, as you -- as is
0099------------------------------------------------------------------

1 the language in this whole paragraph. It's a fairly severe
2 assault on Scientology.
3 Q But the fact of the matter is it was used.
4 A Right.
5 Q And is the fact of the matter, would you say, that
6 was the intent of Mr. Minton in funding the litigation?
7 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation.
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q As far as you know?
10 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation.
11 THE COURT: If she knows.
12 If you know that.
13 A I do know, and yes, it was.
14 BY MR. FUGATE:
15 Q All right. And were you present at any meetings
16 between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton where including this
17 language specifically charging intentional death on orders
18 of ecclesiastical leaders of the church was discussed and
19 agreed to?
20 A In phone calls.
21 Q Can you tell us about those?
22 A Well, I was present at Mr. Minton's end of the
23 phone call.
24 Q Okay.
25 A So I don't know what Mr. Dandar said on his end of
0100------------------------------------------------------------------

1 the phone call.
2 But I was present for at least one discussion in
3 which Mr. Minton was very pleased with the language that was
4 used and very pleased to see that Mr. Dandar was accusing
5 the leadership of murder.

6 EXAMINATION
7 BY THE COURT:

8 Q If I understood you correctly, ma'am -- and I've
9 really got to get this -- is you use words -- I mean,
10 there's words that always get used in the case. When you
11 said you got into the state of mind, I think what you're
12 saying is you got Jesse Prince stirred enough where he was
13 able to in his mind conjure up that's true. Is that what
14 you're telling us?
15 A I would say that's a pretty good way to put it.
16 But Jesse was already pretty stirred up.
17 Q But you were able to -- in other words, that's why
18 you told us that when Jesse came in -- Mr. Prince came in to
19 testify, that he would tell us it was true, because you --
20 and I remember what you just said. You got him to talk
21 about this could have happened and that could have happened
22 and --
23 A That's right.
24 Q -- you were helping him get to this state of mind
25 where he could write that, believing it.
0101------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yes, your Honor.
2 Q And --
3 A And --
4 Q -- he passed that information on to Mr. Dandar.
5 A Yes. And I think that Jesse will testify that he
6 believes it to this day.
7 MR. LIROT: Object -- objection.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 A And I think that it's incorrect to say that
10 Mr. Dandar believed this.
11 BY THE COURT:
12 Q Okay.
13 A Because Mr. Dandar's behavior wasn't such that I
14 thought he believed it.
15 Q Okay. And this is back at the time that it was
16 drafted. In other words, back in and around -- let's say --
17 A '99.
18 Q -- December of '99?
19 A Yes, your Honor.
20 Q Okay. Did he say anything specific? Did you and
21 he have any conversation where that was said, or anything
22 like that was said?
23 A Where anything like, where he would --
24 Q Where Mr. Dandar --
25 A -- he --
0102------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q -- yeah -- where Mr. Dandar said, "I know this is
2 not true but I'm going to say it anyway 'cause it's going to
3 really get them," something like that.
4 A Well, you know, Mr. Dandar wouldn't say something
5 like that because he's very careful not to say things like
6 that. But he has certain gestures and ways in which he
7 shrugs and goes like that, that let you know that we're kind
8 of in cahoots.
9 Q What --
10 A That's --
11 Q What specifically about this, the fifth complaint,
12 if you recall, that --
13 I don't know Mr. Dandar well enough --
14 A His mannerisms, yeah.
15 Q What did he do that caused you to think that he
16 was filing a complaint that he knew was false?
17 A Well, when I read Jesse's affidavit, I thought it
18 was a little over the top, to say the least. In that I
19 thought the language was so dramatic that it wasn't very
20 credible. And I told Mr. Dandar that. And he said, "Well,
21 I'm using it. And it says what I need to have -- you know,
22 whatever -- says what I needed to say."
23 Q Okay.
24 A And then he did this sort of thing that he does.
25 I can't -- I can't repeat it, but it's just --
0103------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q I'm sorry. I don't know what it is either. He
2 has a gesture --
3 A He has a gesture where he kind of goes like that.
4 (indicating).
5 I don't know how to tell you to write that.
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. FUGATE:
8 Q Well, the date of the Jesse Prince affidavit, by
9 the way -- again, if you would look at it -- it's August of
10 1999 --
11 A August.
12 Q -- correct?
13 A 20th, yeah.
14 Q And the complaint that we've been discussing was
15 date stamped in, I think, January of 2000, and it was dated
16 the 21st of December, 1999, correct? The one you have there
17 in front of you?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q And prior to this, were there several other
20 complaints that were similar to this in language only they
21 said they identified Mr. Miscavige as the chairman of the
22 board of the Religious Technology Center?
23 A Yes.
24 THE COURT: Do we have to ask this witness
25 things that are part of the record?
0104------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry?
2 THE COURT: I mean, do we have to ask this
3 witness things that are part of the record? You can
4 bring this out in closing argument. We need to make
5 her a fact witness and what she can do to assist us
6 in resolving this.
7 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to get -- let
8 me --
9 THE COURT: We'll get to that.
10 BY MR. FUGATE:
11 Q Was there a discussion about how to get around an
12 order of Judge Moody relating to how to put Mr. Miscavige
13 back into the complaint, this fifth amended complaint that
14 you've just identified?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And what was that discussion?
17 THE COURT: And I guess we better know between
18 whom, and who was there.
19 A Okay. Mr. Minton and myself, Dr. Garko,
20 Mr. Prince and Mr. Dandar, Ken Dandar, were there. Judge
21 Moody had ruled that it would breach the contract -- it
22 would be a breach of contract for -- for Mr. Miscavige to be
23 named as the chairman of the board of RTC, but he had -- and
24 I was at that hearing. So --
25
0105------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q I was going to ask you that. Were you at that
3 hearing?
4 A I was at that hearing, and I remember him saying,
5 "But if you want to try to figure out another way to put him
6 in there that's not corporate," or something like that, you
7 know, "I'll -- I'll look at your new motion," or something.
8 So Judge Moody had left the door open for
9 Mr. Miscavige to be named as a defendant in some other
10 capacity if Mr. Dandar could figure out a way to do it.
11 Q Some other capacity other than as chairman of the
12 board of the Religious Technology Center.
13 A Right, some other way that wouldn't be a breach of
14 that contract.
15 Q And while we're talking about that, did you know
16 if at that point in time -- and I'm saying August of 1999 or
17 thereabouts -- that Mr. Dandar or Ms. Liebreich had entered
18 into a contract not to add RTC or CSI or Mr. Miscavige or
19 any of the ecclesiastical leaders?
20 A After the hearing before Judge Moody I knew it.
21 Q Didn't know it be before --
22 A But --
23 Q -- that?
24 A I don't recall, but I certainly knew it then.
25 Q And so was there then, is it fair to say, a
0106------------------------------------------------------------------

1 problem that had to be solved as far as getting around Judge
2 Moody's order?
3 MR. LIROT: Objection.
4 THE COURT: I don't get it. Like problem what?
5 A legal problem? I mean, this is what lawyers do.
6 MR. FUGATE: Pleading problem.
7 THE COURT: Well, isn't that what lawyers do?
8 If they weren't able to do something one way and
9 they want to try to do it, they try to figure out a
10 way?
11 MR. FUGATE: Well, let me ask --
12 THE COURT: Well, I don't know. She's not a
13 lawyer.
14 A But that is what happened.
15 THE COURT: Maybe you are. Are you a lawyer?
16 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 BY MR. FUGATE:
19 Q What happened?
20 A Well, right away I said, "Name him as a defendant
21 as the head of the Sea Org."
22 THE COURT: As head of what?
23 THE WITNESS: The Sea -- the Sea Organization.
24 Like S-E-A, Sea Organization.
25
0107------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q And was there a -- in your mind, was that a
3 legitimate way to put him in the lawsuit? Was that true?
4 A Well, I thought it would probably work. But there
5 isn't really a thing called the head of the Sea Org.
6 Q Okay.
7 A But I thought it might work.
8 Q And did it work?
9 MR. LIROT: Objection. I guess that remains to
10 be seen.
11 BY MR. FUGATE:
12 Q Well, let me ask it another way. If you go
13 back --
14 Do you still have the -- do you still have the
15 complaint there?
16 A Yes.
17 THE COURT: I'm not going to ask her to tell us
18 whether his name is in the caption of the complaint.
19 I need you to move on. I mean, it is.
20 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry. I didn't understand.
21 THE COURT: Well, I don't want her to have to
22 sit here and answer, while we sit, and have her
23 explain to us what's in a pleading that we can read
24 ourselves.
25
0108------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Well, the allegation that I had referred you to --
3 and I'll just go directly to it to save time -- is in
4 paragraph 34, the statutory wrongful death claim. It
5 indicates that, "A decision was made by Scientology through
6 the Sea Org by David Miscavige and carried out by," blah,
7 blah, blah, those -- the defendants. Did you see -- did you
8 see that?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And was that language language that was
11 fabricated, as you said, to --
12 MR. LIROT: Objection. Mischaracterizes the
13 evidence.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q How did that allegation, to your knowledge, find
17 its way into the fifth amended complaint?
18 A By my suggestion.
19 Q And was that suggestion made to Mr. Dandar?
20 A Yes, it was.
21 MR. LIROT: Objection on competency.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 BY MR. FUGATE:
24 Q And was that objection agreed to by everyone in
25 the trial team?
0109------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Everyone except Dr. Garko. Who --
2 Q He objected?
3 A Strenuously.
4 Q And did you explain to Mr. Dandar that that was
5 not an accurate allegation; that there wasn't a, quote, head
6 of the Sea Org, as you've just indicated?
7 A Did I explain it to him? I don't think I
8 explained it to him. But you know, I told him that I
9 thought he could create a credible argument, because you
10 know, based on the role the Sea Org plays in Scientology
11 and -- you know, we didn't really discuss it in terms of
12 whether it was true or not; we discussed it in terms of --
13 THE COURT: Whether it was --
14 A As a strategy.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q As a strategy, did you say?
17 A As a strategy.
18 Q And was -- was that also part of conversations
19 with Mr. Minton to engender or to gain more funding in the
20 lawsuit --
21 A Yes.
22 Q -- between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And did you ever have discussions with Mr. Dandar
25 at any time about ways to increase damages or to increase
0110------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Scientology's desire to settle the case for large numbers,
2 in your judgment?
3 A Yes.
4 Q What were those?
5 A Well, from the beginning --
6 Q When and where, if you can tell us.
7 A Well, I think the first time was in the first
8 phone call that we had in the spring of 1997. I mean, it
9 came -- and then he came out and visited us.
10 I mean, basically this was why Mr. Dandar
11 contacted us, because of this previous strategy that I had
12 developed about --
13 THE COURT: Counselor, is there something
14 nefarious about trying to get good damages when you
15 file a lawsuit?
16 MR. FUGATE: I think that's --
17 THE COURT: If not, let's move on to something
18 else. I mean, that's usually what plaintiffs do
19 when they file a lawsuit, is try to figure out how
20 to build damages. Unless -- and I would like to
21 know this -- unless there was some discussion that,
22 "What can we do that's fraudulent, false and what
23 you have to build damages." I mean, were those
24 discussions had? Or was the idea, "How can we build
25 damages and get the church to settle for a high
0111------------------------------------------------------------------

1 sum."
2 THE WITNESS: The -- the discussion was how to
3 put pressure on the leadership of Scientology to
4 force them to settle.
5 THE COURT: I mean, you required -- you -- as
6 you indicated to us earlier, you remembered about --
7 I think it was you that testified --
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE COURT: -- what you had heard before about
10 bringing L. Ron Hubbard in and --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: And that brought about a quick
13 dropping of the suit so you thought this might help
14 to settle the suit.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q We're talking about two things, and so we don't
19 get too confused in the record here, let me just go back and
20 finish the meeting that we were talking about between
21 yourself, Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Garko and Mr. Prince
22 about the -- how to get around the Moody order.
23 Can you tell us what else was said there in that
24 meeting, to the best of your recollection today?
25 A Basically Mr. Dandar said, "Listen, I want to get
0112------------------------------------------------------------------

1 some feedback from you guys about whether or not I ought to
2 add -- whether or not I -- try again to add Miscavige." And
3 you know, this was my pet strategy so I was really pushing
4 it and --
5 Q And what was --
6 A And I said, "Yes."
7 Q What was Mr. Minton's position on that?
8 A Mr. Minton didn't say much until the end of the
9 meeting.
10 Q What did he say at the end of the meeting?
11 A At the end of the meeting he said -- he said,
12 "Actually, I'm afraid that this is going to add an enormous
13 amount of cost to the case. So to that degree, I don't
14 think it's a good idea."
15 Q And what did Mr. Dandar say?
16 A Mr. Dandar said, "Hmm, well, I'll think it all
17 over. Thanks for your input."
18 Q And then what happened, to your knowledge?
19 THE COURT: What do you mean what happened?
20 Did they go home or what?
21 MR. FUGATE: You're right, Judge.
22 BY MR. FUGATE:
23 Q The amended complaint was filed and were there
24 more funds after that complaint was filed in --
25 THE COURT: Well, Counselor, you're not going
0113------------------------------------------------------------------

1 anywhere here. The man that you're talking about
2 said don't do something, he did, so you can't very
3 well turn around and say he followed Mr. Minton's
4 wishes and got more money. It's too late for that.
5 She just testified differently. So you move on to
6 something else.
7 BY MR. FUGATE:
8 Q Let's go back then -- did you receive a letter
9 from Mr. Dandar? I think you say in paragraph 7 of your
10 affidavit that you got a letter, you and Mr. -- your
11 then-husband Vaughn Young, got a letter from Mr. Dandar in
12 May of 1997?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And you have quotations in it that I'm enclosing a
15 copy of the --
16 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence rule.
17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I was making a note
18 here or something and I didn't even hear what was
19 happening.
20 MR. FUGATE: I'll go back, Judge.
21 THE COURT: I think he was laying a predicate.
22 MR. FUGATE: I had switched, as you said --
23 THE COURT: Thank you.
24 MR. FUGATE: -- to a different topic, and that
25 was, would you go look at your paragraph 7 in your
0114------------------------------------------------------------------

1 second affidavit --
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. FUGATE: And she -- I was asking her about
4 language that is quoted there that says, "He sent a
5 letter in May, 1997 in which he stated --" and
6 there's a portion in quotations --
7 THE COURT: Okay. And you said best evidence?
8 MR. LIROT: Best evidence rule. I'd like to
9 see the whole letter, Judge.
10 THE COURT: Well, let me look at it just a
11 minute.
12 MR. LIROT: Very good.
13 THE COURT: Do you have this letter?
14 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. LIROT: Judge, I want to register an
17 objection here. I'd like to see the letter, but
18 we're stomping all over Mr. Dandar's work product in
19 a lot of this. And I think -- I'm as curious as you
20 are about the facts of what's been alleged, but I
21 have deep concerns about --
22 THE COURT: Well, I do too. You know what,
23 Counselor, the problem is, is that letter is in the
24 hands of the opponent. And they're saying that your
25 client ought to be thrown off this case. So if they
0115------------------------------------------------------------------

1 didn't have it, then I would say that's something to
2 be concerned about it. But they're the opposition
3 and they've got it. So don't you think we're past
4 that? I mean, we're past it.
5 MR. LIROT: We don't have --
6 THE COURT: The reason for a work product
7 privilege is so the opposition doesn't get to know
8 your work product. The opposition in this case is
9 the defendant who is -- however it is that they're
10 named -- they've got the letter.
11 MR. LIROT: I --
12 THE COURT: So I don't know, do you want to
13 keep me from seeing it or this witness?
14 MR. LIROT: No, Judge, I don't mind you seeing
15 it. I'm just curious how they got it.
16 THE COURT: I agree with you, but I mean, how
17 can we protect a product privilege when the
18 opponent's got the work product.
19 MR. LIROT: You make a good point, Judge.
20 THE COURT: Well, I thought I might.
21 MR. LIROT: Judge, if we could just have a
22 second?
23 THE COURT: You could.
24 You all can always tell when it gets a little
25 later in the day, can't you? I go from being just
0116------------------------------------------------------------------

1 so nice in the morning. I can tell, myself.
2 See, what's happening is exactly what I said.
3 These two lawyers appear -- by that I better
4 specify -- Mr. Fugate and Mr. Lirot appeared at my
5 door at noon, and everybody said, "Oh, this is going
6 to move along." I said, "Wrong. We'll never finish
7 with her this afternoon." And guess what, we're
8 not.
9 MR. FUGATE: Right as usual.
10 THE COURT: Why is it that -- I know you guys.
11 And that's exactly what I said, didn't I? I know
12 you guys. It isn't going to happen. And you're not
13 going to finish on Monday and Tuesday. It's going
14 to go on and on and on.
15 MR. LIROT: Here you go, sir.
16 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your
17 Honor?
18 THE COURT: You may.
19 MR. FUGATE: At the moment I have one, and I'll
20 give it to her and I'll ask her to hand it up to
21 you --
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 MR. FUGATE: -- to identify.
24 Here.
25 THE COURT: Did we give the clerk, by the way,
0117------------------------------------------------------------------

1 the thing from this morning? Did you get that,
2 Madam Clerk?
3 THE CLERK: Yes.
4 THE COURT: So this will be the next -- we're
5 going to introduce this?
6 MR. FUGATE: Yes, we can.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q I'm looking over the rail, there.
10 Are you looking at three pages or two pages?
11 'Cause I've got -- okay. Good. 'Cause I have a two-page
12 letter.
13 Do you recognize the May 2nd, 1997 letter to you?
14 A Yes. Do you want me to give it to the judge?
15 Q Well, I guess I can give the judge my copy.
16 MR. FUGATE: And we'll then ask that this be
17 made our next exhibit number, which is 74 or -5?
18 THE CLERK: -4.
19 THE COURT: Now, this is the other side's
20 exhibits, and they're way up there. Did you say -4?
21 I know that's wrong.
22 THE CLERK: You're right. That's the
23 plaintiff's.
24 THE COURT: See, she's using the other side's.
25 So you got to get this right.
0118------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the reason I said 74 or 75
2 is 'cause what we thought we'd do, for the sake of
3 not erring like we have before, is we'll just
4 continue our exhibits that are in your binder, which
5 I think went to --
6 MR. WEINBERG: It was 72 --
7 MR. FUGATE: 72.
8 MR. WEINBERG: 73.
9 MR. FUGATE: Well, wrong as usual.
10 73.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. LIROT: What are the transcripts?
13 MR. WEINBERG: Those are court exhibits.
14 THE COURT: That was a court exhibit.
15 MR. LIROT: Very good.
16 THE COURT: Number 1.
17 MR. FUGATE: I'll hand a copy up for you to
18 look at, and then one of these, we'll make --
19 THE COURT: All right. So this, Madam Clerk,
20 will become -- well, we're going to have to continue
21 with the same -- this will become the church's
22 Exhibit Number 73.
23 (Defendant's Exhibit Number 73 marked for identification.)
24 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Fugate.
25
0119------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Did you have a chance to read the letter?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And the portion that you quoted there, which is,
5 "I'm enclosing a copy of the proposed amended complaint. I
6 intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent. Would
7 Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation
8 and their condition, et cetera --" was that how you first
9 became involved with Mr. Dandar and what he was first
10 looking for in his engagement of you and your husband?
11 A Yes.
12 MR. LIROT: Objection --
13 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.
14 MR. LIROT: Withdrawn.
15 A Yes. He had -- it was my understanding that he
16 had seen some of my earlier declarations, and he had seen --
17 he had become familiar with the strategy that I outlined in
18 those declarations with regard to Miscavige.
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q And would that be through -- are we aware that
21 Mr. Dandar had met Mr. Wollersheim and counsel for
22 Mr. Wollersheim at that time?
23 A I believe he mentioned that in the phone
24 conversation. I became aware of it soon after, if not then.
25 Q And are you aware that Mr. Minton had met
0120------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Wollersheim and that was part of his funding
2 anti-Scientology --
3 THE COURT: Why do we care about that? Is
4 there a reason for that?
5 MR. FUGATE: Well, it ties up with what she
6 said earlier.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 A I'm aware of it now. I wasn't aware of it then.
9 I didn't know Mr. --
10 THE COURT: She wasn't aware of it.
11 EXAMINATION
12 BY THE COURT:
13 Q How did you answer Mr. Dandar, would Mr. Miscavige
14 have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their
15 condition?
16 A I said he could have.
17 Q Yeah. So you told him the answer to that is -- is
18 yes or could have or something like that?
19 A I said -- I said, "Again, if you want to put
20 pressure on Scientology, you should go after Miscavige."
21 See, your Honor, the thing I don't remember is,
22 it's my -- it's my recollection that the reason he said
23 this, "I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent,"
24 was because of the phone call that we had. But he may have
25 already had that intention prior to the phone call. But
0121------------------------------------------------------------------

1 that was my thing, you know, that's what I -- that's what I
2 said. So we had already discussed it over the phone.
3 Q But he's asking you. You and your husband at that
4 time are -- I don't know what you were. You were either
5 experts or -- or consultants or something. And I guess he
6 says, "I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent,"
7 and then this is a question to you, Stacy and Vaughn, "Would
8 Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation
9 and their condition?" And your response to him was --
10 A "He could have."
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. FUGATE:
14 Q Okay. Now if you look at page 7 --
15 THE WITNESS: You know, for your purposes, he
16 could have.
17 EXAMINATION
18 BY THE COURT:
19 Q Well, I mean, I've read something -- and I've
20 read, as I said, an awful lot about the church's procedures,
21 but I've read something somewhere, and good Lord knows where
22 it could be, that said somebody that is in PTS-III
23 condition --
24 A Mm-hmm.
25 Q -- would be reported clear to the top. The top is
0122------------------------------------------------------------------

1 David Miscavige. So if that's true, then he would know. If
2 that's not true, then he wouldn't know.
3 A Well, actually I said that.
4 Q Oh, well, then that's where I read it. Was that
5 true?
6 A I don't believe so.
7 Q Oh, well, then I read it -- because I think when I
8 read something -- I guess one just shouldn't assume that
9 anymore. But I think when I read something, especially an
10 affidavit or something from a witness, I can believe it and
11 I can put it in my bank of memory and know that it's
12 accurate. So --
13 A I can understand why you would expect that.
14 Q Okay.
15 A But in this circumstance --
16 Q Well, how high up does it go? Who does -- does it
17 just go up to Mr. Karduzinski, for example? I mean, we know
18 that.
19 A Well --
20 Q Does he report to somebody about these PTS-IIIs?
21 Which we know Lisa McPherson was. I mean, that's the
22 church's position, that she was in an introspection rundown,
23 which is why none of that gets to be looked at by a jury.
24 A Right. Right.
25 Q And I'm protecting that. So I mean, I'm
0123------------------------------------------------------------------

1 protecting a religious practice of the church.
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. At their request.
4 A Mm-hmm.
5 Q How high up does it go? What's going on with one
6 of these PTS-IIIs.
7 A Well, first of all, I've got to tell you that, you
8 know, this happens in Scientology -- I mean, I suppose it
9 happens anywhere in life, but it happens in Scientology that
10 a person, you know, freaks out and has to be under watch for
11 a while to make sure that they're okay. On a routine basis
12 with one of these things, it -- and I mean, I'm telling you
13 totally my speculation here -- based on my experience as
14 well, but my experience is from the '80s.
15 But I do not think that on a routine basis
16 everybody who freaks out is reported to Miscavige.
17 Q But we're talking about someone here who was in
18 this state for 17 days.
19 A Right.
20 Q And I presume that's a fairly long time.
21 A I -- I would say so.
22 It was based on the fact that she was in that
23 state for a long time, you know, that we speculated that he
24 might have been told about it. And you know, it's not the
25 kind of thing that you can say, yes, he would have been told
0124------------------------------------------------------------------

1 about it or, no, he wouldn't have been told about that.
2 It's -- it's impossible to know.
3 Q But he might have been, which is the reason why
4 you might add somebody, take a deposition and see. Was that
5 discussed?
6 A No.
7 Q Okay.
8 A No.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
10 BY MR. FUGATE:
11 Q Did you understand this to be -- did you
12 understand from Mr. Dandar that this was to be a legal
13 maneuver, the adding of Mr. Miscavige --
14 A Yes.
15 Q -- in an individual capacity to get around Judge
16 Moody's order?
17 A Oh, well, that wasn't regarding this letter.
18 Q No, I'm talking -- I'm sorry -- I skipped back to
19 the August and November/October --
20 A Okay.
21 Q -- '99 period.
22 MR. LIROT: Objection to characterization. I
23 don't know what a legal maneuver is, Judge.
24 THE COURT: Well, if she was told that it was a
25 legal maneuver, then I'm going to let her answer.
0125------------------------------------------------------------------

1 If she wasn't, we're going to have to --
2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I just changed time zones
3 here, so let me get back so we're clear.
4 BY MR. FUGATE:
5 Q I was actually going to direct you back to your
6 affidavit --
7 A Okay.
8 MR. FUGATE: Page 7 and 8, Counsel.
9 THE COURT: Are we done with the letter now?
10 Can I give it to the clerk?
11 MR. FUGATE: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Madam Clerk.
13 Well, let me see that. Let me just read it.
14 Go ahead.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q Did you get a chance to read back to 15 and 16?
17 A Are we going to paragraphs?
18 Q Yeah. Paragraph 15 and 16, on page 7 and 8 --
19 A Of whose affidavit?
20 Q Of your --
21 A Oh.
22 Q Of your second affidavit that was filed.
23 A Okay. Paragraphs 15 and 16?
24 Q Mm-hmm.
25 A Okay.
0126------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q You indicate there, "I knew there really was no
2 such thing as head of the Sea Org, but Dandar thought it
3 would work as a legal maneuver." What did you mean by that?
4 A Well, the Sea Org is a -- is not a hierarchal
5 thing. The Sea Org is -- the Sea Org is something that
6 people join in Scientology when they want to dedicate their
7 whole life to Scientology. And they sign a million-year
8 contract, and it's a very strong commitment.
9 THE COURT: It's a nonpublic member.
10 A It's for sure a nonpublic member. It's the
11 most -- it's the people in Scientology who are the most
12 dedicated to furthering the aims of Scientology, basically.
13 And it's a bit amorphous, really. In other words, it
14 doesn't really have a shape; it doesn't really have an
15 organization in and of itself.
16 BY MR. FUGATE:
17 Q And it's not a corporate entity.
18 A And it's not a corporate entity. But it is a
19 thing. I mean, there is such a thing as the Sea Org.
20 And -- and if you couldn't -- you know, this contract that
21 Mr. Dandar had signed was pretty binding. So you kind of
22 had to slither around it a little bit because they cover all
23 of -- all of the corporate bases. I mean, RTC, CSI, the
24 people that were named in that agreement, that kind of
25 covered the top of Scientology.
0127------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. LIROT: I'd object to that as to
2 competency. I don't know that she has --
3 THE COURT: Well, that's overruled. I think
4 she's quite competent to testify about this. And,
5 quite frankly, I understand it. I understand
6 exactly what she's saying.
7 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think you misunderstood my
8 objection. She's speaking as to the effectiveness
9 of this agreement, stating that it covered the top
10 of Scientology. I think that's a legal conclusion.
11 What she knows is fine, but what the impact of this
12 settlement agreement is, is something I don't think
13 she's competent to testify to.
14 THE COURT: Okay. I think she knew that they
15 were going to have some trouble based on the --
16 based on the fact that there's a summary judgment,
17 for heaven's sake, which means there's no fact at
18 issue. I would say was a pretty tight contract.
19 And you all talked about that.
20 THE WITNESS: It was a pretty tight contract.
21 THE COURT: It was a pretty tight contract.
22 And she knew, and Mr. Dandar knew. But was
23 anybody trying to do anything illegal here? Was
24 this kind of a manipulation to see if there was
25 another way to add David Miscavige, who might have
0128------------------------------------------------------------------

1 known what happened to Lisa McPherson --
2 Isn't that what was going on?
3 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, what was going on
4 was trying to figure out a way to add Miscavige that
5 wouldn't violate that contract.
6 THE COURT: Right. And you indicated, and you
7 certainly had told Mr. Dandar, based on your
8 experience, that -- that in response to his request,
9 that Mr. --
10 THE WITNESS: Mr. Miscavige.
11 THE COURT: -- might have known, might have had
12 a report about what was happening in Lisa
13 McPherson's case. And Dandar thought that if he
14 could get Miscavige in there, as everybody told him,
15 he might get a quick settlement, better settlement,
16 the whole thing. I mean, I really understand this.
17 I understand -- good judges, I guess, just
18 understand both sides of a case pretty well.
19 MR. FUGATE: Well --
20 THE COURT: You guys, as I said, kind of look
21 in a tunnel vision. You only understand your own
22 side.
23 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm reading an affidavit
24 that I'm --
25 THE COURT: I know.
0129------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: -- going to ask her about, because
2 it certainly is set out different there.
3 THE COURT: All right Yes. Yes. I'm sure it
4 is.
5 Who did this affidavit?
6 THE WITNESS: Which?
7 THE COURT: This one.
8 THE WITNESS: Mine?
9 THE COURT: Yeah.
10 THE WITNESS: I did.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 BY MR. FUGATE:
13 Q It says, "Mr. Dandar and I had discussed it,"
14 meaning, I guess, the strategy -- "and had already
15 suggested -- I had already suggested a scenario how this
16 could be done by falsely claiming that Mr. Miscavige had a
17 different role as head of the Sea Organization apart from
18 his --"
19 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object. I would prefer
20 questions --
21 THE COURT: Absolutely. This affidavit is in
22 evidence, and you don't get to go back and ask her
23 now what she's saying is contrary to that. That's
24 kind of like the craziness that went on up there
25 about reading from somebody else's deposition. It's
0130------------------------------------------------------------------

1 in evidence, it stands for what it stands for and it
2 says what it says.
3 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.
4 Now let me go to paragraph 16, because that's
5 my question.
6 BY MR. FUGATE:
7 Q Would you read paragraph 16, which followed on the
8 heels of 15?
9 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think we just talked about
10 this.
11 MR. FUGATE: No, we haven't talked about what's
12 in paragraph 16.
13 THE WITNESS: You want me to read --
14 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may object, this is
15 leading, it's creating testimony. I'd like
16 questions asked, and if her memory's not good enough
17 to answer the question, she can refresh her memory
18 with the affidavit. This is entirely improper.
19 THE COURT: Yeah. I kind of think so too. I
20 mean, we've got an affidavit and you're going down
21 on somebody's affidavit that's sworn to under oath
22 and now asking her in court, read it and tell me if
23 it's true.
24 MR. FUGATE: No, I'm not asking her --
25 THE COURT: The deal is, I think what you need
0131------------------------------------------------------------------

1 to do is say, "At the end of the meeting, what
2 happened," and if she says something different from
3 this, pick it up and question her with it.
4 Otherwise, we're really wasting a lot of time.
5 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, you asked a couple of
6 questions there. We -- and I know you can do that,
7 and you did. We went far afield of where I was
8 headed.
9 BY MR. FUGATE:
10 Q And I want to go back --
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 BY MR. FUGATE:
13 Q -- and ask you, you indicate that the meeting
14 ended, everybody went down in an elevator and there was a
15 comment made by Mr. Dandar. What was the comment and how
16 did you take that?
17 A He said, "By the way, this meeting never
18 happened."
19 Q What did you understand that to mean in reference
20 to the meeting that you had just discussed up here in
21 paragraph 15?
22 MR. LIROT: Objection.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 MR. LIROT: This is a compound question, Judge.
25 THE COURT: Well, not only that, but, "By the
0132------------------------------------------------------------------

1 way, this meeting never happened" is pretty clear.
2 And she can't tell us what was in Mr. Dandar's mind.
3 He'll have to be asked.
4 You can ask what it meant to her.
5 BY MR. FUGATE:
6 Q What did it mean to you?
7 A It meant to me that Mr. Minton wasn't supposed to
8 be in on strategy meetings and we weren't to discuss that he
9 had been and that -- that it never happened.
10 Q And were there strategy meetings after that that
11 you and Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar were involved in, in
12 regards to this litigation?
13 THE COURT: That won't do, Counselor. If there
14 was a strategy meeting, we're going to have to get
15 specific here. You're trying to remove a lawyer. I
16 need to know time, date, place, who was there, when
17 it was and what was said.
18 MR. FUGATE: Well, I just went through the
19 affidavit as to that meeting, Judge, and --
20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, was there any more?
21 MR. FUGATE: That's what I was asking, I
22 thought.
23 THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry.
24 BY MR. FUGATE:
25 Q Were there any more strategy meetings between you,
0133------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar to discuss the trial strategy or
2 pleading strategy in this frame of reference?
3 A There was the meeting that I have already talked
4 about in Philadelphia.
5 Q Mm-hmm.
6 A There were some phone calls when Mr. Minton was up
7 in New Hampshire where Mr. Dandar would update him on what
8 was happening.
9 THE COURT: Were you listening in on them?
10 THE WITNESS: Usually, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 A There was --
13 THE COURT: Then you better go into them. You
14 better go into them one at a time, what they were,
15 what was said.
16 THE WITNESS: Well --
17 THE COURT: If they were strategy session where
18 Mr. Minton was telling Mr. Dandar how to run this
19 lawsuit, we better hear about it. If it was
20 Mr. Dandar telling Mr. Minton what was going on in
21 the case, I don't care to hear about it.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, that's what was
23 happening.
24 THE COURT: All right. Then we don't need to
25 hear about it.
0134------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: I'm not sure I understand.
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q What was happening?
4 A When Mr. Dandar was telling Mr. Minton what was
5 happening. And --

6 EXAMINATION
7 BY THE COURT:

8 Q I think what he's asking, frankly, what's
9 important in this particular piece of this puzzle, is
10 whether -- there's been an allegation Mr. Minton, because he
11 paid money, was somehow or other directing the litigation.
12 So when he's saying strategy session, is what he's
13 talking about, was there any more strategy sessions where
14 Mr. Minton was there making suggestions and telling
15 Mr. Dandar how to run the lawsuit?
16 A Your Honor, I think I've pretty much covered
17 that --
18 Q Okay.
19 A -- earlier in the sense of talking about how
20 Mr. Minton was very adamant about making sure that the focus
21 stayed on Scientology.
22 There were phone calls in which he reiterated
23 that. I can't tell you more specific than that. I just --
24 you know, over a period of time there were a number of phone
25 calls in which that same desire on the part of Mr. Minton
0135------------------------------------------------------------------

1 was reiterated.
2 Q Keep the emphasis on Scientology, not the workers.
3 A Right.
4 Q Did he ever say -- well, I guess what's really
5 important, did he say, "Use these false things that I've
6 told you about"?
7 A No.
8 Q Or was it just where the emphasis was to be?
9 A The emphasis.
10 Q Keep the emphasis on the church, less on the
11 workers. I mean, I don't mean to put words in your mouth,
12 but I'm --
13 He wanted this to make the church hurt.
14 A He wanted --
15 Q Mr. Minton did.
16 A Yes. Yes.
17 Q And he wanted, if there was going to be publicity,
18 for it to be against the church --
19 A Yes.
20 Q -- not against some Janis Johnson that anybody in
21 the world would know about and nobody in the world would
22 write about and nobody would care about. They might write
23 about the Church of Scientology.
24 A Yes.
25 THE COURT: Sorry.
0136------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: That's okay.

2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
3 BY MR. FUGATE:

4 Q You just touched on publicity. Can you tell us,
5 was there, in your understanding, a purpose in the formation
6 of the Lisa McPherson Trust that dealt with creating
7 publicity about anti-Scientology activity and the case --
8 this case in particular?
9 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence. The
10 mission statement for the Lisa McPherson Trust
11 speaks for itself.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
13 BY MR. FUGATE:
14 Q How was the Lisa McPherson Trust started, if you
15 can tell us? If you know.
16 A As I said earlier, and I'll pick it up where I
17 left off before, there was an agreement between the estate
18 and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton that the bulk of the proceeds
19 of the lawsuit were going to go to an anti-Scientology
20 organization that Mr. Minton was involved with as a way of
21 repaying him for his help on the case. And -- and as a way
22 of allowing Mr. Minton to further his aims, which were to
23 attack Scientology.
24 And so when he and I left the board of directors
25 of that early organization, FACTNet, we began making plans
0137------------------------------------------------------------------

1 to create a new organization. And you know, we talked to
2 Mr. Dandar about it, we talked to the family, Dell Liebreich
3 about it. They were very happy. Mr. Dandar was very
4 excited about it. He filed the incorporation papers for us
5 in the fall of '99.
6 And you know, Mr. Minton -- I didn't -- I thought
7 it would be better for this organization to be in
8 Washington, D.C. Mr. Minton wanted it right in
9 Scientology's face, right in downtown Clearwater. Because
10 he wanted to be very confrontational. He wanted to create
11 as much media as possible. He wanted to really broadcast as
12 much as possible the abuse of Scientology.
13 Q Did he, Mr. Minton, discuss that plan with
14 Mr. Dandar, to your knowledge?
15 THE COURT: What plan?
16 MR. FUGATE: The plan --
17 THE COURT: Where to put LMT?
18 MR. FUGATE: Where to put LMT, the purpose --
19 THE COURT: What do you care and what's the
20 relevance of that to this hearing?
21 MR. FUGATE: Well, I think it's set out on our
22 papers, but --
23 THE COURT: Well, tell me real quickly, if you
24 can, what it is. We're here to discuss three
25 things. We finished one, the next thing is the
0138------------------------------------------------------------------

1 agreement, whether there was a agreement, and
2 finally we're going to get to fraudulent and false
3 statements. We've done 1 and 3. What is this
4 about?
5 MR. FUGATE: This goes to the agreement.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. FUGATE: And as you said, the odd fact that
8 things reversed out, whatever it was you said
9 yesterday.
10 BY MR. FUGATE:
11 Q Was -- was there a discussion between
12 Mr. Dandar -- were there discussions between Mr. Dandar and
13 Mr. Minton about the formation and the -- that you've just
14 described, and putting it -- putting the LMT in Clearwater,
15 putting Lisa McPherson's name on it, et cetera?
16 A Yes.
17 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge. Whether there
18 were discussions between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar,
19 I want to know what she knows, not just some general
20 question. I prefer her knowledge.
21 THE COURT: I -- I agree with that. I mean,
22 you're going to have to ask her whether she was a
23 party to these, at the very least. I assume we're
24 going to hear from Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton about
25 these, so if she didn't hear them, then it doesn't
0139------------------------------------------------------------------

1 matter.
2 MR. FUGATE: I think I said of her knowledge,
3 but if I didn't --
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 BY MR. FUGATE:
6 Q Did I say of your knowledge?
7 A I don't know, but I was responding to the ones
8 that were in my presence.
9 Q Okay. Would you tell us about the ones that were
10 in your presence, that --
11 A Well, at that time we were -- we didn't have any
12 other office space so we were working out of Mr. Dandar's
13 office, out of his conference room.
14 Q Who is we?
15 A Mr. Minton and I, to get this organization set up
16 and to find office space and, you know, working on getting
17 it established. And so we spent quite a bit of time over at
18 Mr. Dandar's office, you know, upon several occasions. We
19 were over there discussing the plans for the organization.
20 Q And who was discussing the plans for the
21 organization in the meetings that you've just described?
22 A The three of us, Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and
23 myself. I don't recall who else was there, if anyone.
24 Q Was there a decision to have the personal
25 representative, Dell Liebreich, become part of the Lisa
0140------------------------------------------------------------------

1 McPherson Trust?
2 A Mr. Dandar wanted her on the board actually as a
3 way to publicly demonstrate the connection between the Lisa
4 McPherson Trust and the case.
5 Q And was there a decision --
6 A And sort of her stamp of approval on the
7 organization.
8 Q And that was a discussion that you witnessed
9 between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And was there a decision about using Lisa
12 McPherson's name?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And what was your understanding of the purpose for
15 that?
16 A Because Mr. Minton wanted -- you know, she had
17 become a symbol of -- the wrongful death case had become a
18 symbol for the critic community all over the world, the
19 Scientology critic community all over the world, for the
20 abuse of Scientology. And he wanted that symbol to be the
21 name of the organization.
22 Q Were there discussions then in these preliminary
23 meetings about generating -- just a yes or no -- generating
24 publicity or public sentiment against Scientology as one of
25 the purposes?
0141------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. LIROT: Leading question, Judge.
2 THE COURT: Beyond that, what difference does
3 it make? I mean, I can assume that the LMT -- I can
4 assume that the idea of the LMT was to put Lisa
5 McPherson, the dead person that they said
6 Scientology caused, right there in the forefront. I
7 mean, this is obvious, what it was all about. This
8 is what Mr. Minton wanted it to be all about. Maybe
9 this is what Mr. Dandar wanted it to be all about.
10 And I mean, what -- so what. What we need to
11 know is whether there was an agreement to pay the
12 money from the lawsuit into there and what in the
13 world, if anything, she knew about it. That's
14 really all that I care about for this very small
15 hearing that now is quarter after 4 on your direct
16 that was going to be done today. She was going to
17 be off the stand.
18 Go on ahead.
19 MR. FUGATE: I'm going.
20 THE COURT: And we're going to take a break at
21 4:30, and we're going to go till we finish this
22 witness. Because we're not going to have her
23 brought back after a weekend. We're going to finish
24 her and she's never coming back in this courtroom,
25 in this hearing. So however long that takes, let's
0142------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous User]

64

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
2

3

4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6

7 Plaintiff,

8 vs. VOLUME 2

9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13

14

15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
16
CONTENTS: Testimony of Robert S. Minton.
17
DATE: May 17, 2002. Afternoon Session.
18
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19 St. Petersburg, Florida.

20 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
21
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22 Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
23

24

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

65

1 APPEARANCES:

2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4 Attorney for Plaintiff.

5
MR. KENDRICK MOXON
6 MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
7 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
8 Organization.

9
MR. LEE FUGATE and
10 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
11 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
12 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
13

14 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
15 740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
17

18 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
740 Broadway, Fifth Floor
19 New York, New York 10003
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
20 Organization.

21

22

23

24

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

66

1 APPEARANCES: (Continued)

2
MR. BRUCE HOWIE
3 5720 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida.
4 Attorney for Robert Minton.

5

6
ALSO PRESENT:
7
Mr. Rick Spector
8 Ms. Sarah Heller
Mr. Ben Shaw
9 Mr. Brian Asay
Ms. Joyce Earl
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

67

1 THE COURT: We are ready to go now, I hope.

2 You may proceed.

3 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, your Honor. May it

4 please the Court.

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED

6 BY MR. FUGATE:

7 Q Mr. Minton, we've gone through generically the

8 funding that you can recall in terms of your

9 anti-Scientology litigation funding. And let me ask you

10 this question. Did there come a time when you wanted to

11 direct your attention to Florida. And, if there was, could

12 you tell us how that happened?

13 A I'm --

14 Q I don't know if that makes sense.

15 A I'm not really understanding your question. I'm

16 sorry.

17 Q Well, did there come a time when you came to

18 Florida and became engaged in any litigation in Florida?

19 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying not to lead, Judge.

20 A Well, you know, I was already engaged in

21 litigation in Florida before I came here with respect to the

22 wrongful death case.

23 BY MR. FUGATE:

24 Q Well, then let me ask you this. How did that

25 happen? How is it you were already engaged in litigation in

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

68

1 Florida?

2 A Well, back in October of 1997 -- well, you know, I

3 have to go back a little bit. You know, obviously sometime

4 in early 1997, I think it was February, this case was filed.

5 And in March, March 9 of 1997 --

6 Q "This case" being the wrongful death case?

7 A The wrongful death case, yes. I met Mr. Dandar

8 for the first time at a meeting at the Holiday Inn in

9 Clearwater out on Route 19. He was having a meeting there

10 with Lawrence Wollersheim. And I was in Wollersheim's room

11 while this meeting took place. And I didn't participate in

12 this meeting other than sitting there listening.

13 You know, Wollersheim had some expertise in terms

14 of litigating against Scientology. I think now he's been

15 involved in it over 20 years. And Mr. Dandar was interested

16 in Wollersheim's slant on how he could, you know, deal with

17 this wrongful death case.

18 And so I just listened to this conversation.

19 Q How is it that you happened to be in Florida in a

20 Holiday Inn room with Larry Wollersheim?

21 A Well, this was a picket that was arranged in March

22 of '97 to --

23 Q A picket of what?

24 A A picket of the Church of Scientology. You know,

25 critics from -- you know, not a lot of critics, but a few

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

69

1 people came to -- to Florida for this picket. And the

2 reason I remember the date of March 9 is this was the day

3 there was an article in the New York Times, a lengthy

4 article in the New York Times, about Scientology's tax

5 exemption. And so that is how I got here for this picket.

6 You know, I met Dandar.

7 I didn't have any further contact with Dandar

8 until about October of 1997 when, Mmm, you know, I contacted

9 him because I was aware that, you know, he was the attorney

10 on this case. I had been previously financing this

11 Wollersheim case, which was, you know, a really kind of slow

12 boat to nowhere, it seemed, at the time.

13 And, you know, in terms of the focal point of any

14 sort of anti-Scientology activities, you know, this case

15 seemed like, you know, the flag -- sort of the banner of the

16 whole anti-Scientology movement. And I offered to give

17 Dandar -- you know, to the estate, $100,000 in October 6, I

18 think it was, of 1997.

19 Q That would be the first check that we referenced a

20 few moments ago, which is the October 6, 1997 --

21 A 93A, I think, right?

22 Q 93A?

23 A Yes. That is correct.

24 Q Now, had you -- and if you could date it, fine.

25 Did you -- when you say that this was sort of the banner

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

70

1 case as far as you were concerned, did it have any appeal to

2 you for that reason? Or if it did, could you explain?

3 A Well, yes, it did. I mean, it had appeal. The

4 appeal was that, you know, here was a chance to really nail

5 Scientology. And, you know, this is -- you know, it looked

6 like -- you know, the way it had been portrayed up to this

7 point, it looked like this was an open and shut case, you

8 know, it wasn't going to take forever to deal with it. And,

9 you know, the absolute maximum amount of negative publicity

10 that could possibly be had anywhere would be through this

11 case.

12 Q Negative publicity against --

13 A Against Scientology.

14 Q And did you have any discussions with Mr. Dandar

15 about what sort of return you thought the case may generate

16 in terms of dollars?

17 A Not right at that point. Later in December of '97

18 I did. And, you know, he was talking in the neighborhood of

19 eighty to a hundred million.

20 Q This is what Mr. Dandar told you he was expecting

21 the case would bring?

22 A What he expected the case was worth.

23 Q And do you recall whether you made similar

24 comments about that to the press, or postings?

25 A I did.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

71

1 Q And I'm assuming at that point in history you

2 believed that was true?

3 A Mmm, yes. I did.

4 Q Now, when -- well, let's say did there come a time

5 when you entered into any sort of understanding or agreement

6 with anyone with regard to your funding the banner case, as

7 you called it?

8 A Well, you know, starting at the beginning,

9 October 6, 1997 when I sent this check off to Mr. Dandar,

10 you know, he -- he told me at the time, before I sent the

11 check, that he had discussed -- that he had checked with the

12 Florida Bar about this, that this was totally okay, you

13 know.

14 You know, I checked with my own attorney in Boston

15 before sending off this check. He said, "That's fine.

16 Mr. Dandar said you can't have any control over the

17 litigation, you know. You won't receive any confidential

18 information. Fine."

19 And he put that in a letter, you know, after he

20 had talked to the Florida Bar.

21 And the terms of that agreement were that these

22 would be loans to the estate of Lisa McPherson, and they

23 would be repaid only if the estate of Lisa McPherson

24 collected enough money in this case to cover their basic

25 costs and return to me the moneys that I advanced to cover

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

72

1 the costs in the case, exclusive of any interest. There

2 wasn't any interest element to it.

3 Q And that agreement, as you have just described it,

4 who was a party to that communication, as you just described

5 it to the Court?

6 A Just Mr. Dandar and myself, you know. But he said

7 that he had, you know, discussed this with his client, Dell

8 Liebreich, and that, you know, it was okay from her

9 standpoint.

10 I think he told me at the time that he needed to

11 get consent from his client, and he did, according to what

12 he told me.

13 Q And I'm jumping ahead, I know. But did there come

14 a time when you had any discussions with his client, that

15 is, the personal representative, Dell Liebreich?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And can you tell us about that -- I know I'm

18 jumping ahead -- but just for the purpose of where we're at

19 here?

20 A Mmm, well, there were a number of discussions

21 which were principally around the time that -- that the

22 family would come down here for the annual pickets against

23 Scientology, you know, on or about the anniversary date of

24 Lisa McPherson's death, which was December 5th.

25 And there were -- there were another couple of

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

73

1 times, I'm not sure what time of year they were, they were

2 fairly hot -- one of them was a fairly hot time of the year,

3 and they were staying in a hotel in Tampa over near

4 Mr. Dandar's office.

5 And I remember that was the first time that -- the

6 reason I remember that one is that was the first time Ann

7 Carlson or Lee Skelton had seen the autopsy photos, the

8 complete set of autopsy photos, which they asked me to show

9 them.

10 Q You had them?

11 A Yes. This was after they were released. This

12 wasn't prerelease dates.

13 Q And for the record, Ann Carlson and Lee Skelton

14 are who, to your knowledge?

15 A They are Dell Liebreich's sisters. And I think

16 they are -- the three of them and one other person, who I

17 don't think I have met, are the beneficiaries of the estate.

18 Q My question was, though, back to the question, was

19 did there come a time when you had an agreement with either

20 Dell Liebreich or other family members about --

21 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Leading.

22 THE COURT: Go ahead.

23 BY MR. FUGATE:

24 Q -- about your funding the litigation, and whether

25 or not there would be any return?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

74

1 MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

2 THE COURT: Overruled. You can say yes or no

3 to that.

4 A Yes.

5 BY MR. FUGATE:

6 Q Can you describe to the Court what that

7 understanding or agreement was?

8 A Well, are you just talking about the loans?

9 Q Let me just leave it with a yes. And I'll come

10 back to that. I want to move ahead.

11 A Okay.

12 THE COURT: Well, I would like to know the

13 answer to that.

14 MR. FUGATE: All right.

15 THE COURT: This agreement that you indicated

16 you had with Mr. Dandar about the money that you

17 gave and what would be returned to you over the

18 money that you gave to the estate --

19 THE WITNESS: Yes?

20 THE COURT: -- did you have any agreement with

21 the -- Ms. Liebreich or anybody else about that? Or

22 was that just between you and Ken?

23 THE WITNESS: Well, that was just between me

24 and Mr. Dandar at that time, when we first entered

25 in it.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

75

1 But he said, you know, he had to get consent

2 from his client to -- to do this, to enter into

3 this, to accept any money from anybody who wasn't a

4 part of the family to finance this case.

5 THE COURT: And I think somewhere in the

6 materials, perhaps it's something that has been

7 filed in this case by the Church, there was a

8 letter -- wasn't there a letter that he sent to this

9 witness?

10 MR. FUGATE: There is -- there is a letter that

11 Mr. Dandar sent. And then there is a handwritten --

12 THE COURT: There is a handwritten letter from

13 Mr. Minton to Mr. Dandar. I think they call it the

14 Kleenex box or something.

15 THE WITNESS: Right.

16 THE COURT: Then there is a letter from

17 Mr. Dandar to Mr. Minton. Do you know what I'm

18 talking about?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, your Honor. I do.

20 THE COURT: That letter -- I take it in that

21 letter he -- whatever it was he said in that letter,

22 when you got it, did that comport with the

23 understanding that you thought you and Mr. Dandar

24 had made?

25 THE WITNESS: I thought it was a little skimpy,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

76

1 but I was willing to live with it, yes, the way it

2 was.

3 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to come back and go

4 through those at a point, Judge, unless --

5 THE COURT: All right.

6 BY MR. FUGATE:

7 Q Did you -- did you consider -- how did you

8 consider your money that you were putting into the case from

9 your perspective, sir?

10 A Well, you know, I -- I looked at it as -- as a way

11 to further the entire anti-Scientology activities that I was

12 involved in.

13 Q And did you look at it as an opportunity to get a

14 return on your investment?

15 THE COURT: You really do have to be careful

16 about leading here. You asked him what he thought

17 of it and he told us. Your next question needs to

18 be, "Anything else?" Don't be suggesting things to

19 this witness.

20 MR. FUGATE: I apologize, your Honor.

21 THE COURT: Not especially in the areas that

22 are at issue in this case, this hearing that I'm

23 having.

24 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, I actually have

25 got -- I'm going to come back to that point, and I

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

77

1 was just going to ask about --

2 BY MR. FUGATE:

3 Q Really, what did you expect to get with regard to

4 your funding?

5 A Well, as I mentioned -- you know, there were

6 several things. But as I mentioned, you know, the first

7 thing is that this was the sort of flagship case to be used

8 to illustrate how terrible Scientology was. And certainly

9 anyone who was anywhere near this case or ever read about it

10 expected that this would be a huge black eye for

11 Scientology.

12 You know, I made a suggestion to Mr. Dandar

13 shortly after, you know, this October 6, 1997 check, and

14 I -- I think it was December 1 or thereabouts, at the Tampa

15 Club in Tampa when he took me to lunch one day when I came

16 down here for this annual picket, that -- well, because at

17 the time, Scientology was making a lot of statements that,

18 you know, that Ken Dandar was an ambulance-chasing attorney,

19 and Dell Liebreich was a money-grubbing old woman that had

20 no connections to Lisa McPherson, yet they were, you know,

21 trying for this -- you know, the big bucks in this case.

22 And I said, well, you know, it would make sense to

23 diffuse that type of rhetoric that was coming out of

24 Scientology for the estate to agree to give the bulk of the

25 money they get, or substantial part I think is what we

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

78

1 talked about at that time, a substantial part of that money

2 to an anti-cult group, especially one that was focused on

3 Scientology.

4 Q Did you have anything in mind at that time?

5 A I did. I mean, you know, FACTNet was an

6 organization which I was -- had already been elected to

7 their board of directors and went into effect from

8 December 15, 1997, but this was back on December 1, but I'd

9 been elected to it.

10 And, you know, clearly in my own mind, that was --

11 that was the target of the estate's future largesse with

12 respect to the proceeds of this case.

13 Q And I interrupted you. You had discussions with

14 Mr. Dandar about that?

15 A Right. He said this was an idea he already had

16 and that, you know, he was going to discuss this with the

17 family and, you know, he said he would get back to me about

18 that.

19 Q Had you, by this point in time, discussed your

20 feelings about Scientology with Mr. Dandar?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And at this point in history, what were your

23 feelings about Scientology?

24 A Well, you know, I really didn't like Scientology.

25 Q Did you -- did you ask Mr. Dandar what his

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

79

1 feelings were? Or did he share those feelings, I guess?

2 A Mr. Dandar, as recently as March of this year --

3 you know, I don't think there is anybody I know who hates

4 them more than he does.

5 Q Now, back in this point in time we've heard some

6 testimony -- when I say back at this point in time, I should

7 say, generically, I guess, there has been an exhibit that

8 was introduced through Ms. Brooks which was her posting, I

9 think it was described as a harassment time line --

10 A Right.

11 Q -- that came into evidence.

12

13 MR. FUGATE: If I may approach the witness,

14 your Honor.

15 THE COURT: You may.

16 BY MR. FUGATE:

17 Q I'll ask you if you were, during this period of

18 time, making postings of your own?

19 A Yes, I was, pretty much throughout the -- you

20 know, the first postings I ever made were in October, I

21 believe, of 1995. And, you know, they continued to get

22 fairly more frequent up until 2001.

23 Q Well, I recognize that there probably are a lot of

24 Bob Minton postings about Scientology. I have pulled out

25 several and I have got them marked already as 94A through G.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

80

1 And I would like, if I could, to ask you to identify at

2 least those. I know there are others.

3 If you look at the first, 94A, do you recognize

4 that as a posting that you had placed on the Internet?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And are you saying there in July of 1999 that you

7 were recommending that, "Miscavige be hanged in effigy and

8 burned like a common criminal. Please come and bring your

9 flamethrowers."

10 A Yes, sir.

11 Q See, right after that, the same date? 94B, is

12 that another posting of yours?

13 A It is.

14 Q And similar, except you are directing it to, "John

15 Travolta is a shill for Scientology"?

16 A Right.

17 Q And the same, 94C, is, "Hubbard will be hanged in

18 effigy --" and is that a posting that you made, sir?

19 A Yes, it is.

20 Q And it says, "Hubbard will be hanged in effigy and

21 burned like a common criminal," the same byline or inline,

22 "Come bring your flamethrowers."

23 What was the purpose of those sorts of postings,

24 in your opinion, sir?

25 A Mmm, stirring up the opposition to Scientology.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

81

1 Q And if you look at 94D, was that also a posting of

2 yours?

3 A Yes. It is.

4 Q And I think this one is dated November of 1999.

5 And in this one you are targeting Mr. Weinberg and

6 Mr. Hertzberg, two lawyers in the case. Is that correct?

7 A That is correct.

8 Q And it basically speaks for itself, I think. But

9 was that also a tactic that you engaged in, in this period

10 of time that we've been discussing?

11 A Yes, sir. And I would also -- just to tell you,

12 you know, that I have apologized to Mr. Weinberg and

13 Mr. Hertzberg about this post.

14 Q I understand. I'm asking you really, taking you

15 back in time, were these postings that you had posted?

16 A Yes. Yes.

17 Q And then here is one dated 26 July, 1998, 94E. Do

18 you recognize that, sir?

19 A Yes. I do.

20 Q Is that a posting that you posted?

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q And it says -- would you read the two lines out to

23 us?

24 A "On Sunday, Rinder calls and asks if Jesse Prince

25 is on my payroll. Jesse will be devastating for

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

82

1 Scientology. Get ready."

2 Q What was the purpose of that posting?

3 A You know, it was sort of a "get in Scientology's

4 face" type of posting. You know, this was shortly after I

5 had had some meetings with Mr. Rinder and his boss,

6 Mr. Rathbun, in, I think it was, June and July of 1998. And

7 those talks broke off rather unceremoniously, I guess you

8 would say. And, you know, this was soon -- this post was

9 done soon after Jesse Prince contacted Stacy Brooks and I.

10 Q And is this a point in time when you -- it asks if

11 he's on your payroll. Obviously at the time of this posting

12 he was on your payroll. Is that correct?

13 A Well, I think, you know, Mr. Rinder has had a lot

14 longer history with Jesse Prince than I had. And I think he

15 probably just assumed, because he was in contact with Stacy

16 Brooks and I, that we were paying him.

17 And, in fact, that was pretty close to being

18 accurate. I mean, it pretty much started right at this

19 time, sometime a little before this, that Jesse came up to

20 my house in New Hampshire. I believe he was there at the

21 time I posted this. And, you know, he was telling us all of

22 the things that were -- that he thought were going to

23 devastate Scientology, because of his previous senior

24 position back in 1992, I guess -- sorry, five years before

25 that.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

83

1 Q And did there come a time when you put Mr. Prince

2 in touch with Mr. Dandar?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Do you recall when that was in relation to this

5 posting?

6 A It was sometime shortly after this posting.

7 Sometime in 1998.

8 Q Now, if you would, turn to 94F. And I'm going to

9 ask you if you recognize that as a posting that you made?

10 THE COURT: These are already in evidence, I

11 take it?

12 MR. FUGATE: We'll move them in.

13 THE COURT: We probably ought to make sure we

14 move them in if we are going to keep referring to

15 them. Any objection?

16 MR. DANDAR: No objection.

17 THE COURT: They will be received.

18 MR. FUGATE: 94A through G then. I apologize,

19 Judge. I should have done it one at a time.

20 THE WITNESS: We are on F now?

21 BY MR. FUGATE:

22 Q We're on F.

23 A Yes.

24 Q That is a July of 1999 posting?

25 A That is a post I made.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

84

1 Q It says: "I called David Miscavige's mother today

2 in Clearwater," puts a phone number in, and also an address.

3 Was that, to your knowledge, an accurate phone number and

4 address for Mr. Miscavige's mother?

5 A I believed it was at the time.

6 Q What was the purpose of putting her telephone

7 number and her address and identifying her as

8 Mr. Miscavige's mother in your posting?

9 A Mmm, trying to piss off Scientology.

10 Q And when you see, down here at the bottom --

11 THE COURT: Well, didn't you also hope, by

12 putting her phone number and address in there, a

13 bunch of people would pick up the phone and call and

14 harass her?

15 THE WITNESS: Well, that was part of that.

16 That wasn't --

17 THE COURT: That is what normally somebody

18 would identify somebody's phone number for, I would

19 think.

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q The closing lines are: "David Miscavige and his

22 criminal minions need to be on the alert that nobody's

23 schill for his criminal cult is off limits from this point

24 forward, not his mother, his father, his wife, him, and

25 especially not the money lines of Scientology."

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

85

1 Did you write that, sir?

2 A I did.

3 Q What did you mean to cause with that posting?

4 A Well, you know, generally speaking, the money

5 line -- you know, this had a lot to do with this money lines

6 of Scientology, because within -- you know, within at least

7 my understanding of it was that the IAS, International

8 Association of Scientologists, was the principal group in

9 which funds were raised by the Church that were used to --

10 to funnel -- not funnel, but to fund the litigation that the

11 Church of Scientology found itself involved in.

12 Q And the part that you say not his mother, his

13 father, his wife or him were safe, what did that mean?

14 A You know, that was inflammatory. I mean, it was

15 rhetoric, you know. To --

16 Q 94G, if you would look at that. Apparently -- is

17 that your posting, I should ask you?

18 A Yes, it is.

19 Q Apparently, if I read it, you were asked by others

20 that were posting on the same site what was your message.

21 And is that what your message is that you left on her

22 answering machine?

23 A Yes.

24 Q "Loretta, my name is Bob Minton from New

25 Hampshire, telephone number (603)887-4145."

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

86

1 You have changed that by now, have you?

2 A No.

3 Q Oh, sorry.

4 A Still the same.

5 Q Strike that then.

6 "You may not immediately recognize my name, but if

7 you ever read the St. Pete Times, you might remember that I

8 am Scientology's 'Public Enemy Number 1.' I have some

9 messages for your son Davy which I would like to pass along

10 through you. Therefore, please give me a call. Thank you."

11 End of message to Loretta.

12 Did you write that?

13 A I did.

14 Q And did you consider yourself, at that time in

15 July of 1999, to be "Public Enemy Number 1" for Scientology?

16 A I did consider that.

17 THE COURT: You say you did?

18 THE WITNESS: I did, yes. And -- you know, I

19 didn't make this up on my own. I mean, I think NBC

20 Dateline used that line, the St. Petersburg Times

21 used that line, and a German television program used

22 it.

23 BY MR. FUGATE:

24 Q Used the line you were "Public Enemy Number 1" for

25 Scientology?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

87

1 A Right.

2 Q And you were proud of that, were you not?

3 A At the time, I was.

4 Q And was it your purpose, in the postings and the

5 other postings which we're not going to go through, to be as

6 offensive as you possibly could?

7 A Generally speaking, yes.

8 Q And was that, sir, also, as you understood it, to

9 be the purpose and climate of what we've heard described as

10 the critic community?

11 A Yes.

12 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you call this,

13 this B...@Minton.org, is that your --

14 THE WITNESS: E-Mail.

15 THE COURT: -- your E-Mail address? There are

16 a lot of postings that have been provided to me

17 throughout the hearing, some by the Church, some

18 perhaps by Mr. Dandar, some in evidence. I take it,

19 when they say at the top "B...@Minton.org," that

20 would be you? I mean, that is your --

21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

22 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed?

23 THE COURT: Yes.

24 BY MR. FUGATE:

25 Q Now, I think you used the term you wanted to get

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

88

1 in Scientology's face. Did you employ or provide funds to

2 other people to do just that, beside yourself?

3 A Yes, I did.

4 Q Now, do you know -- or if you know, did

5 Mr. Dandar -- was he reading your postings, if you can tell

6 the Court?

7 A I would send him some of them myself.

8 I know that Dell Liebreich had told me that she

9 read absolutely everything that I wrote or anything that was

10 written about me.

11 Q That --

12 A Excuse me?

13 Q I'm sorry, you said Dell Liebreich told you she

14 read your postings?

15 A Yes, that she religiously read everything that I

16 posted on ARS, or anything that was written about me there.

17 Q And for the benefit of the court, what is ARS? I

18 don't know if we got that.

19 A I'm sorry, that is -- we're into this acronyms.

20 But it is the short version of alt.religion.scientology,

21 that newsgroup.

22 Q And is that a site that is critical of

23 Scientology, to your observation?

24 A Yes. Absolutely. I mean, that is -- that is what

25 it is.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

89

1 Q Now, I would --

2 THE COURT: Although that is the same site, I

3 believe early on in this, where we read some things

4 where it looked like there would be one posting that

5 was critical toward -- toward Scientology, and then

6 there appeared to be a posting that would look

7 like -- I'm not saying it came from the Church but

8 it certainly came from a pro-Scientology person

9 trying to frustrate or be critical of or whatever --

10 in other words, it looked like these things can go

11 back and forth, that others -- anybody can get --

12 THE WITNESS: It's open to anybody, your Honor.

13 It's -- it's principally, you know --

14 THE COURT: The site is an anti-Scientology

15 site, but sometimes there are those who are not

16 opposed to Scientology who post there, as well?

17 THE WITNESS: Well, there are some, yes, that

18 do that to -- you know, there are a number of, you

19 know, current Scientologists who -- you know, if

20 they are not drowned out, you know, they try to go

21 on there and give their views. They are former

22 Church members who still believe in Scientology but

23 practice their Scientology outside of the official

24 organization, you know, who do the same thing. But,

25 you know, it's a pretty wild mob scene and it's hard

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

90

1 to -- you know, it's hard to get both sides of the

2 picture.

3 BY MR. FUGATE:

4 Q My question originally was did you have any

5 discussions with Mr. Dandar about your postings over this

6 period of time from '98, I guess, to 2000, 2001?

7 A Well, you know, he was aware of, you know, my

8 activities on the Internet. And --

9 Q How do you know that, sir?

10 A Because he -- he told me he was. I mean, you

11 know, after we started talking with each other, you know, he

12 was well aware that I was pretty active on the Internet.

13 You know, and I would -- I would always make it a

14 point that if there was something that I thought was

15 important to say, that I thought he should look at, I would

16 always copy him on the message, you know.

17 I mean, he -- at times, he said, you know, "God, I

18 get so many messages from you. I don't know what to do with

19 them all."

20 Q Well, you were pretty prolific on the Internet,

21 were you not, sir?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Did you make postings from the LMT when it came

24 into existence?

25 A Yes, I did.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

91

1 Q From computers there?

2 A Yes.

3 Q So I would take it your postings ranged from

4 computers there -- do you have computers at your home in --

5 A New Hampshire.

6 Q -- New Hampshire?

7 A Yes. I do.

8 Q Do you have a laptop?

9 A I do.

10 Q So your postings would come from either laptop,

11 home or LMT?

12 A Right.

13 Q Now, did you discuss, in your postings, the

14 wrongful death case?

15 A Pretty -- pretty often.

16 Q And did you discuss your funding of the wrongful

17 death case on the Internet?

18 A Yes. I did.

19 Q And did Mr. Dandar know that, to your

20 understanding?

21 A He -- he certainly did. And, in fact, encouraged

22 it, as far as the money was concerned, because he wanted to

23 make sure that Scientology knew he had money.

24 Q To engage in battle, I guess?

25 A Right.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

92

1 Q Now, did you have anything to do with Stacy Brooks

2 and Jesse Prince coming to Clearwater to work for

3 Mr. Dandar?

4 A Yes. I did.

5 Q Can you tell the Court what you had to do with the

6 two of them coming. I guess we'll start with Mr. Prince,

7 then go to Ms. Brooks.

8 A Well, I told them both they needed to go down

9 there and work with Ken Dandar. It was -- I mean, they were

10 getting moneys from me. And, you know, they would have gone

11 to Moscow, if required.

12 Q And at the time you told them to come here, as you

13 say, was that, to your knowledge, their sole source of

14 funding, your money?

15 A Mmm, yes. It was.

16 Q And, to your knowledge, did they come to

17 Clearwater and go to work for Mr. Dandar?

18 A Yes. They did.

19 Q And --

20 THE COURT: What do you mean, go to work for

21 him? Are we talking here again about these

22 consultant --

23 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to ask him that, Judge.

24 THE COURT: Well, I think going to work for

25 somebody, being a consultant for somebody, that is

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

93

1 quite different.

2 BY MR. FUGATE:

3 Q Let me ask you. What did you ask them to come to

4 Clearwater to do, as far as you were concerned?

5 A I mean, to do whatever Mr. Dandar wanted them to

6 do. You know, I didn't say go be a consultant. Or be an

7 expert witness. You know, "Whatever Dandar needed you to

8 do, you need to go down there with him and do it."

9 Q And did you communicate with Mr. Dandar about your

10 direction -- or whatever it is you --

11 A He needed them. He made that clear. It was just

12 somebody needed to facilitate getting them here.

13 Q And was it your understanding that he was aware

14 they were being paid by you?

15 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Leading.

16 THE COURT: Sustained.

17 BY MR. FUGATE:

18 Q At the time they came down, you indicated they

19 were -- both Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks were being paid by

20 you?

21 A That is correct.

22 Q Did you ever communicate their financial status to

23 Mr. Dandar?

24 A Yes. I did.

25 Q And can you tell us when, where, if you recall?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

94

1 THE COURT: We're going to have to do something

2 here. This just -- I mean --

3 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying to --

4 THE COURT: I know, but being paid by him, I

5 don't get it. One of these people he was involved

6 with romantically, and one of these people was his

7 good friend.

8 Now, paid by, does this mean you were paying

9 them to do work? Or does this mean you were

10 giving -- apparently you must have, I assume, a lot

11 of money.

12 THE WITNESS: I used to.

13 THE COURT: You used to have a lot of money.

14 And were you sharing that with some person who was,

15 I take it, very important to you, Ms. Brooks?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 THE COURT: And Mr. Prince. Paying them. Are

18 you suggesting you were paying Ms. Brooks for being

19 your companion?

20 THE WITNESS: No. You know, I mean, as far as

21 Jesse Prince was concerned, I was completely

22 supporting him, you know.

23 THE COURT: Right, so you were paying him --

24 you weren't paying him for his work for you; you

25 were paying him -- I take it at that time he was a

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

95

1 friend, you had money, he didn't.

2 THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't paying him because

3 he was a friend. I was paying him because of the

4 work he was doing. Jesse later became a friend.

5 THE COURT: What were you paying him for then,

6 before you sent him down here to Mr. Dandar?

7 THE WITNESS: Well, he came out and worked out

8 at FACTNet. He went out and worked with Dan

9 Leipold. You know, he came up to New Hampshire and,

10 you know, started preparing to, you know, tell

11 everybody all of the secrets that he learned in

12 Scientology, especially --

13 THE COURT: So he was being paid then for his

14 anti-Scientology work?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 THE COURT: Okay. That you were asking him to

17 do?

18 THE WITNESS: Right. I mean, you know, he

19 didn't volunteer to do this. This is something that

20 he got paid to do.

21 THE COURT: Okay. And the same with

22 Ms. Brooks?

23 THE WITNESS: Well, Ms. Brooks was very active

24 in my anti-Scientology work. With her, it was a

25 little different because of our personal

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

96

1 relationship. You know, I was just making sure she

2 was taken care of financially.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 BY MR. FUGATE:

5 Q Well, thanks to those questions, Ms. Brooks and

6 Mr. Prince were being paid to conduct anti-Scientology work,

7 I guess is the best way to describe that?

8 A Yes. That would be accurate.

9 Q Was that -- were those facts communicated to

10 Mr. Dandar?

11 A You know, I think Mr. Dandar knew -- by that time

12 knew everything about my personal relationships and my

13 working relationships with Jesse Prince and others.

14 Q Now, let me ask you this question. When

15 Mr. Prince came to Florida, what did you understand he was

16 doing in Florida?

17 A Working for Mr. Dandar on the wrongful death case.

18 Q And when Ms. Brooks came to Florida, what did you

19 understand Ms. Brooks was doing in Florida?

20 A Working with Mr. Dandar on the wrongful death

21 case.

22 MR. DANDAR: Could we have a date about what

23 we're talking about?

24 BY MR. FUGATE:

25 Q Can you date that, sir?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

97

1 A Well, I think --

2 Q Start with Mr. Prince.

3 A If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Prince came down here in

4 1998. He certainly was here for a substantial part of 1999,

5 working for Mr. Dandar. And in the year 2000 when -- by

6 this time, you know, the LMT is formed. And, you know, he's

7 working at the LMT, as well, but working for Mr. Dandar

8 principally, you know, for the first, you know, roughly six

9 months of the year 2000.

10 And then I'm not sure exactly why, but Jesse

11 Prince came back. Instead of working every day at

12 Mr. Dandar's office, he started at the LMT's office, and he

13 would go over to Dandar's office on sort of an as-needed

14 basis.

15 Q And how about Ms. Brooks, the same question?

16 A Well, she was down here sometime in 1998, more

17 frequently in 1999, working with Mr. Dandar.

18 And then, once she was at the LMT, you know,

19 beginning of 2000, she was -- for the first few months of

20 2000 she spent an awful lot of time out of the office

21 working with Mr. Dandar. Sort of the same thing Jesse

22 Prince was doing.

23 Q Were you -- were you communicating with Mr. Prince

24 about his work at -- with Mr. Dandar?

25 A Yes.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

98

1 Q And did you have an understanding whether or not

2 Mr. Dandar knew this was going on, this communication

3 between you and Mr. Prince?

4 A Yes. We had -- in fact, we had disputes about the

5 communication, as well.

6 Q And did you have communications with Ms. Brooks

7 about the work she was doing with Mr. Dandar?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And did you understand that Mr. Dandar knew those

10 communications were going on?

11 A Absolutely.

12 Q I think there was testimony that you I'm sure read

13 that Ms. Brooks said that Mr. Prince and she were your eyes

14 and ears in the office. Is that your understanding?

15 A That -- that was pretty accurate.

16 THE COURT: Did she say Mr. Prince was? Or did

17 she say she was?

18 MR. FUGATE: Well, I may have written it down

19 wrong, but --

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q Well, let me ask you, so there is no confusion --

22 THE COURT: Well, he really ought to be able to

23 tell us who he thought were his eyes and ears were.

24 But I thought her testimony was she said she was.

25 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor --

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

99

1 MR. FUGATE: I was going to ask, your Honor --

2 THE COURT: What? What her testimony was what

3 he read in the transcript?

4 MR. FUGATE: No. I was going to ask him his

5 understanding.

6 THE COURT: What he read in the transcript?

7 MR. FUGATE: No, what his understanding --

8 well, let's move on, Judge. It would be easier.

9 BY MR. FUGATE:

10 Q Now, at the time in '98 and '99 when Mr. Prince

11 and Ms. Brooks were here in Florida, were they, to your

12 understanding, working on any affidavits?

13 A Well, I know Jesse Prince was at some stage, he

14 ended up -- I don't know whether he wrote more than one, but

15 he certainly wrote one.

16 Q And in your --

17 A But he also was working -- I don't know whether it

18 was while he was down here, but I tend to think it was, that

19 he was working on affidavits for Leipold in California in

20 connection with the Wollersheim case, or FACTNet, or Lopez.

21 Q And was Ms. Brooks similarly engaged with

22 affidavits out there?

23 A I don't think she's written any affidavits in

24 recent years. But, I mean, she was, you know, active with

25 regards to the attorneys, Dan Leipold, Ford Greene, with

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

100

1 regard to those cases, yes.

2 Q And would this be the subject -- the affidavits

3 being written and used in litigation that you have

4 described, would that be the subject of postings -- Internet

5 postings by you and others in the critic community?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And were those the subject of any communications

8 with you and Mr. Dandar?

9 MR. DANDAR: Leading.

10 THE COURT: See, the problem is he can answer

11 that yes or no when you say "Isn't it true that," so

12 overruled.

13 A I'm sorry, would you ask the question again.

14 THE REPORTER: "Question: And were those the

15 subject of any communications with you and

16 Mr. Dandar?"

17 MR. DANDAR: Leading.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I missed the first

19 part of what you said.

20 THE REPORTER: "Question: And were those the

21 subject of any communications with you and

22 Mr. Dandar?"

23 THE WITNESS: Now I'm going to have to ask you

24 to read the one before that, too.

25 MR. FUGATE: I'll try to rephrase it.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

101

1 BY MR. FUGATE:

2 Q I had asked you were the affidavits that were

3 being written and utilized in the other cases that you

4 described, were those the subject of postings between you

5 and the critic community?

6 A Yes. I'm sorry.

7 Q Then my question was did you -- I don't even

8 remember, whatever the last question was was my question, if

9 you can remember that.

10 A I can't.

11 THE COURT: If nobody can remember it, it

12 probably wasn't very important. So why don't you

13 move to your next one.

14 BY MR. FUGATE:

15 Q Were you in communication with Mr. Dandar about

16 how you wanted the wrongful death case litigated?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And how were you communicating your wishes to

19 Mr. Dandar?

20 A Mmm, verbally.

21 Q Can you describe how?

22 A Yes. You know, soon after the first check that I

23 sent to him back in October of 1997, you know, I posted a

24 message on the Internet a couple of days later and sent him

25 a copy of it, you know, saying that, you know, I wanted

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

[Anonymous User]

102

1 David Miscavige charged with murder.

2 You know, Mr. Dandar -- I either heard or read him

3 testify in this case, or maybe it was in Judge Baird's case,

4 that he was kind of leery of me at the beginning, but when

5 he first -- when he first got this check. But, you know, by

6 the time the check cleared, I can tell you that this guy was

7 no longer leery.

8 You know, I received from Mr. Dandar, within a

9 month of that first check, a draft of the first amended

10 complaint in this case, or what was to be the first amended

11 complaint.

12 And, you know, he was already, even in 1997,

13 trying to add additional parties to the case, you know. And

14 those parties -- I'm not sure whether David Miscavige was

15 named, or whether it was just RTC, but I remember that there

16 was, you know, a draft that was talking about adding

17 additional parties.

18 And, you know, I asked Mr. Dandar, you know, after

19 I'd sent him a copy of this posting on the Internet, as to,

20 you know, why there wasn't any more inflammatory language in

21 the draft.

22 Q Did you get a response?

23 A Well, this thing evolved over -- to use

24 Mr. Dandar's term, this thing evolved over a period of a few

25 weeks. And he eventually put some pretty highly

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

103

1 inflammatory language in what ultimately ended up being the

2 first amended complaint, including the word "murder."

3 Q What sort of inflammatory things did you want him

4 to include in the complaint, from your perspective?

5 A Well, anything that was, you know, going to give

6 Scientology the worst possible light, not just in the case,

7 but just period.

8 Q And were you discussing your wishes with

9 Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince?

10 A Well, not at that moment. Not at that moment.

11 Because I think I'd only met Stacy Brooks -- well, I met her

12 after that, I believe. But later I did, yeah.

13 Q And as the process evolved that you have been

14 describing as far as communicating what you wished done, is

15 that -- did there come a time in that process when

16 Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince were here in Florida?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And would you communicate, through them, your

19 wishes?

20 A Well, yes, I did. And principally what those

21 wishes were is more emphasis on the Scientology -- what I

22 referred to as the Scientology aspects of the case. And --

23 Q Did you -- did you understand, as this

24 relationship developed, that there was a trial team?

25 A Yes.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

104

1 Q And who did you understand, from your perspective,

2 was on the trial team?

3 A Well, Dr. Garko. I don't believe he was on it

4 right at the beginning when they first started coming down

5 here. I don't remember the dates that he sort of got

6 involved in this. But ultimately it was Dr. Garko,

7 Mr. Dandar, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince. And, you know, that

8 was sort of the nucleus of it. And there were others that

9 were sort of on the edges of it, including me.

10 Q Did you understand Mr. Dandar to consider you part

11 of the trial team, from your perspective?

12 A Well, you know, based on his sharing of

13 information, you know, I figured that -- I mean, I think

14 anything he shared with them he shared with me.

15 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, Judge?

16 THE COURT: You may.

17 BY MR. FUGATE:

18 Q Did that understanding continue up into 2002, sir?

19 A Yes, it did.

20 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your

21 Honor?

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 MR. FUGATE: I need to approach the clerk,

24 first. This will be Defendant's Exhibit Number 95.

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

105

1 BY MR. FUGATE:

2 Q May I ask you to take a look at a copy of a

3 document I placed before you and ask you if you can identify

4 that document.

5 A Yes. This is a letter from --

6 Q Well, can you identify the document?

7 A Yes. I can.

8 Q Is this a document you received?

9 A Yes. It's a copy of it. That is correct.

10 Q A copy of it. And it's two pages. Did you get

11 both pages at the same time?

12 A I did.

13 MR. FUGATE: I would move 95 into evidence.

14 THE COURT: Any objection?

15 MR. DANDAR: It is marked confidential. I am

16 surprised at counsel using a confidential document.

17 THE COURT: Well, it is marked confidential to

18 this man. I don't know why that is. But, I mean,

19 is he part of your trial team? If so I'll sustain

20 the objection. But, if not, which I think is your

21 position, I'll have to overrule it.

22 MR. DANDAR: Well, you are right, Judge, he's

23 not.

24 THE COURT: Overruled.

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

106

1 BY MR. FUGATE:

2 Q Did you provide this document to us, sir?

3 A I did.

4 Q And did you receive it on or about March of 2002?

5 A Yes, I did. I think it came by courier. So it

6 probably arrived the day after this.

7 Q Did something come with it?

8 A Yes. A telephone encryption device.

9 Q Had you requested a telephone encryption device?

10 A No.

11 Q Could you read the letter, please.

12 A "Dear Mr. Minton --" well, it starts out --

13 THE COURT: Why do we need this read? Since

14 it's an exhibit, why do we need the whole letter

15 read?

16 BY MR. FUGATE:

17 Q Does the "Re:" line indicate it was in the

18 McPherson versus Scientology case?

19 A Yes. That is correct.

20 Q And does it indicate that it's to -- the purpose

21 of the device is for your use --

22 THE COURT: If we'll have a bunch of questions

23 about it, go ahead and have him read it.

24 BY MR. FUGATE:

25 Q Would you just read it.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

107

1 A "Dear Mr. Minton: Allow me to reintroduce myself.

2 We met a few years ago, prior to the deposition of Karsten

3 Lorenzen." K-A-R-S-T-E-N, last name Lorenzen,

4 L-O-R-E-N-Z-E-N, pronounced Lorenzen.

5 "I am Mr. Dandar's video production specialist.

6 Ken has asked me to forward the enclosed telephone

7 encryption device to your attention and request that it be

8 used for future conversations between you and other members

9 of the trial team.

10 "While I cannot guarantee this to be a hundred

11 percent solution, I do expect it to go a long way toward

12 keeping 'their' noses out of our business.

13 "Ken has also asked me to find out from you how

14 many other individuals on your end will be needing these

15 devices and to facilitate their distribution.

16 "The invoice enclosed is for our cost and for the

17 cost of shipping.

18 "Please feel free to contact me if you have any

19 questions.

20 "Very truly yours, Rick Spector."

21 Q And on the second page, sir, there is a note. Can

22 you read the note?

23 A The handwritten note on the invoice?

24 Q Yes.

25 THE COURT: Well, he needs to identify that.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

108

1 BY MR. FUGATE:

2 Q Well, yes, can you identify that was the note on

3 the invoice when you got it?

4 A Yes. This was the invoice that came with that

5 letter. And this was the handwritten note that was on it.

6 And I believe it was in blue ink.

7 Q Can you read what it says?

8 A "You may wish to use money order to preclude

9 trace." Underlined. Then Rick Spector's initials.

10 THE COURT: Why? Did you use this thing? I'm

11 not sure what it is, but I guess it is a phone that

12 scrambles things that maybe folks on a wire tap

13 couldn't hear?

14 THE WITNESS: That is right.

15 THE COURT: So did you believe the Church of

16 Scientology had placed an illegal wire on your phone

17 or Mr. Dandar's phone?

18 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I didn't think so.

19 But Mr. Dandar felt so.

20 THE COURT: Why did you use it then?

21 THE WITNESS: Well, I never used it, number

22 one. But just let me explain.

23 Back in February when Mr. Dandar came up to New

24 Hampshire for this weekend meeting, you know, just a

25 week or two before this letter, I mean, even coming

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

109

1 from the airport, when I picked Mr. Dandar up, he

2 starts telling me about how, you know, the dome

3 light in my car could be used for a bugging device

4 because it would provide constant power. And, you

5 know, he was totally of the belief that he was being

6 bugged by Scientology, and that if he was being

7 bugged, for sure I was being bugged.

8 So this -- this encryption device was -- it was

9 really for a specific purpose, you know. Dandar

10 wanted to talk about the money that was going to

11 come, and he wanted this thing so that nobody knew

12 about it.

13 And, you know, I didn't ask for this phone

14 encryption device. When it came, it didn't work.

15 It had been taken out of the original box, it had

16 been put in by the factory and changed into some

17 other box. Perhaps Mr. Spector mixed it up or

18 dropped it on the floor. And I had to send it back

19 to the factory to get it to work.

20 Mr. Dandar bought a similar device for his

21 phone at the same time. His didn't work, either,

22 because of the PBX system he had in his office. And

23 his secretary sent it back to the factory, as well;

24 but she didn't send it by overnight mail, she sent

25 it regular mail. And so when I got mine back from

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

110

1 the factory, mine was working, but he -- it took him

2 a while before he got his back. And, you know, by

3 then, we had already dealt with the issue of the

4 money and it was pretty late. And I have never used

5 it since.

6 THE COURT: But I assume even if you want it

7 for a very specific purpose, that is, talking about

8 the money, the only reason why you and I want to

9 have a phone conversation about money, and

10 presumably nobody has illegally put the bug on our

11 phone, when I talk on the phone, it would be

12 perfectly fine, nobody would know about it but you

13 and me.

14 THE WITNESS: I assume so.

15 THE COURT: So I presume there must have been

16 some thought there was an illegal wire tapping going

17 on here. And I certainly get that same information

18 from the -- from reading Ms. Brooks' posting about

19 the harassment, that there --

20 THE WITNESS: Right.

21 THE COURT: -- appeared to be people knowing

22 your every move, the insinuation being someone was

23 listening to your phone calls.

24 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, what we

25 discovered, there are a lot easier ways to do that,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

111

1 you know, to find out, you know, how people move

2 around, you know, where they're going. I mean, it

3 has been our experience that this is not so

4 difficult to find out. And -- and especially when

5 you have somebody close to you who is providing

6 information that would enable people to monitor your

7 movements more closely. And that is a much more

8 common thing than this phone tap thing which

9 Mr. Dandar was concerned about. And I genuinely --

10 THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Minton. You, too,

11 were concerned that your phones were being bugged,

12 weren't you?

13 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

14 THE COURT: You never were?

15 THE WITNESS: I thought about it at times.

16 But --

17 THE COURT: And Ms. Brooks wasn't, either?

18 THE WITNESS: She was not concerned about it.

19 THE COURT: Okay. So neither you nor

20 Ms. Brooks ever believed your phone was being

21 illegally tapped by the Church of Scientology? Is

22 that what you're telling me here today?

23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I didn't say there was never

24 a time we didn't believe it. But, your Honor, we

25 purchased a very expensive piece of equipment that

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

112

1 would help us to determine if there were bugs down

2 here in this office in Florida. We hired outside

3 people to come in and check. And I say "we," it

4 wasn't me doing this. This was a concern of

5 everybody who was around here.

6 THE COURT: So you weren't concerned, but yet

7 you hired people to come in and sweep your place?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, let me tell you,

9 Mr. Dandar's private eye, Mr. Dandar's private eye,

10 Ray Emmons, swore up and down Ken Dandar's office

11 was bugged, our office was bugged. We got people to

12 come in and check it out. There was never any bugs

13 found, when everybody was sure there were bugs. We

14 even bought an expensive piece of equipment that

15 could detect these types of things.

16 When the LMT closed down, that equipment was

17 sent up to my house in New Hampshire. I have never

18 used it.

19 You know, there is nothing I have ever said on

20 the telephone about the Church of Scientology that I

21 wouldn't expect to end up in the New York Times.

22 You know, I have got nothing to hide from them.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I just wondered why we were

24 sending out the encryption devices.

25 THE WITNESS: Well, as I said, your Honor, I

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

113

1 didn't request this encryption device. Mr. Dandar

2 told me he was going to get these, on the telephone,

3 the day before they were sent. I said fine.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 BY MR. FUGATE:

6 Q What did you understand the notation "You may wish

7 to use a money order to avoid a trace" mean?

8 A To preclude trace. Well, you know, I just thought

9 that was a pretty strange statement at the time for

10 Mr. Spector to have written. I mean, it was obviously --

11 you don't want Scientology to find out you are paying for

12 this or that we're buying these things, so maybe you want to

13 use some sort of untraceable money to do it, or untraceable

14 document -- you know, instrument.

15 Q Do you know Rick Spector?

16 A I -- as the letter said, I have met him a few

17 years before. He wasn't somebody that I was familiar with,

18 other than his name.

19 But he was -- you know, in addition to being a

20 videographer, as he says here, he's also Mr. Dandar's

21 security consultant and private investigator, in addition to

22 Mr. Emmons.

23 Q Do you see him present in the court today?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Where is he?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

114

1 A He's to the right of Mr. Dandar, as I'm sitting.

2 THE COURT: I take it we can assume that he is,

3 indeed, part of Mr. Dandar's trial team.

4 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Spector?

5 THE COURT: Right.

6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Although he's an independent

7 contractor.

8 THE COURT: Pardon me?

9 MR. DANDAR: He's an independent contractor.

10 BY MR. FUGATE:

11 Q Now, on the subject of phones, when the LMT was

12 formed, were there phones utilized to communicate among the

13 LMT folks?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And what sort of phones were they?

16 A They were Nextel phones, you know, the little flip

17 kinds.

18 MR. FUGATE: While we're looking for that,

19 Judge.

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q Did you, in your relationship with Mr. Dandar,

22 assist him in his website preparation or anything to do with

23 his website?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And what did you do?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

115

1 A Well, I just -- you know, I didn't do much. He --

2 MR. FUGATE: May I approach?

3 THE COURT: You may.

4 THE WITNESS: Can I continue?

5 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to give you an exhibit

6 to take a look at. You can go ahead.

7 A Well, he wanted a domain in his own name. And so

8 I registered Dandarlaw.com, I believe, and Dandar.com. Yes,

9 I see Dandar.law.

10 MR. DANDAR: Relevance.

11 THE COURT: Are you addressing me, Counselor?

12 MR. DANDAR: Relevance, Judge. Sorry.

13 THE COURT: All right. Relevance?

14 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I think it shows an

15 association between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar. And

16 it shows, as the contact -- administrative contact

17 for Dandarlaw.com.

18 THE COURT: I don't know what this is. Do

19 lawyers have their own websites these days?

20 MR. FUGATE: What it is, it's attached, the

21 website that lists the law firm and talks about the

22 lawyers. It --

23 THE COURT: Is this something lawyers --

24 lawyers have?

25 MR. FUGATE: It's something that lawyers have,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

116

1 as I understand it, your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MR. FUGATE: I never had one.

4 THE COURT: Nothing here regarding Lisa

5 McPherson?

6 MR. FUGATE: No, except that it's registered by

7 Mr. Minton. The contact point is B...@Minton.org

8 which you made reference to before.

9 BY MR. FUGATE:

10 Q Let me ask you, Mr. Minton, was there a purpose in

11 trying to get a website started for Mr. Dandar?

12 A Well, Mr. Dandar wanted a domain.

13 THE COURT: I don't see -- I'm not very smart

14 about this stuff. What is a domain?

15 THE WITNESS: You know, when you

16 have www.lisatrust.net, the domain is the Lisatrust

17 part. Dandarlaw is the domain. So it would

18 be www.dandarlaw.com. So he can have his E-mail at

19 Dandarlaw.com or whatever he wanted.

20 But he didn't know how to go about registering

21 a domain. So I registered it for him. Also as I

22 said, another one, Dandar.com.

23 THE COURT: I kind of tend to agree. I think

24 it is kind of obvious Mr. Dandar and this man were

25 friends. He needed help doing some of this, this

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

117

1 man had some expertise, and he did it for him.

2 I'm going to let it in. But the truth of the

3 matter is I'm not sure what the relevance is. So

4 I'll let it in.

5 MR. FUGATE: I just offered it for the -- for

6 the association and the contact, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Am I right about this, at this

8 point in time when you were doing this, you-all

9 established some sort of friendship?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was just purely a favor

11 to him.

12 THE COURT: Right. This was not -- this was

13 not the Lisa McPherson case or anything like this;

14 this was a friend that wanted a website or domain?

15 THE WITNESS: He wanted a domain. And I just

16 did it for him.

17 THE COURT: So --

18 THE WITNESS: I mean, I paid for it, you know.

19 It wasn't a big deal, whether he reimbursed me or

20 not. But --

21 BY MR. FUGATE:

22 Q How much does something like that cost?

23 A Mmm, I think it's like $40 or $50 a year. I don't

24 know, he had it maybe three years. After our last

25 deposition, I transferred the administrative contact to

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

118

1 Mr. Dandar -- technical contact. I'm sorry.

2 Q I presume the bill, as well?

3 A No, I didn't, actually. But Mr. Rosen or

4 Mr. Moxon was making a big deal out of this so I transferred

5 the technical contact to Mr. Dandar.

6 Q Now, I had asked you about the Nextel phones you

7 used. And --

8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, these are the Nextel bills.

9 And I think maybe what I'll do is wait until the

10 break, give them to the clerk, I'll give a copy to

11 Mr. Dandar, and come back and ask questions about

12 that.

13 THE COURT: What are they?

14 MR. FUGATE: These are the Nextel cell phone

15 bills. And they're going to be a little bit

16 involved in going through.

17 THE COURT: So, in other words, there are going

18 to be dates and phone calls we're going to have to

19 refer to these? Is that the purpose?

20 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor.

21 THE COURT: All right.

22 MR. FUGATE: But I'll come back to them.

23 THE COURT: Well, do you want to do it now if

24 we're to that, and go ahead and get them all in

25 and --

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

119

1 MR. FUGATE: It probably would be a good

2 time --

3 THE COURT: A good time to take a break?

4 MR. FUGATE: Yes.

5 THE COURT: Well, it has been an hour and

6 fifteen minutes. I guess nobody seems to mind when

7 we take a break, so we'll be in recess fifteen

8 minutes.

9 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

10 THE COURT: All right.

11 MR. FUGATE: Judge, you actually have in front

12 of you the original -- or the file copy of the

13 records. And as I suspected when I looked back

14 there, I'm a copy short. So I'm going to ask a

15 couple questions and move to another area. And then

16 over the break I'll --

17 THE COURT: These are the clerk's copies? The

18 originals?

19 MR. FUGATE: Yes, I'll get additional copies

20 made because --

21 THE COURT: I'd just as soon, unless I really

22 need those, not have that stack.

23 MR. FUGATE: Well, I don't have one either.

24 THE COURT: Okay.

25 MR. FUGATE: So I'm going to move through this,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

120

1 then move on to another area. And I have given

2 Mr. Dandar a copy.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. FUGATE: And it's marked as Defendant's

5 Exhibit 97, I believe.

6 THE COURT: Right.

7 BY MR. FUGATE:

8 Q Mr. Minton, did you receive a subpoena for your

9 Nextel phone records? I'm going to ask you to look at the

10 first paper that is pulled up there. Actually, pull

11 everything that is sticking up. That is what I'm going to

12 ask you about. Nextel, for your records, I should say. I'm

13 sorry.

14 A Yes.

15 Q Does this subpoena appear to be for your Nextel

16 phone records, if you look at the yellow part back there? I

17 think it is on the second or third page.

18 A Yes.

19 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness?

20 THE COURT: Yes, you may.

21 A I see it, yes.

22 BY MR. FUGATE:

23 Q Okay. Would you look at the face pages and see if

24 you can identify the Nextel bill as it starts out? Do you

25 see that?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

121

1 A Yes. I see it.

2 Q And can you identify that as copies of the Nextel

3 phone records that were subpoenaed by the subpoena -- or

4 copy of the subpoena that is there?

5 A Yes. It appears to me to be that. Yes.

6 MR. FUGATE: Unless there is an objection, I

7 would move the composite exhibit in, and I'll just

8 ask a couple questions and move on, and then come

9 back to it if I need to, Judge, when I have more

10 copies of the individual --

11 THE COURT: Any objection?

12 MR. DANDAR: I object to relevance. I need to

13 have -- to make sure that this witness -- if these

14 phone records are in his name or somebody else's

15 name.

16 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'm going to ask to look at

17 the first four months and see who the phone was

18 registered to. And then if you look past that,

19 you'll see it is --

20 MR. DANDAR: If it is registered as I see it on

21 the first page, of Dandar & Dandar, PA, privileged

22 phone records. We did not approve of this at all.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, then I'll come back

25 to them, because they're the Nextel records of LMT

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

122

1 and Mr. Minton. But they were registered there for

2 four months and then were changed. But I'll come

3 back to it.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 MR. FUGATE: Can I retrieve it?

6 THE WITNESS: Okay.

7 THE COURT: Well, let me see the subpoena.

8 MR. FUGATE: Sure.

9 THE COURT: What does the subpoena say? Does

10 it refer to a phone number? Or does it refer to --

11 THE WITNESS: I believe it was my phone

12 records, your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Okay, the subpoena, that does

14 appear to be directed to the custodian of the

15 records at Nextel Communications. The list of

16 documents to be produced appears to be any and all

17 documents concerning telephone and billing records

18 for Robert S. Minton from November of '99 to

19 December of 2001.

20 MR. FUGATE: Listed to those Nextel phones.

21 THE COURT: I don't see any phones, listed to

22 any Nextel phones.

23 MR. FUGATE: Well, that is what is in the pages

24 that are after that. It identifies the number of

25 phones.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

123

1 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't give that to

2 your Honor. Here is the rest of it. I'm sorry.

3 THE COURT: Well, who is this? Whose is this?

4 It says Dandar & Dandar, PA.

5 MR. FUGATE: Let me ask, if I can.

6 THE COURT: No, I want to know whether this,

7 the subpoena here, is for records, and I can see

8 that -- maybe I should look --

9 MR. FUGATE: Judge, what happened, the subpoena

10 is directed to all phone records. And the phone

11 that -- or the phones, plural, that these go to

12 started out listed to Dandar & Dandar, although they

13 were utilized by LMT, then ultimately switched to

14 Mr. Minton's --

15 THE COURT: I need to ask a question. When a

16 subpoena duces tecum is issued in a case and there

17 is opposing counsel, do you not send them notice?

18 MR. MOXON: Let me explain. This was my

19 subpoena.

20 We said we were trying to subpoena the LMT

21 records. And they had a regular phone and a Nextel

22 phone. All of the LMT people all have their little

23 Nextel phones.

24 Nextel said, "Well, we actually don't have any

25 records for LMT," and they told us that their phones

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

124

1 were listed under Mr. Minton's name.

2 So we sent them a new subpoena under

3 Mr. Minton's name. And you may recall when the

4 records came in, the records -- it was set for a

5 deposition, but the records were sent to me before

6 the deposition occurred.

7 At that point we entered into a stipulation of

8 Mr. Howie and Mr. McGowan and I that these records

9 would all go over to the -- to the discovery master.

10 They all went over to the discovery master and they

11 were looked at and realized these are all of the LMT

12 records.

13 THE COURT: Who is the discovery master?

14 MR. MOXON: That was Mr. Keane. Pursuant to

15 the stipulation, the agreement of the other side,

16 Mr. McGowan representing LMT, said these are all LMT

17 records.

18 THE COURT: Mr. McGowan represented LMT?

19 MR. MOXON: Yes.

20 THE COURT: Well --

21 MR. MOXON: These are all LMT phone records

22 under Mr. Minton's name. Mr. Dandar registered the

23 LMT phone, but these are all LMT phone records.

24 THE COURT: Okay. I guess it doesn't answer my

25 question. My question is, is when you have a

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

125

1 subpoena duces tecum that goes out in a case, do you

2 not give notice to the other side --

3 MR. MOXON: Of course.

4 THE COURT: -- so they can object?

5 MR. MOXON: Of course.

6 THE COURT: Where is the notice that is given

7 to Mr. Dandar on that?

8 MR. MOXON: He got notice. Everyone got notice

9 of it. You may not have the notice with that

10 subpoena that is in your hand, but I can certainly

11 provide it to you. Of course everyone got notice.

12 That is why a motion for protective order was filed

13 after the motion went out.

14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I anticipated the questions

16 you were asking. I was going to go back and get the

17 documentation for you and go through it again.

18 THE COURT: Well, when somebody doesn't have an

19 objection, because something appears to be

20 requesting records of somebody, and the next thing

21 you know, law firm records are being produced, and

22 the other side, if they don't know that, there has

23 to be some problem with that.

24 So, Mr. Dandar, was he aware that Nextel was

25 getting ready to dole out his PA, Dandar & Dandar,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

126

1 PA, phone records to the Church of Scientology?

2 MR. MOXON: They are not his phone records.

3 They are LMT phone records.

4 THE COURT: Well, if it says "Dandar & Dandar,

5 PA." Did anybody ever advise him, for example, of

6 that?

7 MR. MOXON: Well, I actually don't know because

8 we didn't see the phone records until Mr. McGowan

9 authorized them, after reviewing them, to be

10 released to us as LMT's records. So it was only

11 after LMT's counsel conceded these are LMT's

12 records --

13 THE COURT: Well, is this after the LMT and the

14 Church of Scientology were in friendly negotiations

15 where they were trying to cooperate with the Church

16 to bring about a global settlement?

17 THE WITNESS: We were not cooperating at that

18 time, your Honor.

19 MR. MOXON: The motion was filed long ago.

20 MR. FUGATE: I don't have the subpoena to look

21 at the date, Judge. That might help. But --

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. FUGATE: If it even --

24 THE COURT: Dated February 11 of 2002.

25 MR. MOXON: Yes.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

127

1 THE COURT: Wasn't there some negotiations

2 going on then?

3 MR. MOXON: No.

4 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

5 MR. FUGATE: No.

6 THE COURT: No? Well, I'm not letting you have

7 any records of Dandar & Dandar, PA unless you can

8 show me somehow or another that Mr. Dandar agreed

9 with that. You can't get into a law firm's records.

10 I don't care what anybody says.

11 MR. MOXON: Again, your Honor, these are not

12 Dandar & Dandar, PA phone records. They are LMT

13 phone records.

14 MR. FUGATE: Judge --

15 THE COURT: He objected. I sustained the

16 objection. It is just that simple. Move on.

17 MR. FUGATE: Fine, Judge. That is what we

18 suggest.

19 BY MR. FUGATE:

20 Q Mr. Minton, if I could direct your attention to

21 August of 1999, did you have any meetings with Mr. Dandar in

22 August of 1999?

23 A Yes. I did.

24 Q And can you tell us, to the best of your

25 recollection, where and when?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

128

1 A I believe it was in Philadelphia on May 26, maybe

2 the night of the 25th and 26th.

3 Q May, or August, sir?

4 A Mmm, I -- I can tell by the date of the check, if

5 I can just get my little thing out, again.

6 Q I had left the exhibits up there, exhibit checks,

7 unless we knocked them off.

8 A Oh, yes, that is the way. Yes. Sorry.

9 Q Except now I have forgotten the number. I think

10 it is 93E.

11 A Oh, yeah. It is on the top. Yes, I'm sorry.

12 That was August.

13 Q And obviously you were referencing the check.

14 Which check are we looking at there, for the record?

15 A It is check 93E, payable to Dandar & Dandar, for

16 $250,000.

17 Q What is the date it was issued?

18 A August 27th. That is the date -- you know, the

19 date that was written on the check.

20 Q Was that the date that you gave it to Mr. Dandar?

21 A I -- I believe I gave it to him on the 26th at

22 night.

23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the year,

24 8/27 --

25 A '99. I didn't have money in my checking account.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

129

1 And I told him I was going to transfer money in that

2 checking account, so I was going to postdate it by a day.

3 BY MR. FUGATE:

4 Q And can you tell us about the meeting that you

5 had --

6 THE COURT: Would you-all give me just a

7 second. I want to listen carefully, yet I'm trying

8 to deal with something as acting chief, and I'm not

9 having good success in keeping my head in two

10 places.

11 MR. FUGATE: Well, join with me --

12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, this has come up and I

13 really need to take care of it. And as I said, I am

14 acting chief. And I really need to deal with it.

15 And I thought I could maybe listen and deal with it,

16 but I can't because I find myself looking here and

17 I'm not hearing that. And so sometimes I can do two

18 things at one time but --

19 MR. FUGATE: Tell me what you want me to do.

20 THE COURT: I want you to stop and let me take

21 enough time to deal with it. I'm sorry, I hate to

22 give you all another break, but I just need to tend

23 to this. We'll be in recess until -- well, until

24 I'm done.

25 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

130

1 THE COURT: You may be seated. I think I have

2 my mind all in one place.

3 (A discussion was held off the record.)

4 MR. WEINBERG: Going back to the phone records

5 for a second?

6 THE COURT: Yes.

7 MR. WEINBERG: We'll cover it in more detail on

8 Tuesday. I just wanted to explain one thing that is

9 confusing when you look at it.

10 We -- we requested the production from Nextel

11 of the records of LMT, first. And Nextel said they

12 didn't have records of LMT, they had records of

13 Robert Minton. So we requested the production, we

14 subpoenaed Nextel for the records of Robert Minton.

15 And what came back was what is in those folders

16 there.

17 And as a result of that, there were these --

18 there were these motions that were filed both by

19 Stacy Brooks and by Mr. Minton to try to prevent it.

20 There were hearings. Mr. Dandar was part of that

21 process.

22 The records themselves, if you go through them

23 you will see that these are -- even though the first

24 three months of whatever it is, a year and a half or

25 two-year period, the first few bills went to Dandar

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

131

1 & Dandar, the records are not Ken Dandar and Dandar

2 & Dandar records. They are phone records of the

3 people at LMT, including Mr. Minton, Mr. Prince,

4 Ms. Brooks.

5 They had a series -- they had a network of --

6 of Nextel phones. This is this network. That --

7 they are not Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Dandar didn't have

8 one of those as part of these records, or his law

9 firm.

10 After the first three months, the bills in

11 there are then directed to Mr. Minton in care of the

12 LMT, if I'm correct.

13 And the point was, A, there are many important

14 calls in there from people at the LMT, including

15 Mr. Minton, to Mr. Dandar and others.

16 And, secondly, the fact that -- in other words,

17 indicating -- indicating contact, a lot of contact,

18 which obviously is an issue as to what participation

19 or -- or control or involvement Mr. Minton had with

20 regard to Mr. Dandar in the prosecution of the

21 wrongful death case. Oh, five hundred calls, you

22 are going to see.

23 And, secondly, the fact that the first few

24 months were sent to Dandar & Dandar is further

25 indication, I believe, that there was -- that there

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

132

1 was a real -- you know, a relationship between the

2 LMT and the people at the LMT and, you know,

3 Mr. Dandar, which is part of what this hearing is

4 about. That is what it is.

5 We can sort that through on Tuesday, which is

6 fine. But when one looks at these records, these

7 are not Ken Dandar phone records, these are not

8 Dandar & Dandar phone records; these are phone

9 records of Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks, Jesse Prince and

10 other people at the -- at LMT. That is what they

11 are.

12 THE COURT: Okay.

13 Mr. Dandar?

14 MR. DANDAR: Judge, when you make up a notice

15 of deposition to Mr. Moxon for records and you put

16 on Robert Minton's name, then you cancel the

17 deposition and take the records because they were --

18 the phone company sent them to you ahead of time so

19 they don't have to come to the deposition, that

20 violates the rule.

21 I go by the rules. And my name is on the first

22 three months of those depositions, I was never

23 noticed for that. It is improper. It is the first

24 time I saw it, by the way.

25 But what Mr. Minton will explain to you, and I

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

133

1 would assume accurately, LMT did not have credit.

2 So I did them a favor, I added them onto my account,

3 and then I separated that account.

4 But this whole procedure of how they went about

5 obtaining those records without notice to me was

6 improper. And that is why I objected to it.

7 Now, maybe just a technical violation of the

8 rules, which it is a violation of the rules, but I

9 objected to it because they weren't following the

10 rules then, and now they're trying to make it an

11 exhibit. And I just brought it to your attention,

12 but it's probably a whole bunch of argument about

13 nothing. I brought it to your attention because it

14 is a technical and it's a real --

15 THE COURT: Well, one of the things that

16 concerns me, and one thing I'm obviously trying to

17 protect here, as I would any lawyer, is anybody else

18 getting a hold of a lawyer's phone records that

19 would reveal, presumably, all manner of calls to

20 clients and what have you that they had no business,

21 anybody, knowing who they are or anything of the

22 sort.

23 Do you agree that these records, if you'll take

24 the time between now and Tuesday to go through them,

25 whatever these are that have your name on them, that

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

134

1 they're not records of you calling your clients or

2 your clients calling you, that gives me some, Mmm --

3 you know, I'll deal with the technical inadequacy or

4 not differently. But I will not deal with

5 privileged phone records being used in this hearing

6 or any other hearing.

7 And I will ask that they be returned, if, in

8 fact, the Church of Scientology has phone records of

9 your law office between you and your clients.

10 MR. DANDAR: I would have to look at the

11 records.

12 THE COURT: So I think I really can't resolve

13 this until he has a chance to look at these records

14 and tells me. That makes a difference to me.

15 MR. MOXON: Could I add a couple things for the

16 record, your Honor?

17 Firstly, there was a certificate of service to

18 Mr. Dandar where he was noticed for the deposition

19 on the phone records. I found a copy of it now.

20 Then, after the records came in, I let everyone

21 know that the records had been sent to me prior to

22 the deposition and I didn't open them, I didn't open

23 a single one. And I informed Mr. McGowan and

24 Mr. Howie and Mr. Dandar about this. And we

25 stipulated to an order that -- that the Court signed

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

135

1 appointing a special master to handle these

2 telephone records.

3 Here is a copy of the order that your Honor

4 signed.

5 And -- I'm sorry, here is a copy of the cover

6 letter indicating, also, service to Mr. Dandar,

7 Mr. Howie, Mr. McGowan and I.

8 So this is how it was handled. Mr. Dandar's

9 assertion he didn't have notice of this or that

10 there is anything improper about the procedure is

11 just not very accurate.

12 THE COURT: Well, you know, naturally you-all

13 don't agree on much and you never have and you

14 probably never will.

15 I'm looking at -- if I were a lawyer, whether I

16 was noticed or whether I wasn't, and a deposition

17 went out that said you are to produce to me --

18 MR. FUGATE: I took that back and put it in the

19 packet, Judge, if that is what you are looking for.

20 THE COURT: Well, I think it is here.

21 MR. FUGATE: Okay.

22 THE COURT: The custodians of records to bring

23 documents concerning telephone and billing records

24 for Robert S .Minton from November of '99 to

25 December 2001, you know, I would assume they would

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

136

1 be bringing records with Mr. Minton's name on them

2 or --

3 MR. MOXON: Sure.

4 THE COURT: -- or if I had known before it was

5 LMT, and now they were sending Robert Minton, they

6 would have "Robert Minton" on them. I don't know I

7 would care.

8 I would care if it -- including if they are

9 Dandar & Dandar, PA records, I would have said,

10 "Whoa, just a minute."

11 MR. MOXON: Sure. Absolutely.

12 THE COURT: So I'm not sure either of you are

13 saying anything really different. But it does

14 appear you got notice of all this.

15 MR. DANDAR: Oh, I got notice for a deposition.

16 This was not the 10-day rule procedure where you can

17 mail in the records and there is no deposition.

18 This is a deposition which is on our calendar, we

19 are ready to come to it, "Oh, we canceled it because

20 we got the records."

21 That is not the way it is done. And my name

22 doesn't appear on the subpoena, so I could care less

23 about the records until I see them for the first

24 time in court today that has "Dandar & Dandar" on

25 the first three months.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

137

1 THE COURT: Okay. Now I think I understand.

2 Normally, these things do go out, as I recall, some

3 sort of notice. If I don't receive an objection

4 within ten days, then this thing goes out. This

5 looks like what you are saying, this is a notice of

6 taking deposition.

7 MR. DANDAR: Normal deposition.

8 THE COURT: But you would have assumed, if they

9 got the records, that they may not have --

10 especially if they got this many records -- they

11 weren't going to sit down and go through with some

12 custodian much about this bulk of records. The

13 custodian really couldn't tell them anything. And

14 that is who it is to.

15 So it is pretty clear, I assume, what they were

16 trying to get were these records.

17 MR. DANDAR: But the reason you do it this way,

18 that they set it up, you want someone with a court

19 reporter saying here they are, marked as Exhibit A,

20 these are the official records of Nextel, Robert

21 Minton. You have a record now.

22 Now when they get something like this, no one

23 can authenticate how they got those records because

24 there is no court reporter.

25 So there are two different procedures. They

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

138

1 followed the one for a real deposition, custodian,

2 and then they canceled it and just took the records,

3 apparently.

4 And that is why I'm objecting to the way this

5 was handled.

6 THE COURT: This said: "Dear Judge Schaeffer,"

7 this accounts for -- from McGowan & Suarez, this is

8 really from Tom McGowan, with a copy showing going

9 to you, stating I am pleased, which you should be

10 since it was an agreed-upon order, which are few and

11 far between in this case. "I present your Honor

12 with an agreed order dealing with the manner in

13 which discovery of the telephone records is to be

14 handled. All counsel are in concurrence with it."

15 Then it has got your name. And this order is,

16 in essence, to give it to the special master.

17 Let me see what this says. Michael Keane was

18 appointed special master. And this order that you

19 approved said -- you need to read these orders --

20 represented the telephone records provided to him by

21 Verizon and Nextel, "which records were to have been

22 opened at deposition noticed for March 1, 2001 but

23 canceled by agreement of the parties," which would

24 be you -- "are in his possession and remain under

25 the seal they were when they were sent to him by

[Anonymous]

At(P177) why in Clearwater? To be "in their face" at
Their headquarters location, with more opportunities
for interaction. For "in their face" interaction? Yes,
and would generate lots of publicity. It was clearly
set up to help people who had problems with Scientology
[Mr Fugate hastily blocks any talk of this]. Was there
any discussion of causing media attention? The Court:
it is only relevant where he discussed it with Dandar.
Well, Mr Minton, this idea of being in Scientology's
face by locating here was yours, wasn't it? It was
discussed with Mr Dandar too. [unresponsive, not a denial
of the point put]. At(P178) It was my idea to set up
the group, but going back to--- I think the judge
wants this confined to discussions with Mr Dandar...?
I was doing that; even back in 1998 the idea of such
an organisation was an idea put forward by the dead
girl's three relatives (Dell Liebrich, Ann Carlson, and
Lee Skelton). So, back in 1999, Mr Dandar and I
discussed forming such a group. Ms Brooks wanted the
group located in Washington, but Mr Dandar and I wanted
it in Clearwater.

At(P179) so you and Dandar discussed locating it here? Yes.
Why here? This was where the action was and the case was,
when the organisation was to use the dead girl's name.
Lisa MacPherson? Yes, Lisa MacPherson. Whose idea was
it to use her name? Mr Dandar's. Did you need, or seek,
authorisation to use Lisa's name? Yes, Dell agreed to it.
Was this you speaking directly to Dell? No, via Dandar.
Did she acknowledge to you that she had authorised it?
At(P180) no, I don't think so. How did Dell come to be
on the board of directors? Mr Dandar thought it would be
a good idea to have her. Possibly also someone from a
later generation of the family who would continue their
presence when the three elderly sisters finally passed on.
Who was that? Kim Krenek. Is she listed on the exhibit?
Yes. Now, did you and Mr Dandar discuss picketing? Yes.
What was said?

At(P181) since we are entering a new topic, I think it
Is about time to recess for the afternoon and resume -
I am elsewhere on Monday - on Tuesday morning.
THE COURT WENT INTO RECESS. At(P182) reporter's declaration.
End of volume two in the testimony of Bob Minton.

[Anonymous]

Volume 1, Page 39

1 lawsuit versus some personal matter or -- I don't
know

2 what they would gain from it. But the deal is
they're

3 not supposed to know that, according to the Second

4 District, so I'm not going to allow inquiry there -
-

5 to say nothing of the fact that I don't think it

6 matters. That's a Bar matter. That's not a matter

7 for me, so it doesn't matter anyway.

8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, if you'll bear with me a

9 moment, I just --

10 THE COURT: I'm sure to the Bar it becomes a

11 relevant matter, but it isn't necessarily a
relevant

12 matter here.

13 MR. FUGATE: What I've done, Judge, I

14 marked -- I'll give you a courtesy copy of the
checks

15 I'm going to introduce through Mr. Minton. And
I've

16 marked in the corner what I believe is the accurate

17 number from the clerk, and they're sequential by
date.

18 And I'll hand a copy, if I may, up to Mr. Minton.

19 MR. DANDAR: Do you have numbers on them?

20 (Mr. Fugate and Mr. Dandar spoke off the

21 record.)

22 THE COURT: Did you give a copy to counsel?

23 MR. FUGATE: Yes, I have. I was just going

24 to explain the numbers to him, because he didn't
have

25 the numbers.---------------------------------------
-------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 40

1 (Mr. Fugate and Mr. Dandar spoke off

2 record.)

3 MR. DANDAR: Okay.

4 BY MR. FUGATE:

5 Q Now, I have handed to you, Mr. Minton, a group

6 of -- copies of checks, and I'd ask you to look through

7 these exhibits that are marked 93A through 93I and ask
if

8 you can identify these copies of the checks.

9 A Yes. These are all checks that I've given to

10 Mr. Dandar.

11 Q There are one -- 93A, 93B, 93C --

12 THE COURT: Counsel, they're A through I.

13 MR. FUGATE: No, I was going to ask him on

14 personal accounts. I just lost my place here.

15 BY MR. FUGATE:

16 Q -- 93D, 93E, and F are on your own bank
account.

17 Is that correct? Personal accounts, I mean.

18 A Yes, they are.

19 Q And I think it is 93G and I, if I have the
right

20 letters there, which appears to be UBS bank drafts or
bank

21 checks?

22 A Checks.

23 Q Checks, okay. I'm going to ask you to explain

24 that because I need to know.

25 A Okay.-----------------------------------------
------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 41

1 Q Are those exhibits the checks that you
provided

2 to and gave to Mr. Dandar? The UBS checks.

3 A Yes.

4 Q One in the amount of $500,000, which is G, and

5 one in the amount of 250,000?

6 A That's right.

7 MR. FUGATE: I would move all of these

8 checks into evidence, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Subject to the sort of

10 objection, whatever it is, I'm going to allow it.

11 BY MR. FUGATE:

12 Q Now --

13 THE COURT: In other words, he's not

14 waiving --

15 MR. FUGATE: I understand.

16 THE COURT: -- his -- the benefit that he's

17 obtained under the Second DCA orders in this case.

18 Rulings, sorry. Not orders; rulings.

19 BY MR. FUGATE:

20 Q Mr. Minton --

21 THE WITNESS: Can I just ask your Honor's

22 permission for something? I have a little -- if
you

23 don't mind if I bring it up, I keep it in my

24 calculator, and it's a list of these checks and the

25 dates.---------------------------------------------
-------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 42

1 THE COURT: That's fine. How do you keep

2 checks in a calculator?

3 THE WITNESS: No, in the calculator case.

4 THE COURT: Oh.

5 THE WITNESS: It just slides in there,

6 that's all.

7 THE COURT: Oh, okay.

8 BY MR. FUGATE:

9 Q Well, I think that where we are in the

10 progression here is with regard to the UBS -- copy of
the

11 UBS check which is Exhibit 93G and a copy of the UBS
check

12 which is 93I, could you tell the Court what these two

13 copies represent? In other words, what is a bank check
so

14 that we know what we're talking about here?

15 A Well, just to clarify, you used the term
"draft."

16 Q I know nothing about --

17 A Okay. But these are not drafts.

18 Q Okay.

19 A In Europe they might refer to them as drafts.

20 But, your Honor, you can see, just like, you know, your

21 checks, along the bottom there is what's called MICR

22 encoding, which has your account number, the check
number,

23 and the ABA number of the bank on which the check is

24 payable. And in this case, the -- up in about right
here

25 on the middle part, you see 1 dash 2 -------------------
------------------------------------------------ KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 43

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 A -- over 210. That's sort of the ABA code for

3 Chase Manhattan Bank. And that number is an MICR
encoding

4 down here, 02100021.

5 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, would you repeat

6 that number?

7 MR. FUGATE: Go ahead. Repeat the number.

8 THE REPORTER: Would you repeat the number.

9 THE WITNESS: 021000021 [sic].

10 THE REPORTER: Thank you.

11 A That -- this means that this check is, you
know,

12 just like any other check in the United States, that
it's

13 payable at some U.S. bank, like, you know, Fleet or

14 Fidelity, in my case, or SunTrust or whoever here. So
it's

15 a U.S. bank check, even though it's issued by Union Bank
of

16 Switzerland.

17 You know, so you deposit this -- a draft you

18 would normally actually go to your bank and send it for

19 collection. This -- this check can be deposited into
your

20 account just like any other check.

21 MR. FUGATE: Judge --

22 EXAMINATION

23 BY THE COURT:

24 Q Well, I don't know -- I guess I'm just still,
as

25 I said, not being an international financier -- how
does-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 44

1 one pick up the bank -- I mean, can I just -- in other

2 words, this -- I have to have this account right here in

3 this country.

4 A Well --

5 Q That's my -- that would be my U.S. account

6 number.

7 A No. That's what's called the ABA number, the

8 American Bankers Association number. It's a designation

9 within the Federal Reserve system in the United States.

10 Each bank has a separate ID --

11 Q Right.

12 A -- and that's their ABA number.

13 Q So this is your bank in New York?

14 A No. That's the Chase Manhattan Bank in New
York.

15 Q Okay. That's right here --

16 A Yes.

17 Q -- "bank paid to," the Chase Manhattan Bank?

18 A No, it's payable at Chase Manhattan Bank.

19 Q Payable at.

20 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have --

21 THE COURT: Wait. I'm not done.

22 MR. FUGATE: Well, I have a blowup that may

23 be easier to read. I don't know if --

24 THE COURT: That isn't going to help me a

25 bit.-----------------------------------------------
------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 45

1 BY THE COURT:

2 Q This number right here that I've got my thumb
on

3 right here, is that the Chase Manhattan Bank number?

4 A That's their designated -- designated ID
number

5 in the Federal Reserve system.

6 Q Right. Just like on my checking account, that

7 number down there -- I bank at Mercantile Bank. That's
--

8 on my checks, that's the Mercantile Bank?

9 A Yes. They would have their ABA number on that

10 check also.

11 Q Right. Out here to the right is my account

12 number.

13 A That's right.

14 Q At the Mercantile Bank.

15 A Correct.

16 Q Is that the same here? In other words, that's

17 the account number at the Chase Manhattan Bank?

18 A No. Well, that would be the one to the right
of

19 the ABA number --

20 Q Right.

21 A -- would be the account number of Union Bank
of

22 Switzerland, Zurich, at Chase Manhattan Bank in New
York.

23 Q That is the bank of Switzerland's account

24 number --

25 A Account number.-------------------------------
---------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 46

1 Q -- at the Chase Manhattan Bank?

2 A Correct.

3 Q Okay. So the bank in Switzerland in essence

4 sends this to the -- payable to the bank in Chase

5 Manhattan, and then somebody goes in and picks up the

6 funds?

7 A No --

8 Q How do you -- I just don't get it.

9 A No, okay. I'll explain it. You know, it's
just

10 like you write a check --

11 Q I'm going to pick up a telephone and call

12 Switzerland and tell them -- I've got to have an account

13 somewhere.

14 A Let's just establish one thing. Let's say
that

15 you call up your bank --

16 Q Okay.

17 A -- and you want them to issue you a check to
Ken

18 Dandar.

19 Q Okay.

20 A And, you know, they'll debit your account and

21 make a check just like this. You know, of course it
won't

22 say UBS; it'll be Mercantile Bank.

23 Q Right.

24 A And, you know, they'll either mail it to Ken

25 Dandar or they'll give it to you so you can give it to
Ken-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 47

1 Dandar. And then he just deposits -- deposits it into
his

2 account, you know, collects it like a normal check.

3 Now, if you're asking in this instance, you
know,

4 how does the -- you know, so UBS in the case I just
showed

5 you is just like you are. They're the ones who own the

6 account. It's their account at Chase Manhattan Bank.
They

7 have their money in it, and so they can write a check on

8 that account, just like you can write your check on

9 Mercantile Bank.

10 So -- but I think what you're --

11 Q How do I know this money is from you? Just

12 because you tell me? Or is there something here that
tells

13 me that?

14 A Well, there's nothing on there that tells you

15 that.

16 Q Okay.

17 A And I'm -- we'll no doubt get to that at
another

18 point. But --

19 Q Okay. But if I look at this, I don't know --
I

20 have no way of knowing by looking at this bank check,
the

21 UBS checks, that those checks are from you.

22 A Right. You know, other than the
circumstantial

23 evidence of me producing these checks and saying, you

24 know --

25 Q I understand that. And there's a difference
of-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 48

1 opinion between the two of you all, and I'll resolve
that.

2 But I'm just trying to say from my standpoint, if I were
to

3 get this check, know nothing about it, I would not be
able

4 to look and tell who this came from.

5 A Right. That's true.

6 Q If I knew, I knew. But if I don't know, I
can't

7 look on here and --

8 A That's correct.

9 THE COURT: Okay. That helps me. Thanks.

10 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

11 BY MR. FUGATE:

12 Q Now, if you look through those checks -- I
heard

13 you say you have it calculated. Did you total the total

14 amount that those checks represent?

15 A No, I didn't. But I'll do it.

16 Well, 1.1 million, exclusive of the UBS
checks,

17 and then add another 750,000 to that -- if my addition
was

18 correct in my head.

19 Q So that comes to a total of 1.850 -- or,

20 1,850,000? I can't even deal in numbers.

21 A Yes, I think that's what it -- unless I -- let
me

22 just quickly . . .

23 Yes, that's 1.1 plus 750.

24 Q And did you provide any other money to the
Lisa

25 McPherson -- well, to Mr. Dandar or the Lisa McPherson
case-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 49

1 by check that are not included in the checks that you
have

2 before you there?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And can you tell the Court how much that was?

5 A What did we say this came to, 1.1?

6 Q I think -- well, the --

7 THE COURT: 1.850.

8 A Oh, yes, 1.850. Another 200,000 on top of
that.

9 BY MR. FUGATE:

10 Q And can you tell us whether that was in the
form

11 of one check or more checks?

12 A I'd have to compare these to my own list, if
you

13 want me to do that.

14 Q Well, I think my question is going to be, Are

15 there checks that we don't have copies of here before us

16 today in court that you have access to or have checked
for,

17 looked for?

18 A I'm sure there must be --

19 Q All right.

20 A -- because there's another $200,000 worth of

21 checks.

22 Q All right. Well, let's explain then how you
come

23 to that conclusion so the Court can understand what
we're

24 talking about.

25 A Well, there's no dispute that these are the
two-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 50

1 Swiss checks, and those amounts are included in my total
of

2 $2,050,000. The first check is October 6th, '97; the

3 second check is February 5th, '98; the third check --
and,

4 I'm sorry, I should be referring to the exhibit numbers
--

5 93C is 100,000. We're missing a check here in October
1998

6 for 100,000, and we're missing a check here December --

7 dated December 1st, '98, for 100,000.

8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you tell me

9 again? Two checks and both in the amount of
100,000?

10 THE WITNESS: One 10/17 -- although I can't

11 read the date very clearly here -- 10/17/98, and
the

12 other is December 1st, '98.

13 THE COURT: You say they're missing, which

14 means you don't have them. Is that right?

15 THE WITNESS: Well, they're not in these two

16 piles that were given to me.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: All the others are, you know,

19 accurate according to my own records.

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q What does the total amount come to then that
you

22 have provided to Mr. Dandar or the Lisa McPherson case?

23 A Well, the total that I have provided is

24 $2,050,000, and it has all been provided to the Estate
of

25 Lisa McPherson. And I believe Mr. Dandar's own filings
in-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 51

1 this court will support that.

2 THE COURT: The truth of the matter is you

3 just need to answer the questions. They'll have

4 plenty of opportunity to ask you things that
obviously

5 you want to say.

6 THE WITNESS: Okay.

7 THE COURT: So you just answer the question.

8 A So all the money has been loaned to the Estate
of

9 Lisa McPherson through its attorney, Ken Dandar.

10 BY MR. FUGATE:

11 Q And we'll come back around to documents at a

12 later point here. But let me ask you, with regard now
to

13 the Lisa McPherson Trust -- leave aside the Estate and
go

14 to the Trust -- can you tell us if you've been able to

15 calculate how much money you have spent in setting up
and

16 running the Lisa McPherson Trust? Again, ballpark, if
you

17 can estimate.

18 A Two, two and a half million.

19 Q Now, there's been -- well, did you fund a
movie,

20 an anti-Scientology movie, called The Profit?

21 A Yes, I did.

22 Q And can you tell us what amount you -- "you,"

23 Mr. Minton -- funded for that movie.

24 A Close to $2 1/2 million, 2.47 or something.

25 Q And did you pay money directly to the
employees---------------------------------------------------------------
-- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 52

1 on a monthly basis of the LMT? And do you have an
estimate

2 of what that was? Two questions, I know.

3 A I don't have an estimate of what that was, but

4 that would be included in that overall figure of the
Lisa

5 McPherson Trust.

6 Q And we've heard testimony from Ms. Brooks.
Can

7 you tell us, if you know, kind of a ball park figure of

8 what you believe you've provided to her, Stacy Brooks.

9 A It's a little bit hard to calculate, but, you

10 know, at least 350,000, I'd think.

11 Q And do you know a Jesse Prince?

12 A Yes.

13 Q How much money did you provide to Mr. Prince

14 either as an employee of LMT or as an employee of

15 Mr. Dandar?

16 A At least 300,000.

17 Q Was there some sort of, to your understanding,
a

18 monthly amount that went to Mr. Prince, either from you
or

19 through Mr. Dandar?

20 A Yes. $5,000 a month basically is what -- you

21 know, is what Jesse said he required. That was sort of
the

22 case before he started working for Mr. Dandar, that was

23 what both Jesse Prince and myself told Mr. Dandar when
he

24 started working with Mr. Dandar, and that's the case up

25 until the beginning of last month.----------------------
------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 53

1 Q Do you know what month -- we're in May. Would

2 that be through April of 2002?

3 A Yes. Jesse would have been paid at the
beginning

4 of April -- and he was -- to cover the month of April.

5 Q Did you provide any other monies to -- other
than

6 the $5,000 a month that we've talked about -- when did
that

7 start, so we can keep track of that, to the best of your

8 recollection, the $5,000 a month for Mr. Jesse Prince?

9 A Well, sometime in -- you know, maybe at the

10 beginning it wasn't exactly 5,000 a month. I think
Jesse

11 referred to this in a deposition as sort of walking-
around

12 money. But, you know, so he might get 15,000, you know,

13 one month and then two months later get another 5 and
then

14 10 or something of that nature.

15 So, you know, it's been ongoing since Jesse

16 contacted me and Stacy Brooks back in 1998, in July,
about.

17 Q Did you have anything to do with Mr. Prince

18 moving to the Tampa Bay area to participate in the Lisa

19 McPherson litigation?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And can you tell the Court what that was.

22 A Well, I -- you know, I'll call it a loan, but
the

23 chances of my ever getting repaid are pretty slim, money

24 for his down payment on his house --

25 Q For ------------------------------------------
------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 54

1 A $50,000.

2 Q -- for him to purchase a house in Pinellas

3 county?

4 A Yes. I mean, you know, Jesse was somebody
that

5 was sort of particularly under Stacy Brooks' wing. You

6 know, he was somebody who needed somebody to take care
of

7 him, and Stacy highly encouraged me to do that and make

8 sure that others did that.

9 Q I'm not any good at math, but I'm going to ask

10 you, approximately how much of the monies that you've

11 discussed do you believe in your mind were directed

12 particularly to the litigation of this wrongful death
case

13 in Florida, out of the total amount? I think you said

14 about 10 million that you provided in funding for

15 anti-Scientology funding.

16 A Well, I would be hard pressed, but, you know,
to

17 some extent, you know, Jesse's remuneration for at least

18 '99 and most of 2000 could be construed as being part of

19 that. You know, The Profit, the movie, certainly an

20 element of that could be considered influential relative
to

21 the wrongful death case.

22 You know, a good part of the money that went
into

23 the LMT, at least for the first year, clearly was an

24 element to this wrongful death case. Moneys that have
gone

25 to Ms. Brooks over the last few years have been relevant
to-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 55

1 the wrongful death case.

2 Q And then the monies that you've provided

3 directly --

4 A Directly to the Estate, you know, obviously.
So,

5 you know, it's -- it would be hard for me to give you a

6 ballpark figure. I'm not a -- an accountant, cost

7 accountant, to figure this out. But, you know, it's
very

8 substantial.

9 Q Excuse me. As we move along, I'll try and do

10 this calculation here. But let me ask you this then.

11 THE COURT: You all ought to bring this here

12 movie in, because I just don't get it, how this
movie

13 relates to the Lisa McPherson case at all.

14 MR. FUGATE: Can I ask him to --

15 THE COURT: You can. But, I mean, frankly,

16 maybe you ought to produce it so I can take a good

17 look at it see and if I see anything about the Lisa

18 McPherson case in it.

19 MR. FUGATE: Well, I'll ask him.

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q Mr. Minton, the Court has asked about --

22 EXAMINATION

23 BY THE COURT:

24 Q Has it ever been released to anybody?

25 A Yes, it has been released, your Honor. Just
to-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 56

1 give you a little bit of background on it, you know,
there

2 is nothing in the movie that is about the Lisa McPherson

3 case. What the movie is about is basically an

4 anti-Scientology movie. And the only place that it's
ever

5 been released is here in Clearwater, Florida -- or, in

6 Clearwater, Florida. And I think it's also been shown
in

7 Tampa.

8 Q Where did it play, I guess would be important.
I

9 mean, I don't know, when you say "play," does it play at
a

10 movie house --

11 A Yes.

12 Q -- some legitimate theater?

13 A Yes, it was a movie theater. I don't remember

14 the name of it. It was some sort of movie house in

15 Clearwater. It was also shown in a movie theater here
in

16 Tampa, but I think that was for -- primarily for press
to

17 review it. And it has been reviewed, for example, in
the

18 St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. And it's

19 also -- it's also been shown in France at the Cannes
Film

20 Festival in May 200 -- March or May of 2000.

21 THE COURT: I'm going to assume that

22 whatever happened in France is not related to the
Lisa

23 McPherson case.

24 THE WITNESS: Right. But --

25 THE COURT: I don't think anybody in------------------
----------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 57

1 Tampa -- unless somebody from this area went over
to

2 Tampa to see this film, would have any bearing on
it.

3 THE WITNESS: Right.

4 THE COURT: It may have some bearing on some

5 person who may have seen this movie in Clearwater
if

6 they knew that this was an anti-Scientology case
and

7 they came in -- film, I'm sorry, and they came in
to

8 be on the jury pool in the Lisa McPherson case.
But

9 other than that scenario, how is this related to
the

10 Lisa McPherson case?

11 THE WITNESS: Well, it's exactly right in

12 the way you talked about it in terms of its ability
--

13 no guarantee that it would do it, but its ability
to

14 affect the pool of potential jurors in this area.

15 THE COURT: Well, then I presume -- that's

16 why I say I need to see it. I need to see if it
says

17 something like, "This is a movie about Scientology
and

18 how they killed Lisa McPherson," or whether it was
a

19 fictional movie or whatever it was, to see what

20 bearing, if any, it could possibly have.

21 I mean, I know what you all say, but, I

22 mean, I can't -- I can't assume that, you know -- I

23 could just be a regular old citizen going into the

24 theater to see it, and I could tell you whether it
had

25 a thing to do with the Lisa McPherson case or
whether-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 58

1 a juror on the street would know that it did. I
mean,

2 I don't know what this thing is about, but I heard

3 something about Mr. Dandar playing the part of an
FBI

4 man or something.

5 THE WITNESS: Right.

6 THE COURT: And I'm thinking, What in the

7 world is this movie about?

8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I assure the Court I'll

9 get back to that --

10 THE COURT: Okay.

11 MR. FUGATE: -- and I will ask questions

12 directed to that. But for the sake of where we
were,

13 I think you can answer -- unless you have any other

14 questions on it at this point.

15 THE COURT: No, I do not, just that I do not

16 want you to assume that testimony that this has

17 anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case has in
any

18 way been shown to me.

19 MR. FUGATE: I don't assume that, Judge.

20 THE COURT: I'm telling you that. Even

21 despite what he says, until I can see the movie or
--

22 you know, he says it doesn't have anything to do
with

23 the Lisa McPherson case, but it's anti-Scientology.

24 So, I mean, I've got -- what is that? I mean, I
don't

25 know. Does it say this is anti-Scientology, or is-
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 59

1 this just inferred?

2 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, maybe I can help.

3 We had some hearings about this in front of Judge

4 Beach because there was some discovery that was

5 attempted to be taken of Ms. Greenway and

6 Mr. Alexander, who were the creators of the movie.

7 And Judge Beach did actually see the movie. He
wanted

8 to see it as part of this discovery.

9 And he made a finding that this movie

10 definitely did concern Scientology. It was a movie

11 that was pretty derogatory of Scientology. And the

12 issue that we've been arguing, of course, for some

13 time is not that the movie concerns the, quote,
Lisa

14 McPherson story, of course, but that it's intended
to

15 infect the jury pool and make the jury pool or

16 potential jurors feel that Scientology is bad or

17 fraudulent or evil.

18 And it's a pretty horrible movie. We don't

19 have a copy of it, but I'm sure you can get it from

20 Mr. Dandar or Mr. Dandar's assistant, who is, you

21 know --

22 THE COURT: Does anybody know how many

23 people in Clearwater ever saw it?

24 MR. MOXON: Yes.

25 THE COURT: I mean, was this at an AMC----------------
------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 60

1 Theater that has folks that go in all the time? Or

2 was it at one of these coffeehouses that nobody
goes?

3 MR. MOXON: It was represented by -- it was

4 represented by Mr. Lirot, actually, who was in his

5 discovery representing Mr. Alexander and Ms.
Greenway,

6 that it was shown to over 2,000 people at a theater
in

7 Clearwater. They made some contract with a theater
in

8 Clearwater, some kind of a dinner theater or dinner

9 club theater. And they showed it to 2,000 people
in

10 Clearwater, not far from the Fort Harrison,
actually.

11 THE COURT: Well, one would think that a

12 movie that I'm -- that I would go to see would be a

13 movie that would be shown to a --

14 What?

15 (A note was handed to the Court.)

16 THE COURT: -- would be -- in the middle of

17 my hearing -- would be seen by more than 2,000
people.

18 I mean, to me, some movie that's seen by 2,000
people

19 is not a movie at all. It's some sort of a
homemade

20 something or other that goes to some sort of road

21 theater that -- I mean, I don't know, that to me
isn't

22 much of a movie. I mean, if I go see a movie, it's

23 something the world has seen. You know, I don't
know.

24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, let me give you the

25 coming attractions here. I'm going to get back to
it,-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 61

1 and I'm going to hopefully, through some questions,

2 establish at least how I perceive the relevance.
But

3 I just wanted to identify the funding so we have it

4 broken down, and you can decide whether or not you

5 believe it in some way is involved in the case or
not.

6 But I was just trying to break down the funding, if
I

7 could.

8 THE COURT: I understand. But you had just

9 asked him a question about how much of this

10 $10 million has to do with the Lisa McPherson case,

11 and simply to let you know that I do not buy this
just

12 yet. I thought I would let you know --

13 MR. FUGATE: I heard it.

14 THE COURT: -- that I will not buy that that

15 movie has a thing to do with the Lisa McPherson
case.

16 Now, maybe it does. Maybe you can establish it.
To

17 date, I ain't buying it.

18 MR. FUGATE: I heard you, your Honor.

19 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

20 BY MR. FUGATE:

21 Q Two names were mentioned there with regard to
the

22 movie, and we might as well get those while we're there:

23 Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway. Is that correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And on the Exhibit 81, under the board of-----
------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 62

1 directors of the Lisa McPherson Trust, I see Peter

2 Alexander and Patricia Greenway. Were they put on the

3 board by you?

4 A That's correct.

5 Q And are those the same two individuals that
were

6 involved in the production of the movie, The Profit?

7 A Yes. Alexander is the other 50 percent owner
of

8 Courage Productions. I'm the 50 percent owner, and
Courage

9 Productions is the one who produced the movie. And

10 Greenway works for Courage Productions.

11 THE COURT: Okay. I have a call from a

12 judge who has an apparent emergency, and I guess
I'm

13 the acting chief, to say nothing as the person who
can

14 help him with this. So I'm going to have to break.

15 Now, it doesn't make much sense that we come

16 back -- it's 20 minutes to 12:00. This will
probably

17 take me 20 minutes, so let's go ahead and break for

18 lunch. How about 1 o'clock?

19 MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

20 THE COURT: We'll be in recess.

21 (The luncheon recess was taken at

22 11:43 a.m.)

23 ____________________________________

24

25-----------------------------------------------------------
------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 63

1 STATE OF FLORIDA

2 COUNTY OF PINELLAS

3 I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered
Diplomate

4 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did

5 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and
that

6 the transcript is a true record.

7 WITNESS MY HAND this 18th day of May, 2002, at

8 St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

9

10 _________________________________
Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR
11 Court Reporter

[xganon]

KANABAY COURT REPORTERS
TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL (813) 224-9500
ST. PETERSBURG - CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. VOLUME 1
TESTIMONY OF
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG ROBERT S. MINTON
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS

JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

DATE: May 17, 2002. Morning Session

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building

St. Petersburg, Florida

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit Judge

REPORTED BY: Debra S. Turner
Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
_________________________________________________

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Volume 1, Page 2

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR

5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602

Attorney for Plaintiff

MR. KENDRICK MOXON

MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900

Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

MR. LEE FUGATE and
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER

101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147

Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD

740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518

Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization

MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQUIRE
740 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10003

Attorney for Church of Scientology

Flag Service Organization--------------------------------------------
--------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 3

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

MR. BRUCE HOWIE

5720 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida.

Attorney for Robert Minton

MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
Attorney for Stacy Brooks

ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. Donna West
Mr. Rick Spector

Ms. Sarah Heller
Mr. Ben Shaw

Mr. Brian Asay
Ms. Joyce Earl-------------------------------------------------------
---------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 4

1 THE COURT: You may call your next witness.

2 MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Fugate slipped out for a

3 second.

4 THE COURT: All right.

5 (Mr. Fugate entered the courtroom.)

6 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge.

7 THE COURT: It's all right.

8 MR. FUGATE: I just was looking for my coat,

9 and it was on the back of the chair.

10 We call Mr. Minton at this time.

11 THE COURT: All right.

12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor -- thank you.

13 THE BAILIFF: Stand here, sir. Face the

14 clerk, raise your right hand.

15 THE COURT: Face me. I'm swearing in these

16 witnesses.

17 (The witness was sworn.)

18 THE WITNESS: I do.

19 THE COURT: You may lower your hand.

20 THE BAILIFF: Have a seat. Watch your step.

21 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed?

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 Now, have we dealt with the notice to

24 produce?

25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, we have.-----------------
------------------------------------------------ KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 5

1 THE COURT: Have we fully covered that?

2 Mr. Dandar, are you satisfied that's been covered?

3 MR. DANDAR: Well, it's been covered --

4 there's a -- there's still a question about this
RICO

5 suit, the RICO draft of the suit that hasn't been

6 produced by anybody and has been talked about but
not

7 produced.

8 THE COURT: Well, if there is -- if there is

9 such a suit, I presume it will be produced.

10 MR. DANDAR: All right.

11 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, in our

12 response to request for production of documents
which

13 has been filed and a copy --

14 THE COURT: Excuse me just a sec.

15 Okay.

16 MR. HOWIE: A courtesy copy of that has been

17 provided to the Court, along with all of the

18 attachments. Those are all the documents that we
have

19 to produce. We have specifically responded to that

20 request and stated that we have no such document.

21 THE COURT: Okay. I did get a response to a

22 request to produce.

23 MR. HOWIE: I believe it was provided to the

24 Court on Tuesday, the --

25 THE COURT: I can't remember. What did I do----------
------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY
COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 6

1 about the personal income tax of Ms. Brooks? Did I

2 suggest that the 19 -- the 2000 return should be

3 produced?

4 MR. McGOWAN: You directed that the LMT be

5 produced as far as her return. You denied it --
the

6 production without prejudice, and if they could
show

7 some sort of thread --

8 THE COURT: Okay.

9 MR. McGOWAN: -- we would revisit the issue.

10 THE COURT: All right. Did I make the same

11 ruling on Mr. Minton? Or was that one of the ones

12 that the Fifth Amendment was going to be claimed
on?

13 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, the Fifth Amendment

14 will be raised as is to any tax returns personal to

15 Mr. Minton. The Court previously ruled some time
ago

16 in making its ruling on the deposition questions
that

17 Mr. Minton was required to answer because he did
not

18 waive privilege that he had maintained privilege as
to

19 income and reporting on tax returns.

20 THE COURT: Well, I guess I should state, is

21 there anything that was required to be produced
that

22 has not been produced because of a Fifth Amendment

23 privilege? At this time?

24 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, specifically

25 the tax returns.-----------------------------------
------------------------------ KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 7

1 THE COURT: The tax returns.

2 MR. HOWIE: In our response, we have

3 specifically stated that on the grounds of
privilege

4 we are not submitting those.

5 THE COURT: Okay. So then if there is a

6 RICO suit that has been shown or anything like it

7 and -- yes, you're right, there has been some

8 discussion about it. So if anybody has it, it
needs

9 to be produced.

10 That includes, Mr. Fugate, if any

11 representative of the Church has it, Mr. Minton has

12 it, if Mr. Howie has it.

13 MR. FUGATE: There is not one, but I'll

14 clear it up with Mr. Minton, hopefully.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, on one other point,

17 on paragraph 6 --

18 THE COURT: I can't seem to find that. It

19 shouldn't surprise anybody, with all the things I
have

20 up here, that I just can't put my hands on stuff

21 readily. So if you're going to tell me about

22 paragraph 6, you might have to show it to me.

23 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'll provide you

24 with a copy of the request for production of

25 documents. That's not our response; that's the----
-------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 8

1 request itself.

2 THE COURT: All right.

3 MR. HOWIE: But the -- paragraph 6 requests

4 a copy of any and all bank statements from all
banking

5 institutions utilized by Robert Minton for the
period

6 of two years prior to the filing of this notice.
Our

7 response -- our written response to that was that
it

8 was unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to

9 discovery of admissible evidence.

10 In addition to that, we are raising Fifth

11 Amendment privilege.

12 THE COURT: Isn't there an order already

13 requiring the production of that? Or not?

14 MR. HOWIE: There was an order concerning

15 production of bank records as to certain accounts
in

16 Boston, specifically Fleet and Fidelity, and those

17 were produced after a long harangue in Boston.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 MR. HOWIE: However, this is an extremely

20 broad item, which requests all institutions and all

21 accounts, which conceivably would include accounts
in

22 several other states or countries. And we are
raising

23 Fifth Amendment privilege as to production of those

24 documents, beyond those documents previously

25 discovered in this case.---------------------------
-------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 9

1 THE COURT: All right. So there's a Fifth

2 Amendment privilege being raised as to tax returns
and

3 as to bank statements as it is expressed in here --

4 MR. HOWIE: Yes.

5 THE COURT: -- beyond those which have

6 already been produced.

7 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, apart from any

8 other objections.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Now -- so that, other

10 than those two, are there any other Fifth Amendment

11 privileges being asserted as to the request for

12 production?

13 MR. HOWIE: I'm not aware of any further at

14 this time.

15 THE COURT: And so, other than those, it is

16 your belief that your response to request to
produce

17 has been complied with.

18 MR. HOWIE: That's correct, your Honor, yes.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MR. HOWIE: All documents available to us as

21 requested have been provided.

22 THE COURT: All right. Now, one last thing

23 that I need to ask -- and I need to ask this, if

24 anybody knows the answer to it, because I don't.

25 In -- I have done very little federal work, so I
don't-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 10

1 know. Is there some prohibition of transferring
money

2 from out of the country into this country and over
a

3 certain amount without doing something?

4 MR. HOWIE: It's my understanding that there

5 is a requirement that any -- no, I'm thinking of a

6 different provision, concerning the deposit of more

7 than $10,000 in cash and the reporting requirement.

8 Beyond that, I'm afraid I'm ignorant.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else know, any of

10 you who worked in the U.S. attorney's office?

11 MR. DANDAR: My non-expert statement is that

12 over $10,000 coming in or going out has to be

13 reported. Any money that is earned overseas needs
to

14 be reported and taxes paid on it if it exceeds

15 $80,000.

16 MR. FUGATE: Per annum.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. DANDAR: But that's a non-expert

19 opinion.

20 THE COURT: That's good enough. Okay.

21 MR. WEINBERG: It's more complicated than

22 that.

23 THE COURT: And I don't doubt it.

24 MR. DANDAR: Sandy Weinberg should know the

25 answer to that question.---------------------------
-------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 11

1 THE COURT: Yes. Do you know? I mean --

2 MR. WEINBERG: You know, off the top of my

3 head, I can't tell you the amounts. There are

4 limitations as to, you know, actually physically

5 bringing money into the country. There are a
series

6 of new statutes that are in place because of

7 September 11th, which I'm not familiar with, which

8 have -- which have made reporting obligations even

9 more severe than they were before.

10 THE COURT: Well, I know that there are, at

11 least in this case, there are two $500,000 checks
that

12 I am aware of that came from -- I guess at least
began

13 in or a transfer from a Swiss bank. I don't know

14 enough -- not being a worldwide financier, I don't

15 know how that works. I don't know whether somebody

16 has to have money in that bank to begin that
process

17 or whether the bank that begins the process is the

18 bank in this country.

19 I mean, I just don't do that myself

20 personally, and I've not been involved in those
kinds

21 of cases as either a lawyer or a judge.

22 MR. WEINBERG: It's really -- without -- it

23 is way more complicated. It has to do with what
one's

24 intent is and a lot of other things as to what one
can

25 do vis-a-vis the laws of the United States about---
--------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 12

1 bringing money in or taking money out. And, I
mean,

2 there's nothing in and of itself wrong --

3 THE COURT: Right.

4 MR. WEINBERG: -- bringing money --

5 THE COURT: Reporting requirements and this

6 type of thing.

7 MR. WEINBERG: Right, right.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, it is not my job to

9 know that. I just -- in the event that the Fifth

10 Amendment issues came up, I was just going to try
to

11 see if I could gain some knowledge.

12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, there is one other

13 point that I need to raise. As to Request 4 and 5,

14 requesting copies of all checks written by Stacy

15 Brooks to Mr. Minton or Mr. Minton to Stacy Brooks,
we

16 have reason to believe that those checks were

17 previously disclosed or discovered. We have not

18 included them with this response, apart from that

19 belief. But we also raise objections that such a

20 request is unduly burdensome and is not likely to
lead

21 to discovery of admissible evidence.

22 So to amend my response to the Court, we've

23 also raised objections as to paragraphs --

24 THE COURT: Well, I don't think a two-year

25 request for checks between Mr. Minton and Stacy
Brooks-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 13

1 is unduly burdensome, nor do I think that it's

2 oppressive or any of those other things you just

3 mentioned.

4 However, if they've already been produced, I

5 don't think you need to produce them again.

6 MR. HOWIE: I have seen such checks attached

7 to pleadings in this case, and I have reason to

8 believe that they have been produced.

9 THE COURT: Okay.

10 MR. HOWIE: Whether that's a complete

11 production --

12 THE COURT: Do you have those checks?

13 MR. DANDAR: To my best memory, I do not

14 have those checks. That's why I asked for them to
be

15 produced.

16 THE COURT: He said he doesn't have them.

17 MR. HOWIE: All right. Well, I will

18 instruct my client accordingly based on the Court's

19 ruling.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. HOWIE: We would physically not be able

22 to produce them today.

23 THE COURT: Right. I would think, rather

24 than saying for a period of two years prior to the

25 filing of this notice, that that's kind of odd.
It's-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 14

1 like a two-year period that begins and ends in the

2 middle of a year. I don't know about everybody
else,

3 but I used to keep my bank statements year to year.

4 Wouldn't 2000 and 2001 accomplish your purpose?

5 MR. DANDAR: That would be fine.

6 THE COURT: So if that's of any help, 2000,

7 2001, if your client keeps his records in that

8 fashion.

9 MR. HOWIE: With the permission of the

10 Court, I will discuss this with my client during
our

11 first opportunity.

12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

13 Mr. Fugate.

14 MR. FUGATE: May I proceed, your Honor?

15 THE COURT: You may.

16 MR. FUGATE: First thing I'm going to do,

17 though, before I --

18 THE COURT: Oh, I have to ask one thing. I

19 asked this of Ms. Brooks. Mr. Howie has already

20 placed on the record that in the event the Court

21 should decide, in light of your admission to
perjury,

22 to file its own order to show cause based on that,
he

23 has indicated he would accept service.

24 THE WITNESS: That's fine with me.

25 THE COURT: Is that fine with you?--------------------
--------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 15

1 THE WITNESS: It is.

2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

3 Proceed. Look at that, glasses.

4 MR. FUGATE: But I actually looked at this

5 exhibit, and I couldn't read it with my glasses.

6 THE COURT: Even with your glasses.

7 MR. FUGATE: So I'm over the hill.

8 Good morning, your Honor.

9 ROBERT S. MINTON

10 being first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

11 testified as follows:

12 DIRECT EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. FUGATE:

14 Q Good morning, Mr. Minton. Would you state
your

15 name for the record if you haven't done so already.

16 A Robert, middle initial S., like Sam, Minton,

17 M-i-n-t-o-n.

18 Q And, Mr. Minton, I have placed before you or I

19 did place up there to save a little time three affi- --

20 copies, actually, of three affidavits --

21 THE COURT: Excuse me.

22 Mr. Howie, do you need this back?

23 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, unless the

24 Court needs it.

25 THE COURT: No. I've got it here somewhere.----------
------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY
COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 16

1 I'm sorry, proceed.

2 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, your Honor. May I

3 proceed?

4 THE COURT: Yes.

5 BY MR. FUGATE:

6 Q I placed on the witness stand three affidavits
or

7 copies of three affidavits. I believe the first is
dated

8 April 18th, and the other two are dated April 24th. And

9 the first one has no number in the caption, and the
second

10 and third are captioned "second" and "third." Do you
have

11 those in front of you?

12 A I do.

13 Q And are those, sir, the three -- copies of the

14 three affidavits that you have executed through your

15 counsel and filed in the record in this proceeding?

16 A Yes, they appear to be.

17 Q And would you check and make sure that the

18 signature pages are your signature on each of the three?

19 A That is my signature on each of those.

20 Q And for the record for this proceeding, you've

21 had an opportunity to review those three before today.
And

22 are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
as

23 you sit here today?

24 A There's an inaccuracy in the second affidavit,

25 but it's -- it's referred to in the recantation
affidavit,--------------------------------------------------------------
--- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 17

1 the first one, which doesn't have a number. I think I

2 mention in here that there is a $100,000 check that
hasn't

3 been produced by the bank in discovery, and so some of
the

4 figures in the second affidavit are off by 100,000.
I've

5 since discovered the date of the missing $100,000 check.

6 And there are a few items that are off by $100,000 in
that

7 affidavit.

8 Q And I suspect that you're going to be on the

9 witness stand for a day or two, so if -- once we get to

10 that, we'll -- if you'll note it somewhere so we can

11 correct it for the record and for the Court, I would

12 appreciate that.

13 A Yes, okay.

14 THE COURT: Can you all give me just a

15 minute to go through this and get these three

16 affidavits? Are you going to get to those
affidavits

17 right fast?

18 MR. FUGATE: No, Judge, I'm not. Actually,

19 I just wanted to identify them for the record and
have

20 him indicate that he has executed each of the
three.

21 THE COURT: Then I'll look for them --

22 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, we have a copy of

23 them if you want them.

24 THE COURT: I think I have them here. Let

25 me kind of root through here and see if I can find-
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 18

1 them. If I can't -- I have the big one, the
second.

2 And I know I have the other two; it's just a matter
of

3 finding them.

4 Continue.

5 MR. DANDAR: Do you have those exhibit

6 numbers?

7 MR. FUGATE: Well, they're filed in the

8 record. I thought we would cut down on some paper,

9 amazingly.

10 And, Judge, rather than trying to do this in

11 a narrative fashion, learning from the first
episode,

12 I think I'm going to try to go and ask questions to

13 speed this along --

14 THE COURT: That's fine.

15 MR. FUGATE: -- and try to break it down

16 into some areas, hopefully, that will get us
through

17 the issues and make some sense.

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q Mr. Minton, you've been sitting through -- I

20 should ask you this to preface these questions, I guess.

21 You were added as a party to the counterclaim. Is that

22 correct?

23 A That is --

24 Q In this matter.

25 A -- correct, yes.------------------------------
----------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 19

1 Q And after you were added as a party, I believe

2 there was a request that you be provided with
transcripts

3 of the proceedings that had been going forward in this

4 hearing. Is that correct?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And you've had an opportunity, I take it, to
read

7 those transcripts?

8 A I've read all of the transcripts --

9 Q Okay.

10 A -- up -- you know, up until this week.

11 Q Then this question will make sense. Are you
the

12 same Mr. Minton that has been discussed in the testimony
as

13 far as funding anti-Scientology litigation, both here in

14 the state of Florida and around the country?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q All right. And when did you start to do that,

17 sir?

18 A I think the first monies that I gave was to an

19 organization called FACTNet, and that would have been in

20 late 1995, early 1996.

21 Q And have you been funding litigation not only
in

22 this country, but around the world against Scientology
from

23 that period of time on?

24 A Yes, I have.

25 Q And can you tell us in a ballpark figure, I---
--------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 20

1 guess, about how much, if you've calculated it, you have

2 provided in funding for anti-Scientology litigation?

3 A Well, I'm not sure I can segregate it out with

4 specifics to litigation, but, you know, involving the
LMT

5 litigation, the movie, you know, which is all part of
this

6 anti-Scientology thing, you know, the figure would
approach

7 $10 million.

8 Q Well, I'm going to ask you to go through in
terms

9 of what you funded outside of this specific litigation

10 here.

11 MR. FUGATE: And I'll do it now, Judge, and

12 see if we can get through that quickly.

13 BY MR. FUGATE:

14 Q We've heard about a man named Mr. Wollersheim.

15 Did you fund any of his litigation against the Church of

16 Scientology?

17 A Yes, I did.

18 Q And approximately how much, if you recall, did

19 you provide to Mr. Wollersheim?

20 A To Mr. Wollersheim directly, at the present
time

21 he owes me about $700,000.

22 Q And did you secure that in any way?

23 A Well, first it was -- there was, you know, a
loan

24 agreement in connection with both the amounts that were

25 advanced that he ended up owing the 700 million --
$700,000----------------------------------------------------------------
- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 21

1 on. And there was a filing, a UCC-1 filing, against --
in

2 the state of California against his judgment that he

3 expected to collect from the Church of Scientology,
which I

4 now understand he's collected.

5 Q Actually, has it been interpled to the Court?

6 A Sorry, interpled into the Court. I don't
think

7 he's actually got hold of the money yet.

8 Q Now, have you provided any money to fund
FACTNet

9 litigation?

10 A Yes, I have.

11 Q And approximately how much was that, sir?

12 THE COURT: FACTNet is actually a

13 corporation --

14 MR. FUGATE: I should -- let me ask that,

15 Judge.

16 BY MR. FUGATE:

17 Q What -- at the time you were funding FACTNet -
-

18 what was FACTNet, for the Court's benefit?

19 A Well, FACTNet was a group that -- an

20 anti-Scientology litigation group that was set up. That

21 was its original purpose, that it was to sell its
services

22 to help other people who wanted to litigate against

23 Scientology.

24 It evolved -- mainly because nobody was

25 interested in paying what they were selling, paying for-
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 22

1 what they were selling -- it evolved into sort of a

2 straight anti-cult group, mainly anti-Scientology. And

3 then after a settlement agreement back in 1989 that
Stacy

4 Brooks and I entered into with the Church of
Scientology,

5 it became more of a general sort of anti-cult
enterprise.

6 Q And to your knowledge, who put together
FACTNet

7 to sell its services to anti-Scientology litigation?

8 A Principally Lawrence Wollersheim. In
addition,

9 there was another gentleman named Robert Penny.

10 THE COURT: Just once again, FACTNet, is

11 that a corporation or a nonprofit corporation or a

12 for-profit corporation?

13 THE WITNESS: It's a --

14 THE COURT: I don't know the answer.

15 THE WITNESS: -- Colorado nonprofit

16 corporation.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q And I think I asked you, do you recall

20 approximately -- well, you say that you negotiated the

21 settlement to end the FACTNet litigation. What was that

22 settlement, sir?

23 A Well, FACTNet had been sued by Religious

24 Technology Corporation, or I've heard it referred to as

25 "Center" here, but I'm not sure whether it's Religious--
---------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 23

1 Technology -- RTC. RTC -- or, FACTNet had published
some

2 of the Church's copyrighted materials on the Internet
and

3 got sued for it. And this litigation was ongoing I
think

4 from 1995 through 1999.

5 And when -- when I was the president of
FACTNet

6 and Stacy Brooks was a member of the board of directors
of

7 FACTNet, we wanted to climb out from under that
litigation

8 that was hanging over FACTNet's head. And we agreed --
we

9 worked out a settlement agreement with the Church of

10 Scientology or RTC and agreed to a stipulated judgment
in

11 the amount of I believe $1 million in the event that

12 FACTNet violated copyrights in the future. That would
be

13 this --

14 Q Did that include a stipulated injunction to no

15 longer post copyrighted --

16 A Yes, it did.

17 Q -- church material?

18 A That was part of the whole arrangement, yes.

19 Q And the copyrighted material, to your
knowledge,

20 had it been stolen from the Church and then published?

21 THE COURT: Who paid the million dollars?

22 THE WITNESS: No, well, it's only -- it was

23 a stipulated judgment, so if FACTNet did it again,

24 automatically a judgment of $1 million would be

25 entered against them.------------------------------
----------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 24

1 MR. FUGATE: Liquidated damages, Judge.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, liquidated damages, I'm

3 sorry.

4 THE COURT: I'm confused. I thought we were

5 getting to how much money he had spent to fund

6 anti-Scientology litigation, and now I'm hearing

7 something -- that's not it?

8 MR. FUGATE: Well, this is part of -- I'm

9 just taking him through the various things to get
to

10 the case --

11 THE COURT: Oh, okay.

12 MR. FUGATE: -- the ones that he's funded.

13 BY MR. FUGATE:

14 Q And tell us, did you actually, if you can
recall,

15 expend in your own funds with regard to FACTNet, your

16 participation with FACTNet.

17 A Well, it -- probably 300 to 400 thousand
dollars.

18 And that would -- that would include monies that were
paid

19 to, you know, people like Jesse Prince while he was
working

20 there.

21 Q And did you come to meet a lawyer by the name
of

22 Dan Leipold, we've heard about in this case?

23 A Yes, I did.

24 Q And did you -- what was his -- or, what was he

25 doing as you came to know him as a lawyer?--------------
--------------------------------------------------- KANABAY COURT
REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 25

1 A I believe I first encountered him when he -- I

2 think he was representing FACTNet in that FACTNet

3 litigation.

4 Q Okay. Did you provide any funds to Mr.
Leipold

5 that you could tell us about?

6 A Yes. He was with a law firm when he was doing

7 this FACTNet litigation called Hagenbaugh & Murphy, and
--

8 MR. FUGATE: Did you get that, Madam Court

9 Reporter?

10 THE REPORTER: I have something down.

11 BY MR. FUGATE:

12 Q Okay. Can you spell that, if you know?

13 A H-a --

14 Q Besides needing glasses, I think I need my --

15 A H-a-g-e-n-b-a-u-g-h and Murphy, M-u-r-p-h-y, I

16 think.

17 Q And I interrupted you.

18 A And Mr. Leipold and two of his partners --
well,

19 Hagenbaugh & Murphy weren't exactly pleased with the
status

20 of the Scientology/anti-Scientology litigation that
Leipold

21 was involved in. You know, very little money was coming

22 into the firm, and a lot of contingency things were
being

23 done and costs weren't being paid, you know. So his
firm

24 wasn't happy as far as I could understand.

25 And he wanted to go off and set up his own
law-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 26

1 firm, which he did with -- and this is sometime in 1998,
I

2 believe it was. He wanted to set up his own law firm
with

3 a man named Donohue, Bob Donohue and Kathy Shipe, who
were

4 also involved -- well, Kathy Shipe was involved in the

5 Scientology aspect.

6 And so I loaned him $180,000, which -- you
know,

7 to get his law firm off the ground to continue his, you

8 know, anti-Scientology litigation work.

9 Q Was that sort of the purpose of your funding
to

10 Mr. Leipold?

11 A Well, that's what he wanted it for, and, you

12 know, that's what I gave it to him for. And then I also

13 have given him since then at least another $320,000.

14 Q So approximately $500,000?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And did you -- in funding him, did you get any

17 loan agreements with him?

18 A Before answering that, let me go back to -- I

19 forgot to answer your question about FACTNet. Oh, no, I

20 did, about the amount of money, I'm sorry.

21 Yes. The -- there was a loan agreement
covering

22 that initial $180,000, which was disbursed in two
amounts,

23 I believe.

24 Q And so at the present time he still owes you
some

25 amount of money that has not been repaid to you?--------
--------------------------------------------------------- KANABAY
COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 27

1 A The bulk of that 180,000 has not been repaid.

2 There have been a few small installments paid on it, but
it

3 is still largely fully outstanding.

4 Q And the 320?

5 A That's fully outstanding.

6 Q Now, we've heard about a Keith Henson. Have
you

7 funded -- or, can you tell us who Keith Henson is first.

8 My question then would be if you funded him.

9 A Keith Henson has been, you know, a very vocal

10 critic of Scientology. He's been -- I guess he's, you

11 know, one of the more outlandish critics in some
respects.

12 And he was involved in some litigation with Scientology
I

13 think in '97 or '98, which I provided funding to his

14 attorney.

15 Q Was that copyright infringement?

16 A It was, yes.

17 Q What happened with that case, if you know?

18 A Mr. Henson was found guilty of copyright

19 infringement and I believe was -- for one single count
of

20 copyright infringement, and a jury awarded $75,000 to

21 Religious Technology Center and court costs, which are

22 several hundred thousand dollars, I think.

23 Q To your knowledge, that was a jury trial?

24 A Yes, it was.

25 Q And how much did you provide in funding to----
-------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 28

1 Mr. Henson?

2 A Somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 or 28

3 thousand, I think. His attorney was Graham Berry.

4 Q We heard about him yesterday. Is this also
the

5 same Mr. Henson that we heard was convicted of terrorist

6 threats against the Church and then fled to Canada?

7 THE COURT: You know, the truth of the

8 matter is your question here has to do with how
much

9 has he paid, and so we don't need to repeat all

10 these -- what these other suits are about.

11 MR. FUGATE: I'll move on.

12 THE COURT: Thank you.

13 BY MR. FUGATE:

14 Q Now, did you come to know in the critic
community

15 an individual by the name of Arnie Lerma?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And did you provide funding --

18 THE COURT: Larma?

19 MR. FUGATE: It's A-r-n-i-e, Lerma,

20 L-e-r-m-a.

21 THE COURT: Thank you.

22 BY MR. FUGATE:

23 Q Did you provide funding to him?

24 A Yes, I did. It was principally, you know,

25 personal living-type expenses. He was involved in------
-----------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 29

1 litigation. You know, RTC again sued him for copyright

2 infringement.

3 Q And approximately how much did you provide in

4 funding to Mr. Lerma?

5 A Sixty -- 60,000 for sure at that time.

6 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, may I approach the

7 clerk?

8 THE COURT: You may.

9 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your

10 Honor?

11 THE COURT: You may.

12 MR. FUGATE: Do you have Defendant's

13 Exhibit 81 up there -- it's this exhibit -- Judge?

14 THE COURT: I do, yes.

15 MR. FUGATE: This may be helpful, really.

16 As I said, it's kind of like a score card, if you

17 will.

18 THE COURT: I have it, but you see I'm

19 stacking up stuff looking for the affidavits --

20 MR. FUGATE: I'll see if I can get a couple

21 of copies.

22 I'll get a copy of that, and we can move on.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor?

25 THE COURT: You may.----------------------------------
------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 30

1 MR. FUGATE: I'll just give you a courtesy

2 copy. You've already got it. It's Exhibit 81.

3 And I'll give one to Mr. Minton.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

5 MR. FUGATE: Just bear with me a moment,

6 your Honor.

7 BY MR. FUGATE:

8 Q The Arnie Lerma that we were just talking
about,

9 was he on the advisory committee of the Lisa McPherson

10 Trust?

11 A Yes, he was.

12 Q The Keith Henson that we talked about a moment

13 ago, was he on the advisory committee of the LMT Trust?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And we talked about Mr. Wollersheim. Was he
on

16 the advisory committee of the Lisa McPherson Trust?

17 A He was.

18 Q Now, you see on the advisory committee a man
by

19 the name of Gerry Armstrong?

20 A Right.

21 Q Was he -- did you come to know Mr. Gerry

22 Armstrong?

23 A Yes, I did.

24 Q And was he another individual who you provided

25 funds to to -- well, did you provide funds to him?------
-----------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 31

1 A Yes, I did.

2 Q And do you recall approximately how much you

3 provided to him?

4 A 100,000, at least.

5 Q And did he file some sort of lawsuit against

6 David Miscavige individually?

7 A He did.

8 Q And did he use the funds, to the best of your

9 knowledge, to fund that litigation?

10 A He did.

11 Q And is Mr. Armstrong, the other fellow that
you

12 saw in the transcripts that has fled to Canada for --

13 THE COURT: Counsel, we all know who he is.

14 Why do we care if Mr. Minton knows? It's already
in

15 the record.

16 MR. FUGATE: Moving right along, Judge.

17 THE COURT: Thank you.

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q Do you see, under the office and staff of the

20 LMT, Grady Ward, Webmaster and security director?

21 A Yes, I do.

22 Q Did you provide any funds to Mr. Grady Ward?

23 A Yes, I have.

24 Q And do you recall approximately how much that

25 was?----------------------------------------------------
------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 32

1 A I really would be hard pressed to tell you on

2 that because, you know, I have a continuing financial

3 commitment or support that I give to Grady Ward.

4 Q You mean continuing up to the present time?

5 A Yes.

6 Q All right. Can you give us a ballpark of what

7 you think -- and I realize it would be a ballpark -- to
the

8 present time, you've given him funds or provided funds
to

9 Mr. Ward?

10 A Around 100,000. That's a ballpark. I'm not -
- I

11 don't think it's less.

12 Q And so we can separate this out, if you can,
are

13 these monies in addition to any salaries that you may
have

14 paid any of these individuals through the LMT?

15 THE COURT: I'm not sure what we're doing

16 here. Are you talking about money he's given to

17 people --

18 MR. FUGATE: Provided --

19 THE COURT: -- the corporations that he's

20 been involved in that paid salaries? I think
things

21 are quite different if someone has given me a
salary

22 I've earned versus someone gives me something as

23 either a loan or a gift.

24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the reason I've asked if

25 all these folks were involved or are involved in---
--------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 33

1 anti-Scientology litigation is to establish that
he's

2 funded them, and I just asked him the question in

3 addition to that --

4 THE COURT: Okay, in addition to that.

5 BY MR. FUGATE:

6 Q Did you pay monies to them in the form of some

7 sort of salary agreement through the LMT?

8 A Well, the only one we talked about so far that

9 received any sort of salary arrangements from LMT I
believe

10 is Grady Ward.

11 Q Now, in addition to these individuals that
we've

12 talked about, did you fund any litigation in Germany
where

13 you caused the Church of Scientology or Scientologists
to

14 be sued there?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And approximately how much did you provide in

17 funding to Germany?

18 A Approximately $100,000.

19 Q And did you fund similar litigation in France?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And how much did you provide in funding to
France

22 for litigation against the Church or individuals within
the

23 Church?

24 A About $300,000.

25 Q Now, the monies that we've talked about up to
the-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 34

1 present are monies that have been funded to other

2 litigation other than directly related to this Lisa

3 McPherson wrongful death lawsuit and the LMT. Is that

4 correct?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q Now, sir, how much, if you can tell us, have
you

7 loaned to the Estate to cover expenses in the wrongful

8 death lawsuit?

9 A 2 million --

10 MR. DANDAR: Objection, leading.

11 THE COURT: Sustained. That is an issue in

12 this case, and at that point, I don't think you
ought

13 to be saying -- that's an issue. I'd like to hear
him

14 say what it was.

15 MR. FUGATE: I'll back this out and go

16 through it.

17 THE COURT: It's kind of late now, so just

18 go on to your next question.

19 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer?

20 THE COURT: It's all right.

21 MR. FUGATE: I think an easier way to do

22 this, Judge, is I'm going to -- and I've given
copies

23 to counsel --

24 May I approach, your Honor?

25 THE COURT: You may.----------------------------------
------------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 35

1 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying to do this a little

2 bit more expeditiously.

3 Our next number is?

4 And, Judge, I think that these are --

5 maybe -- these are copies of all of the checks that
I

6 have.

7 THE COURT: All right.

8 MR. DANDAR: And, Judge, I would object and

9 cite the three Second District Court opinions on
money

10 financed to the -- me or the estate as being
totally

11 irrelevant.

12 THE COURT: I would agree with you on that,

13 and I do agree with you on that, with this one

14 exception. This is all over the place. We all
know

15 what it is, we all know the checks, we all know
what

16 the amount of the checks are. You know, it's kind
of

17 like the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. It's
a

18 little late.

19 MR. DANDAR: The horse is out of the barn.

20 THE COURT: The horse is out of the barn.

21 However, if you wish for me to not permit inquiry
into

22 this line of questioning because of that opinion, I

23 will do that.

24 That kind of leaves us at an awkward spot,

25 doesn't it, because there's been an allegation of--
---------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 36

1 perjury here. And if I say, "Well, it's
irrelevant,"

2 well, then we don't go there. So, you know, as I

3 said, this is my suggestion to you, Counsel, and
it's

4 for your protection. My suggestion to you is to
let

5 the checks in, discuss the money, but have me
continue

6 to protect you, which I don't think is out of the

7 barn -- at least it isn't out of my barn -- as to
what

8 you've spent. Because I think that's kind of the

9 issue here, and I really think we need to sort it
out

10 to make a decision on this case, always remembering

11 that the Second District said that it's irrelevant.

12 MR. DANDAR: That's right.

13 THE COURT: So it's up to you. Do you want

14 them kept out or do you want us to go ahead and get

15 through this, just that part, the money?

16 MR. DANDAR: No, we can go ahead and get

17 through it, but I still want to have my standing

18 objection.

19 THE COURT: I'll keep it out. You have an

20 objection that it's irrelevant, and it is
irrelevant.

21 And that is, of course, something that I would
expect

22 you to argue legally at the conclusion of this
case,

23 because the Second District has said this is

24 irrelevant. And if you don't want any questions

25 asked, then I won't ask any. But, I mean, I'm
aware-----------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 37

1 of the fact of what Mr. Minton says and I'm aware
of

2 what you said because another judge has ruled that
its

3 admissible and because it's in. So if you want me
to

4 kind of decide that on your credibility versus
others'

5 credibility, I've almost got to hear it.

6 MR. DANDAR: All right.

7 THE COURT: It's not as if the world doesn't

8 know.

9 MR. DANDAR: I understand that. But even in

10 the other case the Second District said it's

11 irrelevant.

12 THE COURT: That is true. So do you want me

13 to keep all this out? Because I will.

14 MR. DANDAR: Actually, right now I'm at a

15 loss of what to do. I mean, my credibility is on
the

16 line, and you need to make a decision on it.

17 THE COURT: It is, because even if this --

18 you know, irrelevance goes to perjury.

19 MR. DANDAR: Right.

20 THE COURT: It's irrelevant; therefore, it

21 can't be perjury. The allegations are sort of if
you

22 encouraged somebody to lie under oath, whether it's

23 perjury or not, it would seem to me that that would
be

24 important as to whether or not you should be
removed

25 as counsel.----------------------------------------
------------------------- KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

Volume 1, Page 38

1 MR. DANDAR: It's important to me, so let's

2 go ahead.

3 THE COURT: All right. But I will not -- I

4 think that's a good decision. However, I will
protect

5 you as to the expenditure of those funds, what they

6 were spent for, because that's what I look to the

7 Second District in saying that the Church is not

8 entitled to know how much of that you have left to

9 litigate your lawsuit.

10 MR. DANDAR: Correct. Thank you.

11 MR. FUGATE: If it's of any service to the

12 Court, I don't intend to ask any questions about

13 expenditures.

14 THE COURT: We've been through that, and I

15 indicated we're not going to go through there. And

16 that includes, by the way, what accounts Mr. Dandar

17 may have put this money through.

18 MR. DANDAR: So then we're not going to be

19 discussing the facts of the checks.

20 THE COURT: We're not going to discuss

21 whether you put it in your trust account, whether
you

22 put it in a personal account, versus whether you
put

23 it in an operating account, because from that very

24 information they could glean which ones you thought

25 you needed to spend for the expenditure of this----
-------------------------------------------------------------
KANABAY COURT REPORTERS

[Nomen Nescio]

139

1 Verizon and Nextel."

2 So this order, which says here you agreed to

3 it, says that the parties agreed to cancel the

4 deposition. That would be you.

5 MR. DANDAR: I'm not so sure about that but --

6 but look at -- look what you have in front of you,

7 Judge. Where is the sealed telephone records? How

8 were they unsealed? Why --

9 THE COURT: I assume they went to Mr. Keane.

10 MR. MOXON: Exactly right, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: And that Keane -- it says

12 thereafter Keane shall unseal the records and

13 categorize the records.

14 This -- again, I signed this. When I hear

15 "agreed" -- I don't even read it, to tell you the

16 truth. When somebody said we have agreed on the

17 order, I say, goodie and I sign it, so I don't know

18 what this order contained. And I'm sure I glanced

19 at it, but I don't read it with the same depth I do

20 when you-all don't agree.

21 "Thereafter, Keane shall unseal the records and

22 shall categorize the records with sufficient

23 specificity that the parties understand what they

24 are, but in a general enough way that the content of

25 the records are not made public. Within five days

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

140

1 thereof, counsel for LMT and Minton shall set forth

2 in writing the identity of all records they agree

3 are discoverable and not subject to privilege.

4 These records shall be turned over to Mr. Moxon,

5 with copies going to all other interested parties in

6 the lawsuit."

7 So did you get them?

8 MR. DANDAR: No.

9 THE COURT: You never got them?

10 MR. DANDAR: No. And my name doesn't appear on

11 there as the stipulated parties, either.

12 I don't want to waste a lot of time on this,

13 Judge. I just wanted to voice my objection to the

14 whole procedure.

15 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, your solution, I

16 think, is -- I think you can see by the orders there

17 is no chicanery. If he wants to look at the records

18 and make sure -- I agree with your Honor. I don't

19 think we would ever ask for law firm telephone

20 records unless there was some notification and some

21 process that occurred. But if he wants to look at

22 the records, we'll come back to it on Tuesday, which

23 I agreed to before we took the break.

24 THE COURT: Okay. It does show you got a copy

25 of this -- of this letter. And --

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

141

1 MR. DANDAR: I did. It was Mr. McGowan who was

2 negotiating with Mr. Moxon and Mr. Keane, and he

3 told me that is what they were going to do, I think

4 one or two days before the scheduled deposition.

5 I had no interest in it because it said Robert

6 Minton on the subpoena.

7 THE COURT: So you didn't get a copy of this

8 order? Is what you are saying?

9 MR. DANDAR: I may have.

10 MR. MOXON: He got a copy of the order. In

11 fact, I have the transcript where Mr. Dandar was

12 there present.

13 THE COURT: I don't see certificate of service

14 on this order.

15 MR. MOXON: No.

16 THE COURT: That is unusual. Why isn't there

17 one?

18 MR. MOXON: I have no idea. Mr. McGowan

19 handled it.

20 THE COURT: Well, okay. You will be able to

21 take until Tuesday to look through these records.

22 And if, in fact, there is anything in there that you

23 believe to be privileged in any fashion that relate

24 to the business of your law office and clients, what

25 have you, if you'll bring that to my attention, we

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

142

1 will deal with that at that time.

2 MR. DANDAR: All right. Thank you.

3 THE COURT: Okay. So maybe you can just move

4 to some other subject to finish off today.

5 MR. FUGATE: I had and I will, Judge.

6 THE COURT: Good. Now, what can I do with

7 this? Because I don't really want it.

8 MR. FUGATE: What do you have there?

9 THE COURT: Notice of taking deposition. And

10 an order.

11 Now, if Mr. Dandar is not sure he has that

12 order, why don't you give him that order. And that

13 is the letter. Give him both of those.

14 MR. FUGATE: All right, I'll take this off.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor?

17 THE COURT: You may.

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q Mr. Minton --

20 THE COURT: McGowan, of course, isn't here, but

21 I don't blame him. He has been here a long time.

22 I'm sure he had other work to take care of.

23 Proceed.

24 BY MR. FUGATE:

25 Q Mr. Minton, I think when we broke there, I had

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

143

1 asked you to look at an August 27, 1999 check and asked you

2 about a meeting, if I remember correctly. Is that right?

3 A That is correct.

4 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your

5 Honor? I'll take this out --

6 THE COURT: You may --

7 MR. FUGATE: -- of here, too, just so --

8 THE COURT: Okay.

9 BY MR. FUGATE:

10 Q Can you -- I think I asked you, just as we were

11 about to break, sir, what -- who was at the meeting and

12 where was the meeting. If I didn't, I'll ask you now.

13 A The meeting was in Philadelphia. Mr. Dandar, I

14 believe, was there for deposition of some sorts. Ms. Brooks

15 and I were traveling at the time. And we said okay, it's

16 sort of on the way back to New Hampshire, we'll stop by

17 Philadelphia on our way.

18 And, you know, Mr. Dandar needed money. That was

19 the purpose of going there. He gave us a little briefing

20 about what was going on in the case.

21 And it had been a subject of fairly intense

22 discussion amongst myself and Stacy Brooks and Jesse Prince

23 that --

24 Q Could I ask you to stop a minute.

25 What had been the subject of discussion between

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

144

1 you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince?

2 A About focusing more on the Scientology-related

3 issues in this case, the wrongful death case.

4 Q And did those -- those discussions had preceded

5 this meeting?

6 A Yes.

7 Q This August 26, I think you said, '99 meeting?

8 A It might have also been on the 25th at night.

9 There was a morning meeting and an evening meeting. And I

10 forget which -- whether it is the 25th, 26th, 27th; or 26th,

11 27th.

12 Q As I understand, you date the times by the check.

13 It was dated ahead, correct?

14 A Yes, that is correct. There was a meeting on the

15 26th for sure. I don't remember whether we had breakfast

16 that morning, as well. But then we had a meeting in -- I

17 think in Mr. Dandar's hotel room before dinner and a meeting

18 in -- in my hotel room after dinner. And we had gone out to

19 dinner with a couple other people.

20 Q Let's break this down so we can -- what -- which

21 meeting was the check ultimately delivered?

22 A The one on the night of the 26th after dinner.

23 Q And who was present when the check was delivered?

24 A Stacy Brooks was there. I was there. And Ken

25 Dandar was there.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

145

1 Q And who delivered the check to Mr. Dandar?

2 A Well, I wrote it right in front of him and tore it

3 out of my checkbook and handed it to him.

4 Q Prior to that, you said there had been a request

5 for money. Can you tell us what that involved? Who made

6 the request? What was the subject?

7 A Well, Mr. Dandar made a request for additional

8 funds. And, you know, this was done by phone. This wasn't

9 a face-to-face meeting. It was done by phone a few days

10 before this Philadelphia meeting.

11 As I said, Ms. Brooks and I were traveling. At

12 the time, we might have been out in Colorado. I'm not sure

13 really where we were at that stage.

14 And we said: "Okay, fine, we'll meet you in

15 Philadelphia."

16 Q All right. Was there any discussion about whether

17 or not you were going to continue to fund the litigation at

18 this meeting?

19 A Well, there -- not directly. You know --

20 Q Tell us what happened.

21 A It was a situation where neither Stacy Brooks,

22 myself or Jesse Prince felt that there was being put enough

23 emphasis on the Scientology-related issues in the case.

24 You know, Mr. Dandar had -- by this time, he had

25 plenty of, you know, ammunition in this respect. He had

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

146

1 gone through the process of -- with Jesse of this

2 August 20th affidavit which ultimately got used, to add

3 to -- you know, the attempt to add additional parties to the

4 case.

5 But, you know, things were moving kind of slow.

6 And, you know, this was a real push by me, supported by the

7 feelings of Stacy and Jesse.

8 Q For the record, was Mr. Prince present at the

9 meetings that we've been discussing?

10 A He wasn't. No.

11 Q I wasn't clear on that.

12 A Okay. And so, you know, I told Mr. Dandar, you

13 know, "Look, we really need to start pushing this case more

14 on the Scientology front. You know, this is not just a

15 simple wrongful death case. And, you know, this is a case

16 about a Scientologist who died on the introspection

17 rundown."

18 So, you know, Mr. Dandar said, "Look, it is going

19 to cost more money to do this."

20 And I said, "I realize that."

21 So this is the first -- I think this is the first

22 check I gave him that was more than 100,000. This was for

23 250,000.

24 Q And have you got the check there in front of you?

25 A Yes.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

147

1 Q Or a copy of the check, to be more exact?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Would you read the "for" line where it says "for."

4 A "McPherson."

5 Q Was that notation made by you?

6 A Yes, it was.

7 Q What did that notation mean to you as you noted it

8 on the check for $250,000?

9 A Well, this was for the McPherson case.

10 Q Did Mr. Dandar voice any opposition to your

11 suggestion?

12 A Only that it's going to cost more money.

13 Q And you gave him the check?

14 A Yeah.

15 Q And by this time, which was August of 1999 -- I

16 think I had hopped ahead there earlier this afternoon -- but

17 by this time, August of 1999, was Mr. Prince working at

18 Mr. Dandar's office, to your knowledge?

19 A Yes, he was there, yeah, and working.

20 Q And do you know at this point in time -- do you

21 know if he was being paid by Mr. Dandar to work out of his

22 office?

23 A I -- I'm not exactly clear on the timing of

24 Mr. Prince being paid by Mr. Dandar. You know, it was all

25 just sort of the same thing, to me, the same ball of wax.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

148

1 Q Did you have any understanding of what money was

2 being used to pay Mr. Prince by Mr. Dandar?

3 A Yeah. It was the moneys that I was providing to

4 the estate.

5 Q And by this time, was Ms. Brooks working actually

6 out of Mr. Dandar's office, do you recall, August of 1999

7 and thereafter?

8 A You know, I don't think she was full-time down in

9 Tampa.

10 Q I'm asking you.

11 A Well, I'm sure she wasn't full-time down in Tampa.

12 But she was coming down for, you know, a week or two at a

13 time, you know, frequently.

14 Q Now, did there come a time when you went to a

15 meeting at Mr. Dandar's office, after you had delivered this

16 check for $250,000 in 1999, after August 26 of 1999?

17 A Yes, I did.

18 Q Do you recall, can you date that?

19 A Mmm, I think it was -- well, it was late fall.

20 Q Do you recall which office of Mr. Dandar's you

21 went to?

22 A It was the -- the new one that was across from

23 that pink hotel, I think, on West Kennedy.

24 Q For the sake of the Court who doesn't know the

25 transition, can you tell us, did you know that Mr. Dandar

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

149

1 had another office prior to that one?

2 A Yes. Prior -- prior to that, he was on Cypress

3 Street. And then -- and then this other office wasn't very

4 far away, it was -- I'm not sure whether it was a temporary

5 facility for him. I think he was going to ultimately move

6 out of it. But it was a fairly large office. And, you

7 know, that is where the meeting took place.

8 Q The temporary office being the one next to the

9 hotel?

10 A Across the street from a hotel. I think the hotel

11 was pink. There is also -- there were a lot of policemen

12 there because it's some sort of state police thing going on

13 in that office building, too, that he was in.

14 THE COURT: What was the date of this meeting

15 again?

16 THE WITNESS: It was sometime in the fall, late

17 fall, of '99.

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q And can you tell us what happened at this meeting,

20 what you observed or heard?

21 A Yes. Well, there were five people there. Stacy

22 Brooks. Jesse Prince. Myself. Michael Garko -- Dr. Garko.

23 And Mr. Dandar.

24 And Mr. Dandar basically was going through his

25 reasoning as to why he wanted to add additional parties to

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

150

1 this case.

2 Now, there had -- there had been other attempts

3 before to add parties, which failed, for a variety of

4 reasons, which -- some of which at the time I wasn't aware

5 of.

6 But I knew that there had been attempts to add

7 additional parties. And Miscavige was the person -- David

8 Miscavige was the person who was trying to be added in his

9 capacity as the head of the Sea Org.

10 Q Do you have any --

11 A And so --

12 Q Let me just interrupt you. Do you have any

13 knowledge -- do you have any knowledge as to why that was

14 happening?

15 A Well, you know, it was -- it was clearly a focus

16 on the Scientology aspects of the case. That's for sure.

17 There was nothing that could be more dramatic about this

18 case than having David Miscavige, who is the head of the

19 Church of Scientology, added as a defendant in it.

20 And this was something that Mr. Dandar was

21 extremely thrilled about the possibility of. I mean, he'd

22 been trying to do this for years, at least a couple years.

23 And when I encouraged him, you know, we needed to

24 focus on the Scientology aspects of the case, you know, this

25 was a natural thing to keep doing, I mean, despite the

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

151

1 failures previously to do it.

2 And I believe that Judge Moody had sort of opened

3 the door for, you know, another way to add parties to the

4 case. And, you know, this was sort of the final attempt to

5 go through that door and add the parties.

6 Q Can I ask you a question, sir. In August of 1999,

7 which you just discussed, were you aware then, sir, that

8 there was an agreement that had been entered into between

9 the estate and the Church not to add parties? Were you

10 aware of that agreement then?

11 A At that time, and this is a surprise to everybody,

12 that I didn't know about this agreement. You know, I have

13 obviously since learned about the agreement. But at that

14 time I didn't know it.

15 The other people who were in this meeting were

16 very familiar with it because they had all attended hearings

17 that related to it, you know, these other attempts to add

18 parties. And that agreement -- you know, and I'm learning

19 this subsequent to this, that agreement was the stumbling

20 block.

21 Q When you say subsequent, so there is no confusion

22 in the record, are you --

23 A Prior. Prior to that.

24 Q I know. Let me just ask my question.

25 A I see.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

152

1 Q We skip back and forth. We went to August.

2 Now we're back in the fall of '99. Are you saying

3 that is when you learned that there had been an agreement?

4 A No. It wasn't until -- well, at some stage

5 Mr. Dandar had sent to me a very large document, sometime in

6 '99, probably the second half of '99. I'm just not sure.

7 But it was, you know, about yeah thick (indicating).

8 Q You are indicating, for the record --

9 A About six to seven inches, something like that.

10 And it was Scientology's motion -- or opposition motion to

11 one of the attempts to add parties.

12 And, you know, it wasn't my habit to pour over

13 these copies of these court filings, that were that big,

14 anyway. And, you know, I stuck it under a bed in my house.

15 And then the first time I really ever looked at

16 that was sometime in the winter of 2000, you know, like

17 January to March sometime. And I broke it apart. There

18 were like 22 or 25 tabs to it. I broke it apart.

19 And the first tab, I believe, was the -- was this

20 November 1997 agreement. And that was really the first time

21 that I actually knew about that agreement.

22 Q And do you recall, in substance, what that

23 agreement was about?

24 A Well, it was --

25 THE COURT: What does that have to do with this

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

153

1 hearing?

2 MR. FUGATE: It's just an agreement not to add

3 parties. It was the subject of the breach. Really,

4 other than the fact --

5 BY MR. FUGATE:

6 Q You didn't know about the agreement, you paid the

7 money, and that is when you found out about the problems

8 when you were there in the fall? Is that essentially what

9 happened?

10 A Found out about the problems?

11 THE COURT: He's saying he did not know about

12 this agreement at the fall meeting.

13 THE WITNESS: Right. I didn't know about it at

14 the fall meeting.

15 THE COURT: He said that twice or three times.

16 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge.

17 THE WITNESS: This agreement -- what this

18 agreement basically was, was that Mr. Dandar

19 wouldn't attempt to add any additional parties,

20 corporate parties or their officers, in return for

21 the Church agreeing --

22 THE COURT: For something I don't know is --

23 now I have to listen to Mr. Minton tell us what this

24 agreement was that he wasn't even a party to.

25 MR. FUGATE: I'll get to the point I want to

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

154

1 ask a question about, Judge.

2 THE COURT: Well, if it is whether or not he

3 knew about it in the fall, he's now said several

4 times that he didn't, and he didn't know about it

5 until 2000 when he got this thing out from under his

6 bed.

7 BY MR. FUGATE:

8 Q The meeting -- let me focus your attention back to

9 the meeting in the fall.

10 A Yeah?

11 Q You described that as a meeting to talk about a

12 way to get around, I think you said, Judge Moody's order.

13 What essentially was talked about?

14 A No, I didn't say get around Judge Moody's order.

15 I said go through an opening that Judge Moody apparently

16 gave.

17 Q All right.

18 A And this was this whole concept of, you know,

19 adding Mr. Miscavige as head of the Sea Org.

20 So, you know, the problem of the Moody aspect or

21 the agreement wasn't discussed at this meeting. This was

22 already, you know, on track, so to speak.

23 So Mr. Dandar gave his views about this.

24 Dr. Garko gave his views. Mr. Dandar's views were extremely

25 favorable. He wanted to add the parties -- Mr. Miscavige at

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

155

1 that stage. He thought this would be extremely sensational,

2 lots of publicity for the case, and would clearly put

3 Scientology in a position -- and this goes back to this

4 whole theory of adding Miscavige -- to make people pay up

5 or -- pay up more money.

6 So Dr. Garko -- my recollection at the time was

7 that Dr. Garko was supportive of Mr. Dandar's position. But

8 I have subsequently learned that that wasn't the case.

9 Mr. Garko and Stacy Brooks reminded me of something that he

10 had said at that meeting which I now remember. So he wasn't

11 really in favor of it because there wasn't any evidence to

12 support it.

13 Jesse Prince was in favor of it.

14 Stacy Brooks was the most enthusiastic about it

15 because, you know, this has been a drum she has been beating

16 for a long time.

17 I wasn't -- I wasn't in favor of it for one

18 reason.

19 Q What reason was that?

20 A Mmm, because of how much more money this was going

21 to cost. I mean, this was a huge leap. But -- well, and

22 during the course of that meeting, I have got to tell you, I

23 was down at the far end of the conference table. This was a

24 very long conference table in the room. And it was a very

25 hot day. And I was at the end closest to Kennedy

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

156

1 Boulevard -- or West Kennedy, whatever the street is there,

2 the other end being the parking lot end. And that was where

3 there was an air-conditioning vent, as I recall. And the

4 room was very hot.

5 And, you know, I really only asked one question

6 during that whole course of this thing. And I asked

7 about -- "What about Ray Mithoff?"

8 And, you know, the consensus was, "Well, look, you

9 know, that is not a pressure point."

10 Well, that -- that was really the first time that

11 I recognized something about this whole case. And that was

12 that people weren't really interested -- or at least

13 Mr. Dandar and Jesse Prince, who were the ones principally

14 talking, because Prince knew Mithoff's situation, no one was

15 interested in getting to the truth of what happened here,

16 because if anybody in California would have been interested

17 in who might know about what happened with Lisa McPherson,

18 it would be the senior case supervisor.

19 So at the end of this meeting, despite having said

20 to Mr. Dandar that, "I don't think that this is a good idea

21 because of the money that will be involved in this," I went

22 up to him at the end of the meeting and I said to him,

23 "Look, whatever we decide to do on this thing, I will

24 support you 100 percent. You know, you need to talk about

25 this with Dell. And whatever we decide, I'll support you

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

157

1 100 percent."

2 Q And did you mean financial support, as well?

3 A Well, that was the -- that was the -- the only

4 means of support that I was giving Mr. Dandar.

5 Q At the conclusion of the meeting, did you have any

6 conversation -- further conversation with Mr. Dandar about

7 the meeting?

8 A Yes. When we -- when we left the building, Stacy

9 Brooks and I were going down -- Jesse Prince was in the

10 elevator, as well. Mr. Dandar came down the elevator with

11 us. And before the elevator got -- it was only two floors,

12 so when it got to the first floor, before the door opened,

13 Mr. Dandar said that, "Look, this meeting never happened and

14 we can't talk about it."

15 Q And what did you say, if you recall?

16 A "Okay."

17 Q Did you have an understanding why you were being

18 told not to talk about the meeting?

19 A Well, I got the impression generally that this is

20 not something I should have been involved in.

21 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor?

22 THE COURT: You may.

23 BY MR. FUGATE:

24 Q And you mentioned that Mr. Dandar had sent you a

25 six- or seven-inch packet of pleadings. How long before

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

158

1 that package -- or had you ever been getting packages of

2 pleadings in the case from Mr. Dandar before that?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And did you continue to get them after that fall

5 meeting?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Wherever it was?

8 A Well, in fact, I got them somewhat more after that

9 fall meeting because of the LMT being down there. And, you

10 know, whether he would send them over to the LMT, or whether

11 Jesse would bring them back, or Stacy would bring them back,

12 you know, there were more of them at that stage.

13 Q And did -- were there times when Mr. Dandar would

14 discuss things that -- that were confidential in the case

15 with you, do you recall?

16 A Yes.

17 MR. FUGATE: May I approach?

18 THE COURT: You may.

19 MR. FUGATE: This will be 98.

20 THE COURT: You may have the same permission I

21 gave Mr. Lirot. As long as you have papers in your

22 hand, feel free.

23 MR. FUGATE: Judge, it's a custom with me.

24 THE COURT: I know it is. And that is fine,

25 too.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

159

1 MR. FUGATE: I remember one time --

2 THE COURT: If you don't remember, it will be

3 all right.

4 MR. FUGATE: All right. This is 98, Judge.

5 I'll give you a courtesy copy. I'll give this to

6 the witness.

7 BY MR. FUGATE:

8 Q Would you take a look at this posting and see if

9 you can identify the posting.

10 MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number?

11 MR. FUGATE: 98. I'm sorry.

12 A Yes.

13 BY MR. FUGATE:

14 Q Is this a posting?

15 A That --

16 Q I'm sorry?

17 A That is a posting I made to that

18 alt.religion.scientology group.

19 THE COURT: I'm sure I'm just missing this, but

20 where is it you are posting this here? Bobbarn --

21 is that you, too?

22 THE WITNESS: Well, that was another address,

23 your Honor.

24 THE COURT: So any postings I see in here that

25 has Bobbarn whatever the rest of this is, that would

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

160

1 be you, as well?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: I see you have Robertsminton, too.

4 So you have two posting -- addresses, whatever you

5 call it?

6 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 THE COURT: I got it.

8 BY MR. FUGATE:

9 Q Do you see a portion highlighted in yellow there?

10 A Yes. I do.

11 MR. FUGATE: First of all, may I move this into

12 evidence as Defendant's Exhibit Number 98?

13 MR. DANDAR: No objection.

14 THE COURT: It will be received.

15 BY MR. FUGATE:

16 Q Could you read the yellow portion, sir, the

17 highlighted portion?

18 A "After the insulting settlement proposals and

19 multimedia cryathon presented to Lisa's family and

20 Mr. Dandar."

21 Q Were you made privy to any information about a

22 settlement proceeding?

23 A Yes. Mr. Dandar told me about this discussion

24 that took place in this -- I think it was in July sometime

25 of '98.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

161

1 Q And did you understand that to be a mediation?

2 A I just understood it as a settlement conference.

3 I didn't -- the word "mediation," at least to my memory,

4 didn't come up.

5 Q Did you know that it was confidential? Or did you

6 have any information that it was a confidential meeting? At

7 that time, I should ask.

8 A Yeah. Yeah. It was not something to be

9 broadcast.

10 Q And several months later, you put an Internet

11 posting out about it, though?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Now, did you ever receive copies of depositions

14 from Mr. Dandar that related to the wrongful death case?

15 A Yes. I did.

16 Q In case I didn't make myself clear, the settlement

17 offer, did you understand that to be in the wrongful death

18 case?

19 A Yes. It was.

20 Q Did you ever receive any depositions from

21 Mr. Dandar that you understood to be taken in the wrongful

22 death case?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Did you have any understanding, when you were

25 receiving -- well, can you tell us when, if you recall,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

162

1 time-wise?

2 A Oh, well, I got several. It would have -- I

3 wasn't really able to look to see what I might have had

4 because the special master had all those.

5 Q You mean these were documents at the LMT --

6 A These were documents I either received at the

7 LMT -- I'm certain I received at least one or two hard copy

8 documents in New Hampshire. And then depositions, that is.

9 And at least one or two E-Mails from Mr. Dandar with

10 depositions -- of depositions.

11 Q You mean like an ASCII disk, E-Mail of the

12 deposition?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Were you told they were confidential depositions

15 and not to distribute them?

16 A You know, I don't think I was. I mean, I

17 remember -- because it was fairly recent, the last one that

18 was E-mailed to me, it was, "Don't say you got this from

19 me," he said, "and don't post it on the Internet, and also

20 don't say you got it from me."

21 Q Do you remember which deposition it was, as you

22 sit here?

23 A It was a deposition of Teresa Summers.

24 Q Did you post it on the Internet?

25 A No, I didn't.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

163

1 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment, your Honor?

2 THE COURT: You may.

3 MR. FUGATE: May I --

4 THE COURT: Just so I know, what are you

5 talking about, disks? The court reporter, do they

6 give you-all disks of something, or depositions?

7 MR. FUGATE: It just went over my head. But as

8 I understand it, there are disks, like a floppy

9 disk, that you can get delivered with a transcript

10 of the deposition which will have the deposition on

11 it and, therefore, can be E-mailed. Am I --

12 MR. MOXON: Right.

13 THE COURT: The court reporter gives those to

14 folks if they ask for them or pay for them?

15 MR. FUGATE: When they pay for the

16 transcription, your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. FUGATE: It's a way you can input it into a

19 computerized system for searches and what have you.

20 I just expended all my knowledge.

21 THE COURT: Well, you had more than I.

22 MR. FUGATE: This is 99.

23 BY MR. FUGATE:

24 Q This is something I think you may remember, the

25 Brenda Hubert knowledge report.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

164

1 Did you receive, sir -- first of all let me ask

2 you, can you identify the posting I handed you as

3 Defendant's Exhibit 99?

4 A Yes. This is an Internet posting that I made to

5 alt.religion.scientology.

6 Q And did you receive what you understood to be a

7 knowledge report of Brenda Hubert?

8 A Yes, I did.

9 Q And can you tell us how you came to receive that?

10 A Mmm, I received it from Mr. Dandar at his office

11 on -- sometime in -- not exactly on, but early 1999.

12 Q And were you given any instructions when you

13 received it?

14 A It was, "Don't say you got this from me. And

15 don't put it on the Internet."

16 Q Did you put it on the Internet?

17 A About a year later, yes.

18 Q And did you -- were you ever asked as to where you

19 got it by anyone?

20 A Yes. In a deposition. In my -- yeah, in a

21 deposition, I was asked if I got it from Mr. Dandar. And --

22 Q What did you answer?

23 A I said no.

24 Q What did you say in that deposition?

25 A I said that I got it in an envelope from somebody,

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

165

1 you know, postmarked Florida, anonymously.

2 Q Was that true and accurate testimony at that time?

3 A It wasn't. And it was one of the items that I

4 covered in my recantation affidavit. I believe it was.

5 Q Did you receive E-Mails from --

6 THE COURT: Of all this, this is the one thing

7 I asked for. There was a name for it.

8 MR. FUGATE: It was a knowledge report.

9 THE COURT: A knowledge report? Okay.

10 MR. FUGATE: Of Brenda Hubert, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

12 BY MR. FUGATE:

13 Q And, in any event, sometime later, I think you

14 said about a year later, you posted the contents of it on

15 the Internet?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And what was the purpose of posting a document

18 that had been received in the wrongful death case on the

19 Internet by you?

20 A Well, this was basically to try to put pressure on

21 Brenda Hubert to come forward with what we expected was

22 different information than what had been coming out so far

23 from the Scientology side in the wrongful death case.

24 Q Would you say to put pressure on her? What did

25 you mean by that -- or what do you mean by that now?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

166

1 A Well, you know, to make her feel bad about what

2 had happened with Lisa. And, you know, try to put her in a

3 position -- or, you know, just put pressure on her to come

4 forward and tell the truth, because, you know, we didn't

5 think she was telling the truth about all of the things that

6 happened with Lisa McPherson.

7 THE COURT: If I might just ask this witness,

8 what was it that gave you occasion to believe that

9 Brenda, whoever she was, Hubert --

10 THE WITNESS: Hubert.

11 THE COURT: -- from the Church of Scientology

12 was reading this fairly offensive website?

13 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, it was just a

14 chance that somebody else might read it who might

15 have gotten it to her.

16 And, you know, Mr. Dandar thought this woman

17 definitely had more information than she was

18 providing.

19 THE COURT: But nothing beyond a hope or

20 some -- maybe somehow it would wind its way there?

21 THE WITNESS: Right. There wasn't any, you

22 know, targeted effort to get it to her.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 BY MR. FUGATE:

25 Q You knew that Brenda Hubert was a witness in the

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

167

1 case for the Church of Scientology. Correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Did you, in fact, phone Brenda Hubert?

4 A You know, I might have. I might have. I -- I

5 have a recollection of it. Yeah, I believe I did.

6 Q Do you remember the purpose of that telephone call

7 to Brenda Hubert?

8 A Well, if she hadn't had it brought to her

9 attention before this thing was posted on the Internet, I

10 was trying to make sure that she got it brought to her

11 attention.

12 Q Now, besides the E-mailing of depositions in the

13 case and the postings that we've talked about, did you

14 receive E-Mails from Mr. Dandar about the case throughout

15 this period of time, '98, '99, 2000, 2001?

16 A Mr. Dandar didn't tend to write much -- or put

17 much in writing about the case. He would send me E-Mails

18 concerning the case. But they were generally requests for

19 money for the case.

20 Q And I think I asked you this before. But would

21 they go to -- which computers of yours would they go to?

22 The computer at the LMT? The home? The laptop?

23 A Well, they would go potentially to all of them

24 because, you know, if I downloaded in New Hampshire, you

25 know, I -- at that stage, I was keeping my mail on the

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

168

1 server. I think I have got it set up so that after two

2 retrievals, it deletes it from the server.

3 But it is on the two computers I would retrieve it

4 from. So you get it on one computer, and then it

5 automatically, when you retrieve it from your laptop, it

6 takes it off the server that holds your E-mail, the Internet

7 service provider you have, from their server. So I could

8 have gotten it on any or all of them.

9 Q Are you saying it was sent to any or all addresses

10 so you can get it wherever you were, if I understand what

11 you were saying?

12 A That is not exactly right. But Mr. Dandar also

13 did send them to multiple addresses of mine.

14 Q Let's get exactly what happened with the E-Mails,

15 the best you recall.

16 A Okay. Well, this goes back to the question as to

17 where I would have got them, which computers I would have

18 got them on.

19 As I said, I could have got them on all three

20 computers, for example. But when Mr. Dandar would send me

21 one of these E-Mails, he would address it to B...@Minton.org,

22 or Bobm...@Lisatrust.net, then a third one which was wrong

23 and he kept sending it to this wrong address, but it didn't

24 matter because I got it at one of the other two.

25 Q Did you get a -- phone calls from Mr. Dandar to

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

169

1 discuss the case or in which you discussed the case?

2 A Yes. There were phone calls in which we discussed

3 the case.

4 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm going to break off at

5 that point because I'll go back once we get the

6 phone bill issue -- I'll make a note to myself here.

7 THE COURT: All right.

8 MR. FUGATE: May I have a moment?

9 THE COURT: You may.

10 MR. FUGATE: Take a moment, Judge. I have to

11 flip-flop what I was doing here.

12 BY MR. FUGATE:

13 Q If you go back to Defendant's Exhibit 81, if that

14 is still up there, which I think is the LMT list of board

15 members, advisory members.

16 A Oh, yes. It is probably on the bottom here. Yes.

17 Q As part of your being "Public Enemy Number 1" of

18 Scientology, as you said, did you have -- or did you cause

19 other people to come to Florida to assist in the litigation

20 in any way? By that, I mean to assist in the litigation.

21 A Yes.

22 Q And can you tell us what you -- how you -- who you

23 brought in and how you accomplished that.

24 A Dan Leipold and Ford Greene.

25 Q What did Dan Leipold -- when I say litigation, I

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

170

1 mean the wrongful death case.

2 A Well, there were -- you know, Leipold, which I

3 already testified about, I think your Honor heard all you

4 need to hear about my relationship with him -- but, you

5 know, he was somewhat of -- he was more experienced in the

6 Scientology litigation arena than Mr. Dandar.

7 And there came a time, and I think it was in 2000,

8 summer of 2000, that Mr. Dandar needed help with respect to

9 two issues --

10 Q Do you recall what the issues were?

11 A -- in this case.

12 Yeah. One was this religiosity. And I think

13 there has been long hearings on that.

14 And the second one, which I'm not sure whether it

15 has ever really come to play in this case, was on the alter

16 ego issue.

17 Ford Greene was an attorney who had expertise in

18 the first amendment issues and religiosity angle.

19 And Leipold was anxious to get involved in this

20 case in some way. And, you know, I was -- I was pushing

21 Mr. Dandar to get Dan Leipold and Ford Greene involved in

22 this case because of their expertise, you know, on the

23 anti-Scientology type litigation.

24 So they came down here and they had meetings with

25 Mr. Dandar concerning these issues.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

171

1 Q Had you gotten any requests for assistance?

2 A What do you mean, requests for assistance?

3 Q Had you been in communication with Mr. Dandar

4 about the two issues that you talked about?

5 A No. I don't think he requested anything of me

6 about that. No.

7 Q So --

8 A But Leipold wanted to get involved in this case.

9 Leipold knew what the issues were in this case. And he was

10 happy to get involved. I mean, he thought it was a good

11 case. I think, you know, he was looking to make some money

12 out of it, to actually get some fees out of it or something.

13 And, really, I think where the whole breakdown

14 happened between Mr. Dandar and Leipold and Greene was over

15 Mr. Dandar's reluctance to give up part of his contingency

16 fee.

17 In fact, what happened, Mr. Leipold, because of

18 this reluctance on Mr. Dandar's part, he said, "Look, I'm

19 not going to work on this thing unless you're going to pay

20 me some hourly fees."

21 I said, "Well, what's it going to cost?"

22 So he eventually sent me a budget, which he also

23 sent to Mr. Dandar, concerning how much it would cost for

24 him to work on this, you know, without any contingency

25 arrangement, without having any benefit of participating in

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

172

1 Mr. Dandar's contingency arrangement.

2 Q Did you, in fact, make any payments to Mr. Leipold

3 for assistance in the case?

4 A Well, through the moneys I loaned to the estate,

5 because he did do work -- he and Mr. Greene both did work on

6 the case. And, you know, they were paid. But not directly

7 by me but, you know, through the moneys that were loaned to

8 the estate.

9 Q But, in any event, to your understanding, they

10 couldn't get into the contingency arrangement, so did they

11 do anything else in the case?

12 A Mmm, well, yes. I mean, you know, Ford Greene did

13 prepare this whole motion or argument on the religiosity

14 issue.

15 The reason Mr. Leipold was needed with Ford Greene

16 involved, because Ford Greene was somebody who was a little

17 erratic and needed somebody to shepherd him on his work.

18 And he was not somebody who Mr. Dandar or Mr. Leipold

19 thought could be left on his own to do the work, that he

20 needed somebody to sort of ride herd on him.

21 There were other problems that developed between

22 Mr. Dandar, Leipold and Ford Greene that sort of added to

23 their inability to get together.

24 Q Did you bring in -- if you'll look on the -- I

25 have it here --

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

173

1 A If I could just add one other thing there

2 concerning this.

3 Back in January of 1998, and I know that is a big

4 jump back, but the law firm in Boston that was representing

5 me in the first deposition that I ever had in this case was

6 Hale & Dorr. Steve Jonas, who was my attorney who

7 represented me on, you know, non-litigation matters up to

8 that point, you know, he said to me at that time --

9 MR. HOWIE: Objection on the grounds of

10 attorney-client privilege.

11 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Hearsay and relevance.

12 THE COURT: Well, the privilege is his. So is

13 the waiver. But it is hearsay.

14 MR. DANDAR: Hearsay.

15 THE COURT: I'll sustain it.

16 MR. FUGATE: I'll ask my question, Judge.

17 A Well --

18 BY MR. FUGATE:

19 Q I think there was an objection and you should

20 abide by your attorney's advice.

21 A Okay.

22 Q My question is going to be, were you aware of a

23 witness being utilized in the wrongful death case by the

24 name of Gerry Armstrong?

25 A Yes.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

174

1 Q Is Gerry Armstrong also an individual that you had

2 provided funds to?

3 A Yes, he is.

4 Q Is that the same Gerry Armstrong we see on the

5 advisory committee?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And did you bring Mr. Armstrong to Florida to

8 participate in the wrongful death case?

9 A Well, you know, the money that -- that I was

10 loaning to the estate got him here. I mean, I didn't

11 specifically pay him to come here directly. But definitely

12 he was -- well, he had either used moneys that I had given

13 him before to come here, or he used moneys that Mr. Dandar

14 received, you know, on behalf of the estate and paid him to

15 come here.

16 Q And prior to his coming here, was he, Gerry

17 Armstrong, someone you had known and dealt with in the past?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And was he someone that you knew to be involved in

20 anti-Scientology litigation/criticism?

21 A Very much so.

22 Q And were there any restrictions on his appearing

23 as a witness, if you know, in a case?

24 A Yes. There were.

25 Q And what were those restrictions, if you know?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

175

1 A Well, he entered into a settlement agreement with

2 the Church of Scientology --

3 THE COURT: I'm sure this is of some interest

4 to me, but it escapes me, quite frankly. Maybe

5 because it is late on Friday afternoon, but what do

6 I care what Gerry Armstrong did out in a California

7 court and how he breached it and now he escaped the

8 country and he has all kinds of debts he owes?

9 The deal is that is not what this case is about

10 right here.

11 MR. FUGATE: I agree with you, Judge. The

12 point I was --

13 THE COURT: How nice.

14 MR. FUGATE: Well, you know, it is late and I

15 think it is time to agree on something.

16 BY MR. FUGATE:

17 Q Could he come and be a witness in the wrongful

18 death case, to your knowledge?

19 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Legal conclusion.

20 Outside of the scope of the affidavits, motions.

21 THE COURT: Absolutely. Sustained on any basis

22 that you can come up with.

23 MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

24 THE COURT: I think I already told you, I don't

25 care about it.

[xganon]

P.01 Header, 02 appearances, 04 index of proceedings [which witness called when]
P.05 Discussion of which case this applies to, MS BROOKS begins a P.12(L.11).
P.13 There are two affidavits: the second, lodged on April/30, is exhibit 72.
P.15 Is that affisavit a tur record of the facts? then I have questions on it.
How is it you came to make this affidavit.......?
P.16 MS BROOKS explains how she came to lodge a recantation of her 1st affidavit.
P.17 (L.20) she believed herself and Bob were is a position of testifying falsely.
P.18 She had many discussions with Mr Dandar (Ken, not his brother Tom) about this.
P.19 Mr Minton at that time, 2001/Oct, believed he should continue to fund.

P.20 But the depositions of 2002/April/4th and 9th were the last straw in this.
P.21 In 2002/Jan she asked Bruce Howie to negotiate with Scientology.
P.22 The COURT: settle what, exactly? BROOKS: the counterclaim initially
but also anything else consequently demanded by CofS to settle that:
P.23 it would be to stop involvement and funding in all activities against CofS.
P.24 What false testimony had been given by you or Minton previously?
BROOKS: this was about denying the existence of a secret agreement
P.25 and of certain cheques. The COURT: is your knowledge of this first-hand?
BROOKS: Minton began loaning money to the estate in 1997 and CofS were
saying this was a "business deal" or "investment." Q: and was this so?
P.26 LIROT: objection, witness is not competent to answer on that. (SUSTAINED)
BROOKS: this is when Minton founded LMT rather than FactNet to get the cash.
P.27 Minton and I settled the lawsuit against FactNet, and left it in 1999;
winnings were to go to a new organisation. Q: how did you become a critic?
P.28 My then husband, Vaughan Young, and I left Scientology in 1989.
For a while we just tried to get our lives back. But in 1993 we were
approached to testify in a case against CofS. It was a big step.

P.29 We met with attorneys Dan Liepold and Graham Berry in LA. They discussed
how much experience of CofS we had, and hired us as expert witnesses.

P.30 We continued that work for five years, from 1993 to 98 and into this case.
Q: this as your primary source of income? A: yes, it was hard to get work.
P.31 Q: right up to the present? A: Yes, until I was directly paid by Minton.
Q: consulting on how to get biggest damages of cases settled?
A: In these first two cases for defendants, trying to get the case dropped.
Q: What was your strategy to do so? OBJECTION, work product (OVER-RULED).
P.32 A: When in CofS I knew they feared deposition of the leader Hubbard,
so I suggested deposition of the current leader Miscavige.
P.33 Q: And you later worked with Mr Liepold in the Wollersheim case? A: Yes.
P.34 Q: In what form. A: In the California courts, by written declarations.
P.35 Q: And you angled it to suit whatever scenario was needed? A: Yes. Q: and
that extends to this case? A: Yes. The COURT: were these declarations true?
A: I angled them to fit the need, not having personal knowledge of the facts
P.36 Q: And you swore to your knowledge and belief they were true? A: Yes
Q: You knew they were only specualtion? A: Yes
P.37 Q: You made this known to people in the case? A: Yes Q: Who A: Dandar+Garko
the COURT: have I seen Brooks 1st affidavit? FUGATE: copy can be supplied.
P.38 (L.12) In Wollershein , did Mr Minton hav a financial interest? A: Yes.
Q: What was it? A: a lien of $750,000 against the judgement, a UCC.
P.39 A: That probably means he has made a public filing to protect his lien.

P.40 Q: was there other funding of that case? A: I have taken calls from Dan
Liepold as Minton's represenative about money; a further $450,000 was loaned.
Q: Evidenced by a written loan agreement? A: Yes.
Q: Are there any such agreements evidencing loans in the Lisa case? A: Yes.
P.41 Q: What were they? A: Initially Minton put in writing that they were loans.
Q: To save time, I will continue that line with Minton. The COURT: OK.
Q: Did the reply point out that you had no control over the case? A: Yes.
P.42 Q: But did Minton in fact involve himself in case strategy? A: Yes.
Q: How? A: Well... LIROT: this is hearsay. the COURT: unless she was present.
The COURT: a funder can chat about the case, but not have confidential info:
P.43 which it seems the new affidavits say he did. In Dandar's letter it quotes
the rule that "the client must consent to funding (which she does); funding
does not entitle you to have control or to recieve confidential information."
P.44 You need to show in detail whether it crossed from discussion to control.
Q: You understand what the letter said about no control? A: Yes.
Q: And what involvement did you observe to actually happen?
A: I pretty much acted as Bob's agent to oversee Mr Dandar's actions.
P.45 Q: Why did Bob have you do this? A: Well... LIROT: Objection, specualtion.
the COURT: does she know of discussion between Minton and Dandar showing why?
Q: Can you answer that? A: I can. the COURT: also, was Mr dandar aware that
she was present to report everything to Mr Minton?

P.46 Q: To the best of your knowledge, did Dandar know you were doing this? A: Yes
Q: You have no doubt about this? A: I discussed it with him. Q: And you
were present at talks between Minton and Dandard about case control? A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe them? A: specifically there was one in August 1999.
P.47 I told Bob I was concerned Dandar should put more Scientology in the case;
so Dandar wanted to meet Bob in Philadelphia, preferably without me present
because Dandar did not get on with me. But Bob made sure I was present.
P.48 Bob wanted much more involvment of Scientology practices and beliefs.
Q: "Involvement" means adding attcks on these things into the case? A: Yes.
Q: Where the 5th amended complaint specifically mentions the Introspection
Rundown, and letting Lisa die to avoid trouble, that's what is meant? A:Yes
P.49 the COURT: this needs to come from her not you; I am not at all sure what
she means by bringing more Scientology into it. Yopu should ask "what did
you mean", not "did you mean this."
P.50 Q: Backing up a bit, did you know Jesse Prince at that time?
A: At what time? Q: The time of the Philadephia meeting. A: Yes.
Q: How long had you known him? A: Since 1976, when we were both in CofS,
but we got together again in 1998 when he started working with us.
Q: Working as what? A: as expert witnesses paid by Mr Minton.
Q: And, to your knowledge, was this Jesse's sole source of income.

P.51 LIROT: objection, competency. Q: Only if she has direct knwoledge. (OVER-RULED)
A: Yes since July 1998. Q: How do you know? A: I arranged most of the payments.
Q: How much? A: $4 to $5,000 a month, irregularly, as living expenses.
P.52 Q: Returning to the Philadephia meeting, what happened there?
A: Jesse and I thought Mr Dandar didn't really undertsnad Scientology
e.g. didn;t use questions we prepared for him to Scientology witnesses.
the COURT: and what exactly were these Scn issues you wanted addressed?
P.53 A: e.g that Lisa died on the isolation step of the introspection rundown;
both Jesse and I had supervise isolations while in CofS.
P.54 I also advised that CofS witnesses be asked about the accessibility of
their auditing (confessional) material in ethics (disciplinary) proceedings:
P.55 and that CofS witnesses be asked had they omitted anything or told half truths,
in the manner of a CofS security check.

P.56 Q: but you and Bob particualrly wanted the isolation step included.
A: Yes, we felt at the time he didn't appreciate how bad this Scn stuff was.
the COURT: yopu were not saying they shoul include anything untrue, though,
you were suggesting they include Scn issues which you told them were true?
P.57 A: well my whole job from 1993 to 99 was finding hwo to present things
about Scientology in a bad light. the COURT: but in talking about the
P.58 isolation step, you were talking about some insight you had into what Lisa
went through based on your personal experience of similar events? A: Exactly
the COURT: so, when you wanted Dandar to include this information, it was
true from your perspective at the time? A: Yes. the COURT: You believed
this really had happened to here and he wasn't exploring it? A: Yes.
the COURT: were any other Scientology issues discussed there?
A: It was all in fairly general terms. But we felt it was more than
P.59 death by negligence from rogue individuals not doing their job:
Mr Minton was engaged in a specific anti-scientology campaign.
the COURT: And tehse things you told Dandar were probable as what had
happened to Lisa, in the light of your own personal experiences in CofS?
A: Sort of, but I hand't known Lisa, I left before these events happened;
"it was my job to basically fabricate some areas based on my experience"
(page 50, lines 24 and 25).

P.60 the COURT: when you say "fabricate", do you mean that your experience
was A but that you'd make up a lie and say "no, my experience tells me
how things were done is B"? A: All right. the COURT: or do you mean
that your experience had been A, and you would properly reason that
"my experienmce tell me that what they probably did this time was A?"
A: a bit of both. I thopught at the time I was telling the truth.
But I would perhaps know that my experience had been A, then extrapolate
and say what probably happened was A++ which was somewhat more serious.
P.61 the COURT: so it was a bit like those decalrations where you swore you
had good reason to believe something was true, but you didn't? A:Yes
FUGATE, Q: so you were mixing fact with fiction? A: fact and hypothesis
perhaps. Q: "But the purpose of the hypothesis was [...] to attack
religious beliefs and practices?" (page 61, lines 24 and 25).
P.62 A: Yes, to aid the aims of the case I was working on. Q: And you did
this with the intention of targeting particular practices, by taking
a good practice and making it bad? A: Yes.
BY THE COURT: But was it a practice, good or bad, you knew to be true?
A: Yes. One I thought to be good when I as in Scn, and to be bad when
I left Scn. Q: You clearly were in Scn and know a lot about itm and
you say you considered practices to be good when you were in but bad
when you were out? A: Yes
P.63 Q: And in what you offered to say for Mr Dandar, were you offering to
describe practices you knew to be true, or were you saying "I will
testify to something even worse than that though it is not true"? Or
were you just passing on what you had learned, that you now thought bad?
A: That's how I felt then, yes. Q: You didn't feel you were lying to them?
A: I din't feel I was. Q: you felt like you were passing on observations
based on your long experience? A: Yes. Q: The insider information they
needed to puruse the course they were on? A: Yes, but exaggerating a bit.
P.64 I would put a spin on it to help the aims of that lawsuit.
Q: And I will pursue this exageration later, but let's return to direct.
BY MR FUGATE: What was this spin that Mr Minton sought?
A: well, he had never been in CofS, so he thought he new more than he did.

P.65 Most of what he learned came from the Net, from dsiaffected ex-members;
and this slanted view he had acquired he saw, wrongly, as simply the truth.
Q: And this was the attitude underlying the Philadelphia meeting? A: Yes.
BY THE COURT: We need to explore what, specificlly, was gone into.
P.66 The meeting mentioned step zero? A: I'm not sure ir even went specifically
into that, we spoke in general terms. Q: so what were they? and what
exactly did you put to Mr dandar in writing? A: Minton said "I know I'm
not supposed to be controlling the case but, unless it goes into the
practices that led to Lisa's death, I don't see why I'm funding it.
P.67 I said "it's not just about a wrongful death but Scn practices causing it."
Q: Which you then believed true? A: Yes.
Q: And that's what you wanted Mr Dabdar to explore? A: Yes.
BY MR FUGATE: Mr Minton was among the most extreme critics of Scn? A: Yes.
P.68 Q: And he was looking to attack religious beliefs and practices? A: Yes.
Q: This is what he was talking to Dandar about? A: Yes.
Q: How, then, was Dandar meant to do this? A: By reducing the emphasis
on medical evidence and increasing it on the Introsospetion Rundown. A: How
did Dandar react? A: He said "I see your point", and Bob gave him a cheque.
p.69 Q: Who, if you knew, was it made out to. OBJECTION, competency. (OVER-RULED)
A: I did not know. Q: But we could look at the cheque. the COURT: Break here.

P.70 Q: One more question, Bob handed Mr Dandar a cheque? A: Yes Q: Which you
didn't see? A: I saw him writing it, but not the actual words on it no.
Q: Did Mr Dandar do anything after receiving it? A: He filed an amenbded
complaint shortly afterwards. Q: Who helped to draft it? A: Myself and
Jesse Prince, it was based on Jesse's affidavit. Q: I'm ready to break now.
P.71 BY THE COURT: before we finish - when you did this you were a consultant
to the firm. A: I was not being apid directly by them. Q: but you wer
considered his consultant. A: I'm not sure what he considered me, I felt
I was there to oversee the case for Mr Minton. Q: Mr Prince was at that
time a consultant paid by Dandar and Dandar? A: Yes. Q: When you and
Mr Minton wanted destructive practices attacked, did you and he then believe
they were true based on your experience? A: Yes.
P.72 Q: when you or whoever had drafted the new compalint, did you believe it
contained practices which led to the death of Lisa MacPherson? A: I don't
know for sure what led to her death, but it was a plausible scenario.
Q: Based on your experience you thought it was plausible? A: Yes.
Q: And Mr dandar learned that it was through you and others he had
consulted about Scientology. A: Yes. Q: there was nothing in it
you knew to be false? A: No, there wasn't. Q: We will take a break,
P.73 but you must not consult with anyone even your own attorney during it
(a BREAK was taken at 14:40 hours).

P.74 THE COURT: Mr Fugate to resume. MR FUGATE: I'm handing up a copy
of the affidavit sworn by Jesse Prince on 20/aug/1999.
P.75 THE COURT[ checks that it is the same affidavit refered to before ].
P.76 MR FUGATE: is this the affidavit filed to support the new complaint?
OBJECTION, no foundation. THE COURT: answer if she has knowledge.
Q: Do you recognise the affidavit? A: Yes
Q: Did you help prepare it? A: Yes
P.77 Q: In what way? A: I hasd several discussions with Mr Prince.
(Interruption because the P A system is off)
Q: Did you help prepare it? A: Yes.
Q: I refer you to page 17, paragraph 43...
P.78 Where it says Mithoff and others had no option but to let her die
rather than take her to hospital and face questioning, was that true?
OBJECTION, competency, not her affifavit. THE COURT: insofar as
she helped draft it (OVER-RULED). Q: Was it true. A: No.
Q: Where it ssays there wasn an "end of cycle" policy
of letting people die, was that true? A: No.
P.79 Q: Is there such a thing as "end of cycle" as portrayed here?
A: No, but I know where the idea started.
OBJECTION, competency. THE COURT: Over-ruled, she was a senior offical
MR LIROT: we do not know if she was at the same level as Mr Prince.
THE COURT: What level were you at? A: Chass 4, XDN auditor, OT5
[NOTE these are scientology processing level, not organisational rank]
Q: Would you have heard of an End Of Cycle if it existed? A: Yes
Q: Do you know what it is supposed to be? A: the therm first appeared

P.80 When I was working with Graham Berry in Fishman vs Church of Scientology.
Fishman claimed in a 1991 TIME magazine article that he had been
ordered to End Cycle i.e. commit suicide. MR FUGATE: who used the term?
A: Fishman; so it was obviously one of the first things I was asked about.
And I told him there was no such thing in Scientology.
P.81 BY THE COURT: the level you were at was a fairly high level? A: Yes
Q: high enough to know an "end-cycle" doesn't exist? A: Yes
MR FUGATE: But you wrote a section of the affidavit saying it did? A: Yes
Q: You assisted in writing a section of the affidavit which describes it?
A: I helped get Mr Prince in the proper frame of mind to write it.
Q: And it is not true? A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: In paragraph 44, are the allegations there to your knowledge true? A: No
P.82 Q: Did you have any information that Mithoff and co orderd her death? A: No
Q: Or that they wanted to prevent bad publicity? A: No, but the idea was mine.
BY THE COURT: what was that? A: no, but the idea that they did was mine.
Q: What idea? A: that they would let her die to avoid a publicity flap.
Q: did you come up with the idea thinking it was true, or did you come up with
it knowing this was false and intending to hurt them? A: Somewhere in between;
P.83 I certainly knew it would hurt them. But I know for sure the scinetologists
didn't sit by and let her die. Q: OK, thank you.
BY MR FUGATE: You said earlier there were anti-scientology critics; was there
a fraternity-like atmosphere among the critics? OBJECTION (OVER-RULED)
P.84 Q: and from 1993 to 99 your income was derived from being a critic? A: Yes.
Q: Did you feel at the time what you were doing was right? A: Yes
Q: But are these allegations set out in the Prince affidavit true or false?
A: they're false: I feel that, among the critical community, there was a
view that the end justifies the means, and he... Q: Sorry, which on is "he"

P.85 Mr Dandar... knew Minton felt strongly against Scn, and played on that
animonity to make Minton feel he needed to lie under oath to win the case.
Q: Have *you* lied under oath for the good of Mr Dandar's case? A: Yes,
and I have seen others in the case do the same.
BY THE COURT: Who? A: Ms Liebrish and Mr Dandar
Q: So you believe you felt, and these people felt, that...
A: That the end justifies the means. You know what I mean by this... A: I do
P.86 A: ...that if the goal is righteous one would do anything to achieve it.
Q: the goal being to abolish, or get rid of, Scientology? A: Yes. Q: and
this was because of the, what did you say - hatred - they felt? A: Yes.
Q: you and Bob were part of this at one time. A: We were, but not any longer;
P.87 and that's not because we were extorted by Scn. Q: We'll come to that later.
Q: so you belive Ms Liebrich hates scientology and so does Mr Dandar?
A: I believe Mr Dandar thinks he can make money off people who hate Scn.
Q: So you think this is a monetary thing... A: Yes
Q: rather than a strongly felt, but misguided, moral crusade. A: Yes
Q: You think for him it's money. A: Yes. MR FUGATE: May I appraoch
the witness? THE COURT: yes, but I have another important point first.
P.88 BY THE COURT: you said that para 43 and 44 were false, and you had worked
on them with Mr Prince, that you had got him in the state of mind....?
A: I had many conversations in which I discussed the scenario of Miscavige
getting daily reports and being worried about a PR flap, I helped Jesse...
Q: Believe this? A: Beleive this, yes. Q: and did you tell Mr Dandar
the information was false? A: no, I told him the obvious, that Jesse and I
P.89 were not there so could not possibly know. Q: but you didn;t say what you've
said here in court, i.e. that it is false? A: No. Q: Thank you.
A: I said "this could have happened". Q: So you toldhim that although you
were not present at the specific events you believed, based on your experience,
that this could have happened? A: Happened, yes. Q: And Jesse said the same?
A: Yes; when he testiffies, he'll likely tell you it did happen. Q: OK.
BY MR FUGATE: And what did you men by saying "it did happen".
THE COURT: No, whe says that Jesse will say it did happen.

P.90 BY MR FUGATE: Is Jesse's description in the affidavit of an End-Cycle accurate
or is it a falsehood? A: A falsehood, but I'd like to talk about that briefly.
Q: OK... A: It may come from a section in scientology where people do
'assists' on others to help them deal with the distress, and spiritual case,
of illness; sometimes, to help someone inevitably dying be at peace about dying.
Q: Like in a hospice. A: Yes. End-Of-cycle means completing any course of
P.91 action but, in particular, Scn's believe we have many lifetimes and it means
coming to the end of one lifetime among many. Q: OK.
MR FUGATE: May I now approach the witness. THE COURT: You may.
MR FUGATE: I am showing her the 5th amended complaint, of January 2000.
MR LIROT: the one with a certificate of 21/dec/1999? THE COURT: Yes.
P.92 BY MR FUGATE: Please examine page 12, count I, paragraph 34. A: OK.
Q: Where End-Cycle is mentioned there, is it an assist as you just decribed,
or the concept you talked Mr prince into putting in? A: The latter.
P.93 Q: Were you aware of any fact that would support the inclusion of this? A: No
Q: Was Mr Prince aware of any? OBJECTION, Speculation; SUSTAINED.
Q: This End-Cycle was your concept you talked to Mr Prince about?
A: Yes, the same concept of End-Cycle origuinated by Fishman.
Q: Which is a false concept...? A: Correct. Q: And it is not portrayed
as a true concept here? OBJECTION, Competency; SUSTAINED.
P.94 Q: Do you have any factual information to suuport the allegations
that "Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation" (lines 5-6)
through "It was the chosen option to minimize a public relations flap"
(lines 10-11 P.94)? OBJECTION. The COURT: where is this from?
MR FUGATE: paragraph 44 of the Prince affidavit. THE COURT: objection
because asked and answered? MR LIROT: Yes, judge. THE COURT: sustained.

P.95 BY MR FUGATE: Now at paragraph 34of the current complaint where it says
the decision was "to protect Scientology from bad public relations"(7-8)
were there any facts known to you to support this? A: No
Q: And in the next section... THE COURT: No, that's asked and asnwered.
Q: From your conversations with Mr Dandar do you believe he understood
there were no facts supporting this? MR LIROT: Objection, speculation.
P.96 THE COURT. Sustained. Since they didn't tell Dandar the information they
put in affidavit was false, how would he know it was false in the complaint?
BY MR FUGATE: did you tell him the End-Cycle comments were false?
A: Yes, Jesse and I objected to use of the term because it wasn't
credible, it would be easy for Scientology to discredit.
Q: But he put it in anyway? A: Well... Q: He being Mr Dandar
THE COURT: If you know, if you were there. [I don't understand this
section at all; if it is there then, ipso facto, Mr Dandar put it in]
P.97 A: I wasn't there when he wote it THE COURT: then you can't testify
to that. Q: But you were there for the drafting of the Prince affidavit?
A: Yes. Q: And you helped in drafting the 5th amended complaint?
OBJECTION, asked and answered; OVER-RULED. A: what was the question...
Q: Did you take part in drafting the 5th amedned complaint?
A: No, and regarding the Prince affidavit... Q: Ho hum.
P.98 A: I wasn't actually at the office for that, I may be wrong.
Q: I can't hear properly. THE COURT: Quiet, please.
A: I don't recall whether or not I was there for the drafting -
I think I was but can't be sure. But I had many priot converations
to coach him in the correct state of mind...
Q: ...to be able to put in the End-Cycle material etc?
A: In order to create the scenario where the leadership directly
ordered her death. Concerning End-Cycle I didn't think it should
be used because not credible, but it does make a strong assault on Scn.
P.99 Q: But it was in fact used? A: Correct. Q: And this was Minton's
intention? OBJECTION, speculation. THE COURT: If she knows.
A: I do know, and it was. Q: Were you present where Minton and
Dandar decided to say the daeth was ordered by the leadership?
A: In phone calls. Q: What can you tell us about those?
A: I was at Minton's end of the call. Q: OK.
A: So I wasn't hearing what Mr Dandar said at his end.

P100 But I heard Mr Minton was pleased to with the language accusing
the leadership of murder. BY THE COURT: when you say you got Jesse
in the right state of mind, you mean you got him stirred up enough
to say these things? A: Yes, though he was pretty stirred up already.
Q: So he would come along and say these allegations were true,
because you had conversations with him running through what might
have happened...? A: Yes. Q: And you were helping get him in the
state of mind where he could say this believing it true? A: Correct.
P101 Q: Then he passed the information to Mr Dandar? A: Yes, and will
probably testify believing it to this day. OBJECTION; Over-Ruled.
A: I think it is wrong to say Mr Dandar believed it because his
behaviour did not make me think that. BY THE COURT: OK. And this
was happening around dec/1999? A: Yes. Q: Did he say anything specific,
P102 maybe on the lines of "I know this is false but I'm going to say it
it's going to really get them." A: No, he's too careful to openly
say things like that, it's more implied with a few nods and shrugs.
Q: So what did he do that made you think he was filing a complaint
which he knew to be false? A: reading Jesse's affidavit, I thought
it was too exaggerated to be credible and I said so, but Dandar
said "I'm using it because it says what we need to have said."
Q: OK. A: And then he did this kind of guesture he does
(witness demonstrates the guesture).
P103 BY MR FUGATE: Just to establish the dates, the Prince affidavit
was in aug/1999 and the complaint was drafted on 21/dec/1999
but filed in the new year? A: Yes. Q: And prior to this there were
other complaints naming Mr Miscavige. THE COURT: do we have to hear
the witness examined about things which are a matter of record?
P104 Q: I'm sorry? THE COURT: You don't need to ask her about undisputed
matters of record, just on her personal witness of case facts.
Q: When Judge Moody had ordered that Miscavige not be included,
were there discussions how to get round the order? A: Yes.
Q: What was that discussion? THE COURT: and who was present at it.
A: Minton and I with Garko, Prince, and (Ken) Dandar. Judge Moody
had ruled that we could not include Miscavige as chairman of RTC.

P105 Q: To confirm, were you at that hearing? A: Yes. I suggested then
that there may be some other way to include Miscavige. Q: Other than
as chair of RTC? A: Yes, then it wouldn't breach the contract.
Q: At the time of the Prince affidavit in aug/1999 did you know such
a contract existed. A: I knew it after the hearing, certainly.
Q: So you felt the order presented a problem you had to get around?
P106 THE COURT: You mean, a legal problem -- isn't that what lawyers do?
I'm not sure you should ask this. Is she a lawyer... are you a lawyer?
A: No. THE COURT: OK. Q: Well, what did happen?
A: I said, name him as head of the Sea Organisation instead.
P107 Q: was this a legitimate tactic; was it true he is?
A: Well there isn;t really a "Head of the Sea Org."
Q: OK. A: But I thought it might work.
Q: And it did work? OBJECTION, that is yet to be seen.
Q: Do you have the complaint there? THE COURT: Look, you're not going
to ask her hether Miscavige's name is on the complaint, because we can
see for for ourselves it is without the nedd to ask her about it.
P108 Q: Look at paragraph 34 of the ameneded complaint as read out before
where it says a decision of those officals led to her death. And
this language was fabricated... OBJECTION, mischaracterises the facts.
(SUSTAINED). Q: how did that allegation get into the complaint?
A: By my sufggestion. A: To Mr Dandar? A: Yes.
OBJECTION, competency. (OVER-RULED). Q: and was the addition agreed
bt everyone on the trial team? A: Everyone except Dr Garko.
P109 Q: He objected? A: Strenuously. Q: Did you explain to Dandar the
allegation was untrue because there was no "Head of The Sea Org."
A: No I didn't. I said I thought it was a credible argument. The
discusion was more whether it was an effective strategy. Q: And the
conversation also linked this with Bob giving more cash? A: Yes.
Q: And did you also talk about making them settle for large numbers?

P110 A: Yes. Q: How Large? A: Well when Dandar 1st conacted us in 1997...
THE COURT: is there anything improper about trying to get good damages?
If not, let's move on to something else; unless the discussion was
on how they could *fraudulently* get higher damages.
P111 A: the discussion was on how to put pressure via the leadership.
THE COURT: Yes, you said earlier that bringing Hubbard into
lawsuits when he was alive made Scientology drop complaints.
BY MR FUGATE: When the five of you met about circumventing
the Moody order, what else was said there. A: Dandar was seeking
feedback from the others whether to add Miscavige to the case.
P112 I said "yes". Q: And Mr Minton? A: ...didn't say much until the end.
Q: What did he say the? A: he was aginst as it would increase cost.
Q: And Mr Dandar? Q: He said he would think over what we all said.
Q: What happened then? THE COURT: you mean, did they go home....?
Q: Then the amended complaint was filed and they got more money.
P113 THE COURT: No, you can't say he followed Mr Minton's instruction
and then got more money, as your witness just testified otherwise.
P114 Q: Returning to para(7)of your affidavit, you got a letter from
Mr Dandar in 1997. A: Yes. Q: and you quote there from it...
OBJECTION, Best evidence; produce the letter itself, not quotes.

P115 THE COURT: do you have this letter? MR FUGATE: Yes.
MR LIROT: I also object that it is work product for Mr Dandar.
I have deep concerns... THE COURT: So do I, but a work product
rule is to stop the opposition getting your papers, and they've
already got this one beyond recall. Who should not see it,
me or the witness? MR LIROT: No objection to your seeing it,
I'm just curious how they got it. THE COURT: I agree, but I
can't see how to enforce a privilege against produceing work
P116 product when they;ve already got it. Look, we're not going to
finish this afternoon are we... or the next day, or the next...
P117 MR FUGATE: OK, I'm handing up two pages, do you recognise the
letter to you of 02/may/1997? A: Yes.
P118 (after some discussion, the letter becomes exhibit 73).
P119 Q: You say "Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of those
in isolation and their condition [as I mean to add him as defendant]."
This was how you first got involved with Mr Dandar? A: Yes.
OBJECTION (WITHDRAWN). A: I understand it was on the basis he had
read some of my declarations in other cases. Q: To your knowledge
had Dandar mer Mr Wollersheim at that time? A: I believe so.

P120 Q: Did you also know Minton had met Mr Wollersheim and was funding
the case as of his anti-Scn... THE COURT: do we care about this?
Q: It ties up with what she said earlier. THE COURT: OK.
A: I'm aware of it now, I wasn't then. THE COURT: she wasn't aware.
BY THE COURT: So how did you answer Dandar's question as to whether
Miscavige would know about people in Isolation? A: I said he could do.
Q: so you answered something like yes, he could have. A: I said,
if you want to pressure Scientology then go after Miscavige. I
think he said he intended to go after Miscavige because of the
phone conversation with us, but he may have already intended to.
P121 Q: Mr Dandar said he intended to go after Miscavige and asked you,
as consultants, whether Miscavide would have personal knowledge
of people in Isolation, and you said...? A: "He could have."
BY MR FUGATE: Re page 7... A: For your purposes, he could have.
P122 BY THE COURT: I read somehwere that anyone in a PTS3 condition
would be reported all the way to the top, which is Miscavige.
If that's true, he would; if it isn't, he wouldn't.
A: That's something I said. Q: Was it true? A: I don't believe so.
Q: Oh; generally when something is said in an affidavit I assume
it is true and I can rely on it. A: I can see why you would.
Q: So how high does it get reported - does it just stop with
P123 Mr Karduzinski who is in immediate charge? By the way at
Scientology's request I'm keeping the IR from the jury as religious.
A: When somebody freaks out, certainly in scientology, they have
to be kept under watch for a while. And this is what they did,
based on my experience in the 1980s. But not everyone who freaks
out is reported to Miscavige. Q: But this is someone who was
held for 17 days. A: Right. Q: Which is a long time. A: True;
it was on this basis we speculated Miscavige would have been told.
But it's impossible to be sure yes he would be or no he wouldn't.
P124 Q: But he might have been, which is a basis to ask somebody about
it in deposition. Was that discussed? A: No.
MR FUGATE: Did you understand from Dandarthat adding Miscavige
was a legal manoevre to get round judge Moody's order?
A: Not at the time of the letter. Q: Sorry, I've skipped from
the 1997 letter to the 1999 order of Judge Moody.
OBJECTION, mischaracterises, what is a legal manoevre anyway.
THE COURT: she can answer whether that term was used or not.

P125 MR FUGATE: Returning to page 7 and 8 of the affidavit, THE COURT:
We've done with the letter now? MR FUGATE: Yes. Q: To paragraphs
15 and 16 on those pages, of oyur 2nd affidavit. A: OK.
P126 Q: You say "I knew there was really no such thing as 'Head of the
Sea Org;, but Dandar thought it would work as a legal manoevre."
A: The Sea Org is not a heirarchical thing, it is something a
Scientologist joins to show extreme dedication. THE COURT: It is
a non-public (staff) member. [This observation is incomplete:
A "public" member is someone who pays for scientologycourses and
has a normal job. A "staff" member is someone who works full-time
for scientology, but lines at home in their own area. The "Sea Org"
is a special group within staff who are uniformed, usually work away
from home, and hence live in communal quarters].
A: It is the most dedciated people in scientology. It's a bit
amorphous really, it doesn't have an organisation in and of itself.
Q: It is not a corporate entity. A: Correct. But it does exist.
The contract excluded all the true corporates like RTC and CSI.
p127 OBJECTION, competency. THE COURT: OVER-RULED, she understands
scientology structures. MR LIROT: I meant she is drawing legal
conclusions about the workings of the contract. THE COURT: OK,
but she knew in general the contract existed and excluded corporates.
It was a tight contract. A: Correct. THE COURT: Which they all
knew. But was anyone trying to do anything illegal here? All they
said was, without breaking the contract on organisations, can we
lawyer a smart way round to still include the person we want.
P128 Isn't that it? A: Yes, they were trying to figure out how to
still add Miscavige without violating the contract.
Q: OK. And you had told Dandar that, based on your experience,
Miscavige could have had reports on Lisa, which would be the
way to make this hapoen. And Mr Dandar felt he might get a
higher and sooner settlement that way. As a judge, I do tend
to know what is going through both sides' heads; while parties
tend to have tunnel vison only seeing their own side of it.
BY MR FUGATE: Well, I'm going on the affidavit, which takes a
slightly different view.
P129 Q: I'm reading where you said this would be done "by falsely
claiming that Mr. Miscavige had a different role as head of
the Sea Organization [than his role in RTC]" (L16-18 P129)
MR LIROT: Objection, I would prefer questions. THE COURT:
Absolutely; the affidavit is evidence, you don't revise it.

P130 Q: Would you read the next para, #16? LIROT: same obhjection.
She can't create testiminy by refreshing her memory all the
time from the affidavit. THE COURT: Agreed. She swore an
affidavit on oath, you're now saying "read it out again
and tell me on oath it's true." MR FUGATE: I'm just asking...
P131 THE COURT: What you will now do is ask "what happened at the
end of the meeting" and see if this opens any new material,
not already in the affidavit. MR FUGATE: We went a bit afield
of where I intended things to go, and I need to get back.
Q: after the meeting ended you went down in the elevator and
Mr Dandar made a comment; what was it and how did you take it?
A: He said "by the way this meeting never happened"
Q: meaning the meeting just spoken of? OBJECTION (SUSTAINED)
P132 THE COURT: the remark she alleges speaks for itself. She can't
say what Dandar meant by it, we must ask him that. You can ask
what it meant to her. Q: What did it mean to you?
A: That Mr Minton wasn't supposed to be in on strategy meetings
so we should not discuss this meeting with others.
Q: Were you, Minton, and Dandar involved in other strategy meetings?
THE COURT: Not good enough; you would have to get into specific
meetings with time, place, and attaendance list.
Q: can you name any other such strategy meetings.
P133 A: there was the one just discused, and the one in Philadephia.
Q: Ho-hum. A: Plus phonecalls to Minton's home in New Hampshire.
THE COURT: Were you listening in on them? A: Usually, yes.
THE COURT: then you had beeter go into them, one at a time, if
they really were strategy sessions in which Minton told Dandar
how to run the case. If they were general discuusion, ignore them.
A: That was pretty much what happened. THE COURT: Then ignore them.
P134 Q: What happened? A: when Mr Dandar told Bob what was going on.
BY THE COURT: To clarify, there is an allegation that, because Minton
paid money, he was actually giving Mr Dandar instructions on
how to run the lawsuit. Was this so? A: I've pretty much covered that,
when I said earlier that Bob wanted the focus more on Scientology
practices; and these phonecalls continued that. In a number of
phonecalls over a period of time.

P135 Q: Keep the emphasis on Scientology rather than individual workers?
A: Correct. Q: Was it ever telling Dandar to use materials which
he and Dandar knew to be false? A: No. Q: Or just a matter of
where the emphasis would be? A: The emphasis. Q: Keep the
empghasis on the chuch not the individuals. A: Yes.
Q: so if someone got damaged, if someone got bad publicity,
that someone would be the church? A: Yes. Q: Not about
some minor staffer that nobody knew or cared about, but so
people wrote about the church. A: Yes. Q: OK.
P136 Q: Was there a purpose in creating the Lisa Trust to get bad
publicity for Scn? OBJECTION, best evidence, we have the
Trust's own mission statement to tell us what it was set up for.
Q: How was the Trust started, if you know?
A: Picking up where I left off earlier, there was an agreement
between the Estate and Minton to put the case proceeds into
an anti-cult group controlled by him as a way of re-paying him,
allowing him to pursue his aims of attacking Scientology.
When we left FactNet we made plans for a new organisation.
P137 We talked to Dell and to Dandar, who filed incorporation papers.
I thought it should be in Washington but Bob wanted it directly
confronting Scn in Clearwater to get maximum publicity.
Q: Did he discuss that plan with Mr Dandar? THE COURT: What plan?
Q: The location and aim of LMT. THE COURT: How is that relevant?
P138 Q: It's in our papers... THE COURT: We're here to discuss (1)
case control and (3) fraudulent statements, which we've done,
and (2) the agreemnt which we do next. What is this about?
Q: It goes to the agreement. THE COURT: OK. Q: Did Minton
and Dandar discuss locating LMT in Clearwater? A: Yes.
OBJECTION, it would ask what, if any, personal knowledge
she has of such discussions. THE COURT: You must ask if she
was party to them, otherwise it is for Minton or Dandar to say.
P139 Q: Did I say "to your knowledge"? A: I don;t know but I am
answering only about meetings where I was present.
Q: So, of those meetings... A: Bob and I had no office space
at the time so were working out of Dandar's conference room,
so we were often in his office discussing plans with him.
Q: Who was present t these discussions? A: Me, Minton, Dandar.
A: Was there a decision to have Dell Liebrch in the Trust.

P140 A: Dandar wanted her on the board to publicly demonstrate
the question with the case. Q: And... A: A sort of stamp
of approval on the organisation. Q: At a discussion you
witnessed between Minton and Dandar? A: Yes. Q: And there
was a decison about using Lisa's name? A: Yes. Q: For, in
your understanding of it, what purpose? A: Because Minton
wanted the case to be a symbol for the worldwide critic
community and what they considered all the abuses of Scn.
Q: Was the generation of publicity an element discussed?
P141 LIROT: objection, leading. THE COURT: Anyway irrelevant: it's
clear that Minton, and possibly also Dandar, wanted to bring to
this death (which they considered Scientology had caused), to
the forefront of attention. And so what? We are exploring
only whether there was an agreement to pay the proceeds of
the case into this organisation. It is now 4:15, we are going
to break at 4:30, we are going to continue until we finish
this witness today then see no more of her in this hearing.
Monday morning will be Minton, then the defence: we must come
to a decision whether there is to be a trial or not.
P142 BY MR FUGATE: was there a discussion about generating negative
publicity against the Church of Scientology.
OBJECTION, asked and answered. THE COURT: Look, you are telling
me what is plainly obvious on record, that these people took part
in protest and media actions to get publicity against Scn, if it
matters. If you wish to challenge me then I will make a specific
adverse ruling on that in the record, and you can go to appeal.
We are in recess until 4:30pm. (a BREAK was taken at this time).
END OF THIS FILE, NEXT FILE CONTINUES FOR 4:30pm ON 03/may/2002.

[Anonymous User]

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West
Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320
Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport
Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

0001------------------------------------------------------------------

1
2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal

5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6
7 Plaintiff,
8 vs. VOLUME 1

9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS

10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13

14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
15
DATE: May 3, 2002, afternoon session.
16
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
17 St. Petersburg, Florida.
18 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
19
REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
20 Notary Public,
State of Florida at large.

21
22
23
24
25

0002------------------------------------------------------------------

1 APPEARANCES:
2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4 Attorney for Plaintiff.
5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
7 Attorney for Plaintiff.
8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
11
MS. HELENA KOBRIN
12 MOXON & KOBRIN

1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900

13 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for David Houghton.
14
MR. LEE FUGATE and
15 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
16 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
17 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
18
MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
19 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor

New York, New York 10003

20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
21
MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
22 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD

740 Broadway at Astor Place

23 New York, NY 10003-9518

Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service

24 Organization.
25
0003------------------------------------------------------------------

1 APPEARANCES (Continued)
2 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
3 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
4 Attorney for Stacy Brooks.
5
ALSO PRESENT:
6
Ms. Donna West
7 Ms. Dell Liebreich
Mr. Rick Spector
8 Mr. Allan Cartwright
Ms. Lara Cartwright
9 Ms. Sarah Heller
Mr. Ben Shaw
10 Ms. Joyce Earl
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

0004------------------------------------------------------------------

1
2 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
3 PAGE LINE
4 STACY BROOKS 12 12
DIRECT DIRECT 12 15
5 EXAMINATION The Court 21 21
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 24 4
6 EXAMINATION The Court 35 13
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 36 14
7 EXAMINATION The Court 52 21
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 61 17
8 EXAMINATION The Court 62 8
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 64 11
9 EXAMINATION The Court 65 21
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 67 18
10 EXAMINATION The Court 71 1
Recess 74 4
11 EXAMINATION The Court 79 16
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 80 17
12 EXAMINATION The Court 82 13
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 83 13
13 EXAMINATION The Court 85 16
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 89 20
14 EXAMINATION The Court 90 8
EXAMINATION The Court 100 6
15 DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 103 6
Defendant's 73 Letter 118 23
16 EXAMINATION The Court 120 11
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 121 12
17 EXAMINATION The Court 121 17
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 124 9
18 EXAMINATION The Court 134 6
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 136 2
19 Recess 143 11

20
21
22
23
24
25

0005------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Well, my telephone call just ended
2 so I didn't have a chance to read a thing, so -- it
3 was a long call and it was an important call. And
4 for whatever it's worth, the Sixth Circuit has got a
5 new judge to be elected by this January. So that
6 was just one of a lot of things. So any of you all
7 want to be a judge, I wouldn't advise it, but if you
8 do, there's an opportunity for you.
9 MR. FUGATE: I think from what I've seen the
10 answer would be no.
11 As I understand it you want us to open now with
12 our evidence as it relates to the motion that we
13 filed, omnibus motion for sanctions. And we will do
14 that by calling Ms. Stacy Brooks.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. FUGATE: And I think she's here -- may I be
17 excused?
18 (Witness sworn.)
19 THE COURT: Not open, but continue with the --
20 with the hearing that we've already started in front
21 of Judge Baird, continuing here.
22 MR. LIROT: That's -- that's our question,
23 Judge.
24 I'm curious as to where we are procedurally.
25 It was my understanding that this afternoon would be
0006------------------------------------------------------------------

1 a continuation of the hearing in front of Judge
2 Baird.
3 THE COURT: Yes. That is my understanding too.
4 I think when he said open, he -- he meant that he
5 would be continuing. In other words, what I
6 indicated to the two of you all was that I wanted
7 the plaintiff in Clearwater defendant -- since it
8 started up there as the plaintiff and it's the
9 defendant's motion here, to finish whatever it is
10 they wanted to finish. Because I had noticed you
11 kind of wanted to make an argument on the law at the
12 conclusion of their case, and I said you can't
13 really do that until they conclude their case.
14 MR. LIROT: And correct. And that's in the
15 what we'll call the breach of contract action.
16 MR. FUGATE: Then I go back to what I said
17 before. I thought --
18 THE COURT: That is not true. I have no idea
19 what Judge Baird is going to do, whether he's going
20 to accept the procedure that I have allowed or not.
21 What I have allowed here is that so that Mr. Minton
22 and Mr. Dandar don't have to just repeat everything
23 that's happened, to basically allow their --
24 pursuant to agreement, their testimony in that
25 hearing to be introduced as part of this hearing.
0007------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. LIROT: Correct.
2 THE COURT: So we are not in that case at all.
3 I don't know what Judge Baird will do; whether he'll
4 accept any of this testimony or not. But in this
5 hearing we've agreed to accept the testimony thus
6 far, I believe -- we've had three witnesses,
7 Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Liebreich.
8 MR. LIROT: Correct.
9 THE COURT: They have testified, and I am
10 accepting that testimony. And I think Lee and the
11 church has adopted that testimony as part of the
12 testimony in this case and they're continuing. And
13 when they're done with their testimony in this case,
14 then I'm going to hear you as to the motion filed in
15 this case. If Judge Baird says, "I don't -- I'm not
16 interested in taking any of that testimony down
17 there in my case, I want it all put on again," you
18 continue up there. Is that what you understood?
19 MR. FUGATE: Well, yes and no.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. FUGATE: And now I go back to what I
22 suggested just before we went to lunch.
23 I misunderstood that point with your Honor, and
24 if he wants to complete the testimony of Mr. Dandar
25 in that case and expand it into this case, then what
0008------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Ms. Brooks was going to be called for is our motion
2 and our hearing as it relates to the motion that's
3 before your Honor in this case. And it's my
4 understanding that she's available Monday or Tuesday
5 if he wants to complete that. That's what I thought
6 I was saying at lunchtime.
7 THE COURT: There's no point. What I did was
8 agreed to fill up the time this morning because
9 Ms. Brooks I didn't think was here and we had time
10 to go. And so I said rather than just calling
11 Mr. Dandar for whatever cross, why don't you just
12 start with the whole thing.
13 Now we're ready to continue on your case. So
14 it's almost as if he never started, you're
15 continuing. And then when you're done, he'll make
16 his legal argument; if he doesn't prevail, the first
17 witness he's going to call is Mr. Dandar, or doesn't
18 have to be the first, but second, third, fourth,
19 whatever.
20 MR. FUGATE: All right.
21 MR. LIROT: That's exactly my understanding,
22 your Honor.
23 THE COURT: And what -- where are you and I not
24 either seeing eye to eye, which is okay, or where
25 are we miscommunicating?
0009------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: Well, where we're miscommunicating
2 is I actually thought we were going to start our
3 case. Because it's my understanding that in the
4 breach case, that Ms. Brooks was not going to be
5 called as a witness, and I didn't intend to call her
6 and certainly am not in -- you know, calling her in
7 that case. I would be calling her and I'd be
8 calling Mr. Minton, as I told your Honor, with
9 counsel on the conference call, as witnesses in --
10 if the court conducts an evidentiary hearing --
11 THE COURT: Which I'm doing.
12 MR. FUGATE: -- in this matter on our motion
13 that's before your Honor in this case.

14 THE COURT: That's fine.

15 MR. FUGATE: And if that's what I'm starting to
16 call her for, I'm ready to call her. If you want to
17 finish with Mr. Dandar, I'm ready to let you do
18 that. You tell me.
19 THE COURT: I want you to put on your case.
20 And when you're done with your case, I want you to
21 say, "That's all we've got."
22 MR. FUGATE: Got you.
23 THE COURT: And when that time comes, I want to
24 listen to legal argument. And if we go past the
25 legal argument, he's going to put on his case in
0010------------------------------------------------------------------

1 opposition to your motion.
2 Now, if you want to introduce -- which I
3 thought we'd already done -- the testimony that had
4 already occurred so all that doesn't have to be
5 repeated, that's your business.
6 MR. FUGATE: It's in.
7 THE COURT: And it's in. So this would be in
8 essence your -- I believe Ms. Liebreich was called
9 up there as a plaintiff's witness, was she not?
10 MR. WEINBERG: No. In that case, they're not
11 the plaintiffs in that case.
12 THE COURT: Well, I understand.
13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes --
14 THE COURT: You are and the church called her.
15 MR. WEINBERG: She was called by us.
16 THE COURT: The church has called thus far as a
17 witness in front of Judge Baird, Mr. Minton
18 Mr. Dandar and Ms. Liebreich.
19 MR. WEINBERG: That is true.
20 THE COURT: And I've allowed if you want those
21 witness's testimony from up there to be considered
22 to be admitted in this case. And so --
23 MR. FUGATE: And that's where I still think I'm
24 confused. Ms. Brooks would not be called in that
25 case, and Mr. Minton, what I had understood and what
0011------------------------------------------------------------------

1 I had anticipated was, as it relates to our
2 motion -- when I say our motion, the motion in the
3 case before your Honor, the wrongful death case --
4 that if we put affidavits in front of you -- I've
5 known you for a lot of years, and I think in
6 fairness, with the type of allegations that are
7 made, that you would want to see Ms. Brooks and you
8 would want to see Mr. Minton.
9 THE COURT: Very true.
10 MR. FUGATE: And I'm calling them in that case.
11 If he's not finished with whatever he wants to do
12 with Mr. Dandar, which is what I thought he was
13 saying before lunch, then I don't have any problem
14 with him finishing that. She's going to be called
15 in the other -- in the wrongful death case. Am I
16 missing something?
17 THE COURT: We are not at odds.
18 MR. FUGATE: Okay.
19 THE COURT: Pretend Mr. Dandar never took the
20 stand.
21 MR. FUGATE: You got it. And I'll start.
22 THE COURT: Pretend it never happened.
23 MR. FUGATE: Did you swear --
24 THE COURT: I swore her.
25 And if you did not want to call her up there,
0012------------------------------------------------------------------

1 then whatever -- whenever this is over, if Judge
2 Baird says, "Well, gee, maybe I can consider some of
3 this," you need to say, "Not the testimony of
4 Ms. Brooks because she was not going to be called in
5 this case." Meaning his case.
6 MR. FUGATE: Well, I think I'm confused enough.
7 I'll just start asking questions, Judge.
8 THE COURT: I'm not confused, but --
9 MR. FUGATE: Well, you know I'm always
10 confused.
11 ________________________________________
12 STACY BROOKS,
13 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined
14 and testified as follows:
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. FUGATE:
17 Q Would you state your name for the record, please,
18 Ms. Brooks?
19 A Stacy Brooks.
20 Q And we have had some testimony prior to your
21 taking the stand and there's been a reference to a Stacy
22 Young. Are you Stacy -- or were you Stacy Young at one
23 time?
24 A Yes, I was.
25 Q So for the court's purposes, Stacy Brooks, Stacy
0013------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Young, is you, and the same person at different points in
2 your life.
3 A Yes.
4 Q Now, you have -- you have executed two affidavits
5 which have been filed in the record in this case, as I
6 understand it. And do you have those before you there?
7 A Yes.
8 Q There's first a notice of filing, a short
9 affidavit and a notice of filing a longer affidavit. Do you
10 have those there?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 THE COURT: I may only have the one. I may
13 have them both, but the one that I have, that I know
14 I have, is one that is dated the 30th of April of
15 2002 and it's 16 pages. I'm sorry. It's 17 pages.
16 MR. FUGATE: That's the one that we will be
17 talking about as Exhibit 71 to our memorandum of
18 fact and law.
19 THE COURT: Okay. If there is another
20 affidavit, I'm not sure that I have it. I'm not
21 saying I don't, because I've gotten a lot of stuff.
22 I remember this one and I remember reading this one.
23 MR. WEINBERG: I think it's 72 and not 71, just
24 for the record.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
0014------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: Well, let's make sure we're right
2 on that.
3 MR. MOXON: It looks like there may be an
4 error. At some places in the paper it's referred to
5 as 71, but the copy we have, it's listed and
6 attached as 72 --
7 THE COURT: Let's put it this way: In my book
8 which you all provided to me -- which really isn't
9 that important. We need to know where it is in the
10 record. But in my book it's tabbed 72.
11 MR. FUGATE: Well, then let's refer to it as
12 72, Judge, and I apologize.
13 THE COURT: We'll all know what it is. It's
14 Stacy Young -- is it Stacy Young now? Stacy Brooks'
15 affidavit that is dated April 30th, and it's 17
16 pages long.
17 MR. FUGATE: It's actually, Judge, filed on the
18 30th. It appears on the back to be signed on the
19 29th of April.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 BY MR. FUGATE:
22 Q Is that -- are we talking about the same
23 affidavit?
24 A Yes.
25 THE COURT: Is that the same one that you have
0015------------------------------------------------------------------

1 in front of you that I have, ma'am?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Now we're all on the same
4 page.
5 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.
6 BY MR. FUGATE:
7 Q Ms. Brooks, the affidavit, the 17-page affidavit
8 that we now have, I think, identified for the record, which
9 is entitled "Second Affidavit of Stacy Brooks," did you in
10 fact -- is that the affidavit that you executed and your
11 attorney, Mr. McGowan, filed -- McGowan filed in this
12 record?
13 A Yes, it is.
14 Q And is it -- is it true and correct to the best of
15 your knowledge and belief?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Now, the judge has read it and I'm going to ask
18 you some questions about it. I'm not going to try to go
19 through it; I'm not going to try to repeat anything, Judge.
20 But I will, if I may, ask you, Ms. Brooks, can you
21 tell us how it is that you came to execute this affidavit;
22 how it is that you came to be testifying in this matter, if
23 you will?
24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think that's the subject
25 of my entire affidavit, your Honor.
0016------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: You can go on ahead on a narrative.
2 I mean, that's a fairly open-ended question.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 THE COURT: So you can -- you can just go until
5 somebody objects, and we'll see where it leads.
6 Okay?
7 THE WITNESS: All right.
8 A Well, I guess I'll start a little bit more
9 recently and go back -- go backwards in time.
10 In March of this year, I found myself and Bob
11 Minton in a situation in which we were both in extreme
12 danger of being found guilty of perjury. And particularly,
13 Mr. Minton was extremely -- extremely worried, distraught,
14 frightened about going to jail, either by Judge Schaeffer or
15 by Judge Baird. Judge Baird had already threatened to put
16 him in jail in October.
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q October of --
19 A In October of 2001.
20 And --
21 Q Let me interrupt here because I think everybody
22 understands, but for the sake of the record, Mr. Minton,
23 Mr. Bob, or Robert, Minton, was he the individual who was
24 the original president, CEO, if you will, of the Lisa
25 McPherson Trust --
0017------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yes.
2 Q -- that's referenced in your affidavit?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And were you the same Stacy Brooks or are you the
5 same Stacy Brooks that took over that position when
6 Mr. Minton removed himself?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And were you the same or are you the same Stacy
9 Brooks that had worked with Mr. Dandar in, quote/unquote,
10 the trial team in the litigation in this case, which is the
11 estate of Lisa McPherson, with Dell Liebreich as the
12 personal representative versus the Church of Scientology
13 Flag Service Organization and other defendants?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Okay. So with that stage set, there were legal
16 proceedings, if I understand what you're saying, that were
17 ongoing, that were beginning to cause concern. And I'm not
18 putting words in your mouth. You tell this judge what
19 happened and what caused you to be where you are today.
20 A There were many legal proceedings, both in this
21 case, in the wrongful death case and in the breach of
22 contract case. There was about to be another case, which
23 was the counterclaim case. And in all of these cases, both
24 Mr. Minton and I were being ordered into deposition on a
25 fairly regular basis. I was aware for some months that
0018------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Minton was testifying falsely.
2 THE COURT: Let me check with my bailiff. Is
3 that water fresh?
4 THE BAILIFF: Fresh, yes.
5 THE COURT: Take your time, ma'am.
6 MR. FUGATE: Too late now.
7 THE COURT: Well, I worried about it 'cause
8 I've been known to take this and realize that it
9 wasn't.
10 THE WITNESS: It tastes okay to me.
11 THE COURT: I knew the bailiff had made mine
12 fresh and I wanted to be sure yours was too.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 A I was extremely concerned about the fact that he
16 was doing this. Mr. Dandar knew he was doing this, was --
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q Knew Mr. Minton was doing what?
19 A Was testifying falsely.
20 Q And when we say Mr. Dandar, is he here in the
21 courtroom?
22 THE COURT: Oh, come on, Counsel, we don't
23 need -- this record can be real clear --
24 Mr. Kennan Dandar, right?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
0019------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: Apologize, your Honor.
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q And I will shut up.
4 A I had had many, many very heated discussions with
5 Mr. Dandar about the danger that he was putting Mr. Minton
6 in by continuing to have him fund this case --
7 THE COURT: Let me just stop you for one
8 minute. I'm going to assume that every time you say
9 Mr. Dandar that you're talking about Mr. Kennan
10 Dandar.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: You do know he has a brother.
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. But I didn't work with
14 Tom. I worked with Ken.
15 THE COURT: So anytime if you're referring to
16 anyone other than Kennan Dandar, his brother, you
17 let me know. Otherwise I'll assume anytime you say
18 Mr. Dandar, it's Ken Dandar.
19 THE WITNESS: That's right.
20 THE COURT: Fair enough? Okay.
21 A My relationship with Mr. Dandar had degenerated
22 really badly because of this situation, and I was urging and
23 begging Mr. Minton to stop his involvement in this case.
24 Mr. Minton had a lot of faith in Mr. Dandar. He felt that
25 he should continue to fund it.
0020------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Fund what?
3 A The wrongful death case.
4 And he felt that he had a commitment to the estate
5 of Lisa McPherson because he felt that the estate of Lisa
6 McPherson had made a commitment to him with regard to the
7 proceeds of the case. And he wanted to hold up to his end
8 of that deal.
9 And I told him repeatedly that Mr. Dandar didn't
10 really care how much money he took from him and he really
11 didn't care about what was going to happen to Bob Minton as
12 a result of what he was doing. And so finally -- finally
13 what happened was there were two orders to show cause for
14 criminal contempt brought against Bob Minton. One was in
15 Judge Schaeffer's courtroom and one was in Judge Baird's
16 courtroom. One was scheduled for Friday, April 4th, and one
17 was scheduled for Tuesday, April 9th -- Friday, April 5th?
18 In any case, right together --
19 Q April of this year --
20 A Right together. And, you know, Mr. Minton was in
21 terrible shape about this. I was, you know, continuing to
22 beg him to not fund. He had just given Mr. Dandar another
23 check in February -- or in early March, right before these
24 orders to show cause hearings.
25 Q Of what year, so we can keep fresh?
0021------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Right now. Of 2002.
2 Q Of 2002.
3 A You know, I told him that he was, you know,
4 getting himself into terrible trouble. And at that point he
5 said, "You know, I'm in so deep in this now it doesn't
6 really matter."
7 And I got in touch with his attorney, Bruce Howie,
8 in -- I think probably as early as January --
9 Q Of this year?
10 A And -- of this year, of 2002. And told Bruce that
11 I wanted to have him approach Scientology for a settlement
12 with Bob Minton, and asked him for his opinion about that,
13 or whatever. We had several conversations about it.
14 And after talking to Bruce, then I approached Bob
15 Minton and I told him that I wanted him to authorize me to
16 have Bruce Howie to approach Wally Pope --
17 Q Okay.
18 A -- for settlement.
19 And, you know, at first Mr. Minton said, you
20 know --
21 EXAMINATION
22 BY THE COURT:
23 Q I'm sorry, and I -- I don't mean to stop you
24 either, but when I hear settlement, I don't know what that
25 means. Settlement of what? What's going on?
0022------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well -- well, there were -- you know, Mr. Minton
2 was getting drawn into a lot of different legal -- or
3 litigation with Scientology. It was -- in the wrongful
4 death case, in the breach of contract case, he was about to
5 be named as a party in the counterclaim. And you know, it
6 seemed to me that he was being -- you know, he was going
7 down a road that was going to destroy him.
8 Q So when you say settlement with Scientology,
9 settle against -- this is again my question -- settle what?
10 A Well --
11 Q Settle out as a defendant? Settle -- I mean,
12 settle what?
13 A Well, it was going to start out with Bruce Howie
14 asking Wally Pope for the possibility of settlement in
15 the -- in the counterclaim. But my -- what I had in my mind
16 was that I knew that Scientology would never just be willing
17 to settle one little case with Bob Minton, because I knew
18 that their point of view was that he was responsible for
19 pretty much all the litigation problems that they were
20 having in the United States.
21 And so I knew that, you know, even -- even though
22 Bruce might -- Mr. Howie might call Wally Pope and ask for a
23 settlement of that one particular case --
24 Q That being I think you mentioned counterclaim --
25 that being the breach of contract case?
0023------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Breach of contract -- yeah, I think maybe it was
2 the breach of contract. I can't remember --
3 Q Okay.
4 A But, you know, one particular case that Mr. Howie
5 was working on. I think it was the breach of contract case.
6 And -- and I knew that when Mr. Howie approached
7 Wally Pope to settle that case, that what he would get back
8 from Wally Pope was going to be, "We're not interested in
9 settling one case, we want a global settlement with
10 Mr. Minton." Well, global settlement with Mr. Minton
11 didn't -- I mean, my understanding was, not that it would
12 just be all the litigation, but it would be that he got out
13 of the anti-Scientology litigation business altogether.
14 That he stop funding any litigation; that he stopped his
15 anti-Scientology litigation activities.
16 So --
17 Q So that's what you perceived --
18 A That was what I meant.
19 Q Okay.
20 A So -- so Bruce Howie did call Wally Pope. Wally
21 Pope did come back with the answer that I expected he would;
22 that Scientology was not willing to settle one case, they
23 wanted a global settlement. And so I encouraged and urged
24 Mr. Minton to go forward with talks for a global settlement,
25 because it was my feeling that it was the only possibility
0024------------------------------------------------------------------

1 he had to save himself from a nightmare of sanctions,
2 criminal charges, perjury charges, legal nightmares for the
3 rest of his life.
4 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
5 BY MR. FUGATE:
6 Q You mentioned perjury charges or you mentioned the
7 fact that there had been testimony, in your judgment, that
8 had been given that was not correct or not true; that you
9 wanted to address. Can you explain that to the court? And
10 I guess in two counts. If it applies for Mr. Minton, and if
11 you would identify what you understood applied to
12 Mr. Minton; and if it applies to yourself, if you would
13 identify what would apply to you.
14 THE COURT: Or both, if it applies to both.
15 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry.
16 THE COURT: That's fine.
17 BY MR. FUGATE:
18 Q Or both.
19 A Well, both of us had lied in deposition about
20 there not being a -- an agreement with the estate to -- for
21 the proceeds of the judgment to go to the LMT. Bob had lied
22 about that and so had I. Bob had lied about it more
23 extensively and more often than I had. This had been at
24 Mr. Dandar's urging. That was one.
25 Another was that Bob Minton had lied about how
0025------------------------------------------------------------------

1 much money he had given the estate or loaned the estate, I
2 should say, because he had left out some of the money that
3 he had loaned to the estate at Mr. Dandar's urging.
4 Q Can you explain that to the court?
5 THE COURT: And first of all, I guess she needs
6 to -- she needs to say whether or not she was
7 present for this discussion or whether this is
8 something she just learned from Mr. Minton. We need
9 to at least know that.
10 MR. FUGATE: Let me -- let me back up a minute
11 then and try to ask some questions.
12 BY MR. FUGATE:
13 Q Was there -- can you tell us how the LMT, the Lisa
14 McPherson Trust, came into being?
15 A Some of it happened before I was involved in it,
16 so it'll just be my understanding.
17 Q If you'd give us your understanding.
18 A Mr. Minton began to give the estate loans for the
19 litigation starting in, I believe, the fall of '97. And
20 from what he's told me, in early '98, I believe, he
21 suggested to Mr. Dandar and/or the estate that in order to
22 sort of defuse, I guess, the accusations that Scientology
23 was making about his -- the way they were characterizing his
24 relationship with the estate, they were characterizing his
25 relationship as a -- basically a business deal; that he had
0026------------------------------------------------------------------

1 invested in the lawsuit and that he was therefore expecting
2 to make a lot of money from the lawsuit. And he -- he
3 suggested that --
4 Q Let me stop you there. Was that fact at the time
5 that was happening, to your knowledge, true?
6 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q Go ahead.
10 A So he suggested that they make an agreement that
11 the bulk of the proceeds of the estate would go to an
12 organization that would be established in Lisa McPherson's
13 memory. And so that agreement had been made. And then --
14 well, excuse me, I -- that wasn't the case at that moment.
15 At that moment when they first made the agreement,
16 Bob Minton was part of another organization called FACTNet.
17 And so the agreement originally was that the money would go
18 to that organization. But shortly thereafter, I began
19 working with Mr. Minton in the late winter/early spring of
20 1998, and he asked me to go on the board of FACTNet with
21 him, and then we were both on the board for some months
22 until -- I'm sorry -- I'm just trying to make sure my dates
23 are right here.
24 THE COURT: We understand this has been over a
25 long period of time and so --
0027------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
2 THE COURT: -- just do the best you can.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 A Until, I believe, March of '99, if I'm not
5 mistaken, we left -- we settled -- Mr. Minton and I were
6 involved in settling the FACTNet lawsuit that Scientology
7 had brought against FACTNet, and we successfully settled
8 that lawsuit. And then we resigned from the board of
9 FactNet and Mr. Minton began to make plans to establish a
10 new organization that would be specifically in Lisa
11 McPherson's memory.
12 And at that time it was my understanding that the
13 agreement about the bulk of the proceeds shifted from going
14 to FACTNet to going to the new organization. Because the
15 whole point of the agreement was that it was going to be in
16 return for what Bob Minton was doing to enable the case to
17 go forward.
18 So --
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q All right. Now, let's back up a second because I
21 think it would be helpful, from reading your affidavit,
22 to -- to give the court a little background on your
23 involvement in anti-Scientology or as a Scientology critic,
24 litigation. Could you just tell us when that began and how
25 that began?
0028------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well, my husband and I left Scientology in 1989 --
2 Q And your husband would be at that time?
3 A That was Vaughn Young.
4 Q Okay.
5 A We left together. And we didn't have anything to
6 do with Scientology or anti-Scientology for several years.
7 We were just trying to get started with a new life
8 basically.
9 In 1993, we had occasion to meet a woman who was
10 part of an organization that was in litigation with
11 Scientology at that time, and she asked us if we would be
12 willing to speak to her attorney, who was fighting -- who
13 was litigating against Scientology.
14 And so -- that was sort of a big step for us at
15 the time, to actually cross a treshold and start working
16 against Scientology. I'd been in for 15 years so -- and my
17 husband had been in for 20 years, so you know, it was a
18 fairly major shift for us to do this.
19 And we finally decided, you know, to meet with
20 this attorney and see what it was that he wanted us to do or
21 what he wanted to know from us or whatever.
22 You're going to have to fill this up.
23 Q That water's okay?
24 A Yeah. It's okay.
25 So a meeting was set up with us, and -- and that
0029------------------------------------------------------------------

1 attorney and another attorney also came to that first
2 meeting.
3 Q And who were they, for the sake of continuity, and
4 where we are?
5 A Their names were Dan Leipold and Graham Berry.
6 They were both -- this was in Los Angeles. They were both
7 litigating cases, or I should say, defending their clients
8 in litigation against Scientology. In other words,
9 Scientology had brought the lawsuits against their clients.
10 Q And did you and/or your -- your then-husband,
11 Vaughn Young, begin to participate in that litigation?
12 A Yes. We had a lengthy interview with these two
13 attorneys in which they asked us about our experiences; you
14 know, what our positions had been in Scientology. Both of
15 us had, at various times in our careers in Scientology, held
16 high management positions. And so both of these attorneys
17 said that our experience would be really valuable and that
18 they would like to hire us as expert witnesses --
19 Q And did that happen?
20 A -- in their cases.
21 Q Did that happen? Were you hired as expert
22 witnesses?
23 A So yes, it did.
24 Q And did that expert witness experience extend over
25 a period of time?
0030------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: And I'll get it wrapped up, Judge,
2 to where we are here.
3 A Yeah. We started doing this in '93 and basically
4 continued to do this work through -- well, my husband, I
5 think, continued to do it through '98. I continued to do it
6 in one form or another until -- well, I'm hesitating
7 'cause --
8 THE COURT: Before or after he --
9 THE WITNESS: After.
10 THE COURT: Okay. So --
11 THE WITNESS: I mean, I was going to say until
12 about a month ago, but in fact I -- I haven't been
13 really doing the litigation work for some months.
14 BY MR. FUGATE:
15 Q Well, let me ask you this question. You say in
16 the affidavit that -- that you -- your role as an expert and
17 as a consultant was your primary source of income. Is that
18 accurate?
19 A Yeah. My husband and I had had a pretty difficult
20 time getting going after we got out of Scientology, and we
21 were, you know, having a pretty difficult time financially
22 when we met with these two attorneys. And so financially it
23 was a really good job for us at the time.
24 Q And did that then -- that relationship as an
25 expert witness/consultant, did that then become essentially
0031------------------------------------------------------------------

1 your sole source of income up till the present time?
2 A Well, it was certainly our primary source of
3 income and was my primary source of income until I began to
4 be paid directly by Mr. Minton.
5 Q Now, in that earlier litigation, you indicated --
6 MR. FUGATE: And I'm not going to go through,
7 Judge, the -- the affidavit --
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q But you indicate that you were a consultant on how
10 to drive settlements up or how to cause Scientology to want
11 to settle litigation. Can you explain that to us?
12 A Well, as I said, these two attorneys that I worked
13 with initially were both defending their clients against
14 Scientology, and one of the cases involved a client whose
15 credibility was fairly doubtful. And so the attorney was
16 hoping to be able to force Scientology to dismiss their own
17 lawsuit before it ever had to get to trial. And so what he
18 specifically asked for me to help him with was a strategy
19 which would bring that about.
20 Q And can you explain what that strategy was and how
21 you used it?
22 A I --
23 MR. LIROT: Objection, Judge, work product.
24 THE COURT: Whose work product?
25 MR. LIROT: Anything involving work product
0032------------------------------------------------------------------

1 that would affect this case. She signed a
2 confidentiality agreement.
3 THE COURT: Well, overruled. This is some
4 other case, I take it, way back in --
5 MR. FUGATE: It is.
6 THE COURT: Something involving Mr. Leipold
7 and --
8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, it's actually in the
9 affidavit, it's set out in there, and I'm just
10 asking her, to eliminate it.
11 THE COURT: Right.
12 THE WITNESS: What was the question again?
13 BY MR. FUGATE:
14 Q The question is, did you develop a strategy, I
15 think, is where I was headed.
16 A Yes. I did develop a strategy, and it was based
17 on something that I had heard about having happened in a
18 legal case when I was still in Scientology. Which was,
19 there was a lawsuit that had been brought by Scientology,
20 and the strategy of the defense attorneys in that case had
21 been to name L. Ron Hubbard, who was the founder of
22 Scientology, who was alive at that time, get him named as
23 managing agent and get him -- and I mean, I may not be
24 exactly accurate on what actually happened, but this was my
25 understanding -- to get him named as managing agent and
0033------------------------------------------------------------------

1 therefore get him ordered into deposition. Because -- and
2 when Mr. Hubbard was ordered into deposition, Scientology
3 dropped their lawsuit because they didn't want him to go
4 into deposition.
5 Q That was your understanding?
6 A That was my understanding. I'm not sure that
7 really happened, but that's what I --
8 Q Okay.
9 A -- that's what I brought with me.
10 Q Okay. And did you transfer that into the
11 litigation with Mr. Leipold and Mr. Berry, I think you said?
12 A Well, specifically with Mr. Berry at the time.
13 Q Okay.
14 A Because I -- I told him about that, and I said,
15 "Mr. Hubbard is dead, no longer the head of Scientology, but
16 David Miscavige is now the head of Scientology, and he's in
17 a very similar position in terms of wanting to shield
18 himself from litigation. So if you want them to dismiss
19 their case against your client, target David Miscavige."
20 Q And so did you then develop a strategy for these
21 lawyers as to how to do that, to try to cause that to occur?
22 A Yes, I did.
23 Q And did you become involved at some point in a
24 Larry Wollersheim case we've heard a little about today in
25 this court?
0034------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yes, I did to the degree that Mr. Leipold was one
2 of the attorneys on that case. And I had worked with
3 Mr. Leipold in, I think, maybe two earlier cases. And --
4 Q In the same capacity as an expert/consultant --
5 A That was always --
6 Q And the --
7 A That was always the capacity that I had.
8 Q Were you providing affidavits in those cases?
9 A I was writing -- well, they're declarations.
10 Q In California.
11 A I think in California they're declarations. But I
12 was writing lengthy declarations, very lengthy declarations,
13 in which basically -- you know, the -- we would have these
14 meetings and the attorney would lay out what it was that he
15 was wanting to plead. And then he would ask me if I felt
16 that that was plausible or if I thought that that was, you
17 know, a possible scenario in some way.
18 And -- and so, you know, we would kick it around a
19 little bit and I would say, you know, I don't think it would
20 be plausible that way, but I think it could possibly be the
21 case if you said it this way. And -- and then he would ask
22 me to write a declaration that would support that.
23 And so you know, I'm a writer; I've been a writer
24 when I was in Scientology. And you know, you can -- I've
25 done a lot of public relations writing. And you know, you
0035------------------------------------------------------------------

1 can communicate something in whichever direction would
2 further whatever your end result is that you want it to be.
3 Q Well, are you saying that if there was a -- a need
4 to establish something in a pleading, you would set about to
5 author a declaration that would fit that scenario, as you
6 called it, so that the pleading could be filed?
7 A That was my job.
8 Q Okay. And did that job extend over into this case
9 that Judge Schaeffer sits on today; the wrongful death case?
10 A Yes.
11 THE COURT: Don't we want to know whether or
12 not these declarations were true or not?
13 EXAMINATION
14 BY THE COURT:
15 Q Were these true declarations or were these
16 declarations that fit the -- that fit the need, whether or
17 not they were true?
18 A They were declarations that fit the need. And I
19 used speculation and I speculated about things that I didn't
20 really have personal knowledge about. So whether or not
21 they were true, I'm not sure. I -- I didn't have personal
22 knowledge about many of the things that I wrote about,
23 but --
24 Q And did the dec- -- I don't know what a
25 declaration is in California, but does a declaration say
0036------------------------------------------------------------------

1 something to the effect that I swear of my own personal
2 knowledge and belief this is true or anything like that? I
3 mean, I don't know what they require out there.
4 A I think it must.
5 Q So --
6 A I mean, it's a sworn statement.
7 Q It's the same thing as what we have; we just call
8 it an affidavit, they call it a declaration.
9 A Yeah. I think they're kind of interchangeable.
10 Q So when you say you had personal knowledge, if it
11 was something you were surmising or supposing, then that
12 wasn't -- would not have been a true affidavit.
13 A That's correct.
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q And did that practice carry over into this case,
17 was my question?
18 A Yes, it did.
19 Q And did you prepare affidavits and did you assist
20 in the preparation of affidavits that carried that same
21 pattern of fabrication, I think you called it, into this
22 lawsuit? In other words, the speculation, the assumption,
23 as a fact affidavit?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And did that practice -- did you make that
0037------------------------------------------------------------------

1 distinction or that fact that they were presumptions and
2 assumptions and innuendo known to anyone involved in the
3 litigation?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And who would that have been?
6 A Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko.
7 Q Now --
8 THE COURT: I'm not sure, maybe it's part of
9 one of the attachments that I have, I don't
10 remember -- I remember yesterday I said I've never
11 seen the Jesse Prince affidavit everybody kept
12 referring to? Have I seen the Stacy Brooks
13 affidavit that has been previously supplied in this
14 case? Is it at issue in front of me at any time?
15 MR. FUGATE: Have you seen it? I can't
16 remember when I saw it. But I'd be glad to get a
17 copy --
18 THE COURT: Okay. Can I get a copy so I know
19 what affidavit you provided in this case? You can
20 go on ahead. I just didn't know if I had seen it.
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm not sure that I
22 ever did provide an affidavit in this case. I may
23 not be remembering, but I -- you asked me if I
24 provided one or if I assisted.
25
0038------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Well, let's --
3 A And I did assist in another affidavit.
4 Q What we'll do, so we can save time and keep going,
5 is we'll look, because I believe there was one --
6 A Okay.
7 Q -- but I could be in error, but I'm going to get
8 to the assisting others.
9 A Okay.
10 Q And if we find one, we'll hand it up to the judge
11 so she can -- to review.
12 Let me jump back a second because I think it's
13 sort of -- to put things in perspective. In the Wollersheim
14 case, do you know that Mr. Minton had any financial -- had
15 or has any financial interest in the Wollersheim case that
16 you made reference to being involved in?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. And what interest does he have, to your
19 knowledge?
20 A Well, I know that he has the only secured lien of
21 $750,000, I believe, is the amount against that judgment.
22 Q And do you know --
23 A That UCC?
24 Q A UCC filing?
25 A Yeah.
0039------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Okay.
2 A That's -- I don't know what that means, but that's
3 what he has.
4 Q That makes two of us.
5 A Okay.
6 THE COURT: Actually I do, so that's --
7 remember I used to teach -- you know, I used to
8 teach commercial transactions.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, does that mean a secured
10 loan?
11 THE COURT: It's probably a security interest
12 that's been filed to protect the UCC -- filing to
13 protect his interest, giving notice to the world --
14 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
15 THE COURT: -- that he has --
16 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
17 THE COURT: -- an interest in this and he's
18 entitled to collect.
19 THE WITNESS: That's -- that's what I -- that's
20 my understanding.
21 THE COURT: Right.
22 BY MR. FUGATE:
23 Q And do you know if Mr. Minton has made any other
24 investments in the Wollersheim litigation, with the
25 attorneys or anything of that nature?
0040------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well, he has supported Mr. Leipold's law firm for
2 some time now. I mean, I've received a number of calls
3 myself from Mr. Leipold in which he would have lengthy
4 conversations with me, knowing that I would then talk to
5 Mr. Minton on his behalf, in which he has told me that if it
6 weren't for Mr. Minton, he could not keep -- continue to
7 keep the doors open of his law firm. And that he
8 desperately needed for Mr. Minton to give him some further
9 support.
10 I think that Mr. Minton has loaned him about
11 $450,000 at this point to enable him to continue to
12 practice.
13 Q And do you know -- do you know if there are loan
14 agreements or some sort of writing that evidences that?
15 A I believe there is.
16 Q Do you know -- while we're on that subject, I
17 think the judge would like me to move right to that -- do
18 you know if there are any writings in this case that
19 evidence loan agreements or the moneys that you have
20 described that you're aware of that Mr. Minton has put into
21 the estate of Lisa McPherson litigation?
22 A I believe so.
23 Q What would those be if you -- if you can describe
24 them to us?
25 A I -- I believe that when Mr. Minton first began
0041------------------------------------------------------------------

1 loaning the estate money, he put in writing that these were,
2 you know, loans to the estate; that he was very happy to be
3 able to help or something like that. And I -- and I believe
4 also Mr. Dandar then wrote him a letter back thanking him
5 for the -- for his help.
6 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to do this through
7 Mr. Minton rather than take the court's time --
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. FUGATE: Just want to establish it.
10 BY MR. FUGATE:
11 Q Do you need water?
12 A Sorry?
13 Q Do you have water there?
14 A Yeah.
15 Q Now, was there a letter from Mr. Dandar that you
16 ever saw that indicated that "thanks for the money, but the
17 bar says you can have no control over the litigation"?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you remember that?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And do you remember if there were more than one of
22 those letters or only that one?
23 A I don't remember more than one.
24 Q Okay. Now, in your observation, your
25 understanding, your belief, did Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton
0042------------------------------------------------------------------

1 discuss, plan, strategize the litigation that Mr. Minton was
2 putting the money into?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. Could you describe -- can you describe that
5 for the court, please?
6 A Well --
7 MR. LIROT: I think this is hearsay unless --
8 unless it's something that she said.
9 THE COURT: Well, I think that Mr. Minton is
10 going to be present, if she was present when any of
11 these things occurred. But I think where we need to
12 go here is not just -- I don't remember, what did
13 the bar say? The bar said that he couldn't control
14 the case.
15 MR. FUGATE: Couldn't -- yeah. Basically
16 you -- you have to get the client's consent. And
17 that it --
18 THE COURT: You can't discuss confidential
19 information.
20 MR. FUGATE: Confidential knowledge without --
21 THE COURT: But surely there's nothing the bar
22 would suggest that somebody who had contributed
23 money couldn't chat, how's the case going or
24 something like this. So we need to define this, if
25 we're talking about issues of controlling the case,
0043------------------------------------------------------------------

1 issues of confidentiality, or those kinds of issues.
2 MR. FUGATE: Well, what would be the best thing
3 is the letter, so if we can --
4 THE COURT: I've got it. It's in evidence.
5 But my recollection is that's what it said.
6 MR. FUGATE: Well, I don't have it, but I'll
7 look at it at the break and come back to that,
8 Judge, so I can address that.
9 THE COURT: Well, we can wait and get it.
10 MR. FUGATE: Okay.
11 MR. LIROT: Exhibit 9, Judge.
12 THE COURT: This is a letter from Mr. Dandar to
13 Mr. Minton, so this would have been the letter she
14 saw.
15 MR. FUGATE: Right.
16 THE COURT: Pursuant to Rule 4-1.8F of the
17 rules regulating the Florida Bar, "The client must
18 consent to your donation. Please be advised the
19 client does consent, was very appreciative of your
20 donation. New paragraph.
21 "Pursuant to the rules, your donation does not
22 entitle you to control the litigation nor the
23 disclosure of the client's confidential
24 information." And so that's the part that talks
25 about the Florida Bar rule.
0044------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Now, I will grant you, she may not know what
2 control is. I'm not -- I may not know. But I think
3 if, you know, we're talking about something in
4 passing, how's the case coming, we need to talk
5 about things that were discussed that were more than
6 that.
7 MR. FUGATE: Exactly where I'm going.
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q Did what the court just read to you refresh your
10 recollection of what the letter said in general, that you
11 can't be involved in the control of the lawsuit?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Now, rather than have me put words in your mouth,
14 can you tell us what you observed, what you witnessed, what
15 you participated in, with regard to Mr. Minton and
16 Mr. Dandar's involvement in the litigation, however you
17 describe it.
18 A Well, I had a pretty central role in this whole
19 issue, because once -- once I began working for Mr. Minton,
20 I kind of -- he -- he kind of gave me the role of overseeing
21 this wrongful death case and how Mr. Dandar was going about
22 litigating it to make sure that, you know, from my
23 perspective as a Scientology expert, that he was litigating
24 it properly in order to emphasize the Scientology aspects of
25 the case as much as possible.
0045------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q And what, if you know, of your own personal
2 knowledge, was Mr. Minton's purpose in controlling the
3 litigation or having it litigated, if you will, as you just
4 described?
5 A Well, Mr. Minton was very --
6 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation.
7 THE COURT: Well, I think what we need to know
8 here is whether she's familiar with any discussions
9 that Mr. Minton had with Mr. Dandar where he --
10 wherein he indicated this.
11 BY MR. FUGATE:
12 Q Can you answer that question?
13 A Yes.
14 THE COURT: Okay. And the same thing, you
15 know, being -- if Mr. Minton sends her over to
16 Mr. Dandar's office to be his eyes -- I believe in
17 the affidavit --
18 MR. FUGATE: Eyes and ears --
19 THE COURT: Eyes and ears, we need to know that
20 somehow or another Mr. Dandar knew this or ought to
21 have known it or something. Because if she's there
22 kind of, quote, spying for -- for Mr. Minton, why if
23 Mr. Dandar's not stupid enough to pick that up,
24 well, that wouldn't be very relevant then, because
25 that would be something between her and Mr. Minton.

[Nomen Nescio]

>From court...@hotmail.com Thu May 02 12:21:54 2002
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!supernews.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!h
ermes.visi.com!wesley.videotron.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!log
bridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!en
ews3
From: Court_Watch
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: STACY BROOKS -- SECOND AFFIDAVIT -- April 29, 2002
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:21:54 -0400
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 461
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-089.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1064584

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. 00-5682-CI-11, Division 11

ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, by
and through the Personal Representative,
DELL LIEBREICH
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS

JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and
DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

Defendants.
____________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
____________________________________/

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF STACY BROOKS

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

Stacy Brooks, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am over 18 years old, have personal knowledge of the facts set
forth herein, and am otherwise competent to testify in this matter. I
make this affidavit to explain my central role in developing the
underlying strategy in this wrongful death case.

BACKGROUND

2. My ex-husband Vaughn Young and I left Scientology in 1989. We had
no contact with anyone concerning Scientology until some time in early
1993, when we were contacted by two attorneys, Dan Leipold and Graham
Berry, who hired us as witnesses in their respective litigation
against Scientology.

3. We were paid by these attorneys through 1997 to provide testimony
and advice on litigation tactics. This was my primary source of
income. First and foremost, the attorneys wanted to know what they
could do to put pressure on Scientology, either to get a case dropped
or to get a large settlement. The overall strategy that I developed
was to target David Miscavige because he was the head of Scientology,
so that he could be named as a defendant or have the litigation
focused on him personally as a way to harass him. I advanced this
strategy although I had no knowledge or evidence of any involvement of
Mr. Miscavige in the cases. This pattern of anti-Scientology
litigation that I authored is now in use in this wrongful death case
and has been used in a number of other cases, some of which are still
ongoing today.

4. When I was hired by these attorneys, I had had no previous
experience in the legal field. The attorneys referred to me as an
"expert witness" and said that as an expert, I was permitted to
testify about my opinions. As I understood it, my job was to come up
with theories of what might have happened in order to back up what the
attorney was trying to accomplish. I wrote affidavits and
declarations based on these theories, in which I speculated about how
the attorneys' assertions could be true. I used supposition and
careful wording to make allegations that would fit the particular
assertion so as to create an impression without actually lying. This
is what I was paid to do. At various times I have been called a
"witness," an "expert," an "expert witness," an "expert consultant" or
a "consultant," whichever description best forwarded the needs of the
litigation. The common denominator throughout has been that I was
being paid to provide anti-Scientology testimony and strategy to these
attorneys.

5. For example, one of the first Scientology cases I worked on
concerned a man named Steve Fishman who was being sued for libel by
Scientology after he was quoted in a Time magazine article saying that
Scientology had ordered him to commit murder and suicide. I helped
put together information for the attorney (Graham Berry) to use in his
pleadings that included an allegation that Mr. Miscavige was
implicated in the death of his mother-in-law. There was no evidence
linking him to her death, which Mr. Berry knew, but he wanted to
malign Mr. Miscavige at every opportunity as part of the overall
strategy, so it was written to create that impression without ever
actually saying it.

6. I also wrote an affidavit for attorney Dan Leipold, who wanted to
use this same strategy of pursuing Mr. Miscavige. He requested that I
write a declaration to back up his assertion that Scientology
corporations were alter egos of each other, so that he could make Mr.
Miscavige the central focus of his litigation. Although I did not
have any firsthand knowledge of the corporate structure of
Scientology, which Mr. Leipold knew, I wrote a declaration in which I
created the impression that I was an expert on the subject and offered
conclusions to support this alter ego theory.

THE McPHERSON WRONGFUL DEATH CASE

7. I first became aware of the wrongful death case in early 1997 when
Mr. Dandar hired me as a consultant/expert witness for the case. He
was already familiar with the litigation strategy I had helped develop
in other Scientology cases, and in his first phone call he made it
clear that he wanted my help to pursue that same strategy of targeting
Mr. Miscavige in his case. He sent a letter in May 1997 in which he
stated: "I am also enclosing a copy of the proposed amended Complaint.
I intend to sue David Miscavige as managing agent. Would Mr.

Miscavige have personal knowledge of those in isolation and their

condition?" Mr. Dandar and I had a number of conversations in which I
fabricated possible scenarios that could have included Mr. Miscavige,
and we discussed the idea of alleging that Lisa's death was
pre-meditated, although since I had left Scientology in 1989,
obviously I could not possibly have any personal knowledge of what had
happened to Lisa McPherson.

8. I first spoke to Robert Minton in September 1997, when he helped
my then-husband and me financially, which enabled us to continue our
anti-Scientology activities. At the same time, Mr. Minton had begun to
fund the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar subsequently incorporated
the strategy I had developed to target Mr. Miscavige and the upper
echelon of Scientology in his first amended complaint, following Mr.

Minton's initial $100,000 loan to the Lisa McPherson Estate.

9. By mid-1998 Mr. Minton had begun to pay me to assist him in his
anti-Scientology activities. With regard to my work on the wrongful
death case, once I began working for Mr. Minton, I became his eyes and
ears in Mr. Dandar's office, to make sure Mr. Dandar emphasized the
Scientology aspects of the case as much as possible.

10. Mr. Dandar and I had many conversations in which he asked me how
I thought he could bring pressure to bear on Scientology to settle for
a high figure. In each conversation I advised him that he should
concentrate on attacking the upper echelon of Scientology,
particularly Mr. Miscavige.

11. In late 1998, Mr. Minton sent Jesse Prince to Mr. Dandar to
assist him in litigating the wrongful death case. At that time, I was
being paid by Mr. Minton directly, and Mr. Prince was paid by Mr.
Minton directly and through Dandar & Dandar. Over the next year, Mr.
Prince and I had several conversations about the effectiveness of this
strategy concerning Mr. Miscavige, and Mr. Prince agreed that this was
the way to put pressure on Scientology, although we had no evidence to
link Mr. Miscavige in any way to the events surrounding Lisa
McPherson's death. Mr. Dandar was enthusiastic about pursuing this
plan to add other entities and officials.

12. Mr. Minton and I flew to Philadelphia in August 1999 at Mr.
Dandar's request so he could provide an update of the case, because he
wanted Mr. Minton to give him more funding. By then I was not at all
happy about the way Mr. Dandar was conducting the wrongful death case.
Mr. Prince and I both felt that he was ignoring many aspects of the
Scientology issues in the case, and we had both spoken to Mr. Minton
about this. In my presence, Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that he would
not give him any more money unless Mr. Dandar began to focus more
heavily on the Scientology issues and unless he agreed to listen to
Mr. Prince and me much more as Scientology experts. Mr. Minton said
he intended his funds to support a case about Scientology's
responsibility for Lisa McPherson's death, not just a routine wrongful
death case. Mr. Minton made it clear, and I strongly encouraged him
to do so, that if Scientology did not begin to take a more central
role in the case, he would lose interest in funding it. Mr. Dandar
then began to talk about ways in which Scientology could be
interjected further into the case. At the end of the meeting Mr.
Minton gave Mr. Dandar a check for $250,000.

13. Following this meeting, Mr. Dandar, with the assistance of Mr.
Prince and me, moved to add new parties, including David Miscavige.
Mr. Dandar needed something on which to base this, and Mr. Prince and
I had discussed various hypothetical scenarios with Mr. Dandar. Mr.
Prince signed an affidavit based on his speculation, alleging that Mr.
Miscavige and others "would have known" about Lisa McPherson, and that
"her death was no accident." This was the same pattern of fabricating
scenarios I had used in earlier cases and that Mr. Prince and I had
discussed. Mr. Dandar knew there was no evidence to support this, and
his trial consultant Michael Garko was dead set against it because of
the complete lack of evidence, but Mr. Dandar filed the motion anyway,
claiming that Scientology intentionally killed Lisa McPherson and Mr.
Miscavige "would have known" and decided she should be killed "to
protect Scientology from bad public relations."

14. In a hearing that I attended in October 1999, Judge Moody denied
Mr. Dandar's motion to add Mr. Miscavige and others as defendants in
the wrongful death case, after attorneys for Scientology argued that
adding Mr. Miscavige and others would be a breach of the contract Mr.
Dandar had signed in which he agreed not to add any corporate
representatives of RTC or CSI (since Mr. Miscavige was the Chairman of
the Board of RTC).

15. Sometime shortly after this hearing, I picked up Mr. Minton from
the Tampa International Airport one afternoon and drove him to Mr.
Dandar's new office on Kennedy Boulevard. Mr. Dandar asked us to go
into the conference room, which was in somewhat of a state of
disarray, with boxes of documents on the floor in the office and the
telephone not yet set up properly. Mr. Prince and Dr. Garko also
attended the meeting, which, as I recall, lasted more than an hour.
Mr. Dandar told us he was struggling with the question of whether or
not to try a second time to add Mr. Miscavige as a defendant in the
case. Mr. Dandar and I had discussed it, and I had already suggested
a scenario of how this could be done, by falsely claiming that Mr.
Miscavige had a different role as head of the Sea Organization apart
from his corporate position in RTC. I reiterated my ideas in the
meeting. I knew there wasn't really such a thing as a "head of the
Sea Org," but Dandar thought it could work as a legal maneuver.

16. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Dandar went down in the elevator
with Mr. Minton, Mr. Prince and me. As we waited for the door to open
on the first floor, he made a shrugging gesture and said, "By the way,
this meeting never happened."

SECRET AGREEMENT

17. Mr. Minton had an agreement with Mr. Dandar and Dell Liebreich,
the representative of the Estate of Lisa McPherson, that the bulk of
any proceeds of a settlement or jury award in the case would be
donated to an organization in memory of Lisa McPherson. Mr. Minton
was to fund the organization until that donation came through. I
thought it should be established in Washington, D.C., but he wanted it
to be in Clearwater to be "in Scientology's face" and to oversee his
investment in the wrongful death case. I was with Mr. Dandar at his
office when he prepared and filed the incorporation papers in October
1999 for the Lisa McPherson Trust (LMT), and the corporation came into
existence in November. Dell Liebreich was put on the board at Mr.
Dandar's insistence, to publicly demonstrate the close relationship
between the case and the LMT, since the Estate was going to fund the
LMT with proceeds from the case.

18. Mr. Minton insisted that the LMT board of directors and advisory
board include all the most well-known Scientology critics and
witnesses. He was already paying Mr. Prince through Mr. Dandar, and I
became the president of the LMT and was paid by Mr. Minton through the
LMT. David Cecere was another former Scientologist that Mr. Minton
paid to move to Clearwater to be the executive director of the LMT.
Mr. Cecere was no longer working for the LMT after two months, but Mr.
Minton saw to it that Mr. Dandar hired Mr. Cecere to do expert work
for the wrongful death case. Teresa Summers was another former
Scientologist that I hired at the LMT after Mr. Dandar put her on his
witness list in the wrongful death case. Mr. Minton had me hire Grady
Ward at the LMT so that he could help him financially during and after
Mr. Ward's involvement in litigation with Scientology. Mr. Minton put
Gerry Armstrong on the advisory board after giving him $100,000. Mr.
Armstrong used the money to file a suit against Scientology. Mr.
Minton also put Arnie Lerma and Keith Henson on the advisory board
after funding their litigation against Scientology. Mr. Minton put
Mr. Leipold and Mr. Dandar on the advisory board as the two main
anti-Scientology litigators that he was funding.

19. On November 30, 1999, when Ms. Liebreich and her two sisters were
in Florida for a hearing on the Probate matter, Mr. Minton took the
family, Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and me out for dinner in Tampa to Ruth's
Chris Steak House. Ms. Liebreich voiced her support and enthusiasm
for the new organization and confirmed her own and her siblings'
commitment to the future funding of the LMT from the proceeds of the
case. Ms. Liebreich, Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko then all attended the
first board meeting of the LMT on December 1, 1999.

20. Mr. Dandar frequently made a point of telling me that he kept
Dell Liebriech briefed on the case and its progress. He specifically
told Mr. Minton and me on several occasions that Ms. Liebreich was
informed and in full agreement with the activities and participation
of Mr. Minton and the LMT in the case.

21. Mr. Dandar said he thought the existence of the LMT would be
great, because it would create negative publicity about Scientology
and its involvement in the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar encouraged
us to generate negative media against Scientology, and on occasion, he
participated in pickets. Mr. Dandar also encouraged our participation
in "The Profit," an anti-Scientology movie that Mr. Minton funded. He
and several others, including Mr. Minton and me, had bit parts in the
movie.

22. Jesse Prince and I communicated with Ken Dandar routinely. I was
Mr. Minton's eyes and ears for the wrongful death case. Mr. Dandar
did not like this arrangement, as I was essentially a spy for Mr.
Minton to protect his investment. I was, in fact, Mr. Minton's agent,
directing Mr. Dandar and keeping Mr. Minton informed. Mr. Dandar was
always very upbeat and positive with me about the case, as he expected
I would repeat what he told me to Mr. Minton in order to continue the
flow of money. It was my belief that Mr. Dandar called me a
"consultant" so that he could claim he was not communicating with Mr.
Minton about the case. I was Mr. Dandar's "consultant," although
after 1997 he did not pay me anything - I was paid by Mr. Minton
either directly or through the LMT. When I did not do so directly,
Mr. Prince relayed information to Mr. Minton.

23. In May 2000, because Scientology was constantly telling the court
that Mr. Minton and the LMT were inextricably linked to the wrongful
death case, Mr. Dandar suggested I hire a separate attorney for the
LMT. We hired John Merrett. He was referred to me by Patricia
Greenway after she met him on an anti-Scientology chat channel on the
Internet. Mr. Merrett was supposedly separate counsel for LMT and Mr.
Minton, although in reality he was an extension of Mr. Dandar,
coordinating with him on pleadings he filed and arguments he made.
Both were being funded by Mr. Minton, who was also funding the LMT and
all the witnesses in the case.

24. In May 2001, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and I had dinner at the
Belleview Biltmore at Mr. Dandar's request, because he again wanted
more money from Mr. Minton. By that time I was urging Mr. Minton not
to fund the case any longer, because Mr. Dandar was dragging Mr.
Minton and me into lying to protect him and the case. During dinner I
told Mr. Dandar that it was becoming a conflict of interest for Mr.
Minton to fund the case, since the more he funded it the more he was
being ordered into deposition. I said this because Mr. Dandar and I
both knew that Mr. Minton was lying in deposition. I was stunned when
Mr. Dandar replied, "But even if Bob goes to jail it won't hurt the
case." I took this to mean that Mr. Dandar was now holding Mr. Minton
hostage to this litigation, knowing that Mr. Minton had perjured
himself and counting on Mr. Minton to remain silent about what he had
done to protect himself.

25. At that dinner, Mr. Dandar then had the audacity to suggest to
Mr. Minton that he give him another check "like the earlier one for
$500,000," meaning a bank check without his name on it. Mr. Minton
said he could not do that at that time, whereupon Mr. Dandar then
suggested that Mr. Minton, who was planning a trip to Europe, could
"get the money in cash" while he was there, or, he said, "I'll go to
Europe or anywhere else in the world to pick up the cash for you." I
was shocked when Mr. Minton gave him a personal check for $250,000.
After this, I implored Mr. Minton to distance himself from the case
and get out of it, but he was by then in despair about the situation
and said, "I'm in this thing so deep now that there is nothing I can
do to get out of it."

26. On August 15, 2001, I was deposed in the wrongful death case with
Judge Beach present at the deposition. During that deposition Judge
Beach threatened to put me in jail if I did not turn over certain
documents. I had already caused documents and videotapes to be removed
from the LMT in non-compliance with discovery orders.

27. John Merrett represented me at this deposition and knew I was
testifying falsely. Prior to my deposition he had coached me
regarding how to falsely answer questions about the source of LMT
funds. Mr. Merrett had also advised me to leave unedited video footage
from the LMT in the hallway and it would be "taken care of." I
directed that they be put there and I never saw them again. I was also
aware that several hard drives were removed from computers in LMT
prior to the Special Master's inspection of the LMT.

28. Following this deposition, I decided I was unwilling to continue
to forward the agenda of the wrongful death case by telling further
lies and evading discovery, because I was concerned about exposing Mr.
Minton, myself or anyone else to any further risk. Shortly after that
deposition I was in New Hampshire at Mr. Minton's house. I told him I
wanted to call Ms. Liebreich and set up a meeting with her. I wanted
to tell her we could not continue our lies, because Scientology was
closing in, and it was only a matter of time before our perjury and
violations of discovery orders regarding our involvement in the case
would be exposed. Mr. Minton already faced contempt, and I wanted to
tell her that the only hope for all of us to stay out of trouble was
for her to drop the case. Mr. Minton agreed and told me to go ahead
and call her, although he said he did not believe she would drop the
case. I called Ms. Liebreich and told her that I wanted to fly to
Texas to tell her about some of the things that were happening in the
case. She asked if Mr. Dandar could be there. I told her I would
prefer to speak to her alone but that if she wanted him there that
would be fine. She agreed reluctantly, but a short time later called
me back and said she had spoken to Mr. Dandar and he had advised her
not to meet with me.

29. The next time I spoke to Mr. Dandar he was very indignant about
my having called Ms. Liebreich. He told me that Ms. Liebreich already
knew everything that was going on in the case and there was nothing I
could tell her that she didn't already know.

30. After Ms. Liebreich refused to meet, Mr. Minton and I decided we
had to do everything possible to distance ourselves and the LMT from
the case. The next morning I called Mr. Prince and told him that Mr.
Minton and I wanted him to resign as an expert witness from the
wrongful death case. Mr. Prince also wanted to distance himself from
the case, and he informed Mr. Dandar that he was withdrawing
immediately. I also informed Mr. Dandar that I would not appear as a
witness in the case. Mr. Minton informed Mr. Dandar that he would
provide no further funding for the case. We also closed down the
LMT, specifically to distance ourselves from the wrongful death case.

31. Mr. Dandar then contrived a "reason" for Mr. Prince's withdrawal
and drafted a motion for severe sanctions against Scientology for
having harassed Mr. Prince and forcing him to withdraw from the case
out of fear. Mr. Dandar also drew up an affidavit for Mr. Prince to
sign in which he recounted his arrest and trial for drugs. Mr. Dandar
persuaded Mr. Prince to sign the affidavit although in it Mr. Prince
admitted to drug use, something he had not done throughout his
criminal trial. Mr. Minton and I were both furious that Mr. Dandar
would put Mr. Prince in such jeopardy for the sake of a sanctions
motion that was based on a false premise. Mr. Dandar knew that Mr.
Prince had withdrawn because Mr. Minton and I told him to, as part of
our efforts to distance ourselves from the case.

32. Despite the fact that Mr. Dandar knew Mr. Minton wanted nothing
more to do with him or the case, Mr. Dandar contacted Mr. Minton in
December 2001 and told him he desperately needed more money to get the
case through trial. I urged Mr. Minton not to provide any further
funds, and in fact, Mr. Minton at first refused Mr. Dandar's pleas.
But Mr. Dandar continued to call Mr. Minton. Mr. Dandar asked Mr.
Minton to meet him in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Cayman Islands,
but Mr. Minton refused to travel to either place. Finally Mr. Minton
told him he wasn't going to travel anywhere but if Mr. Dandar wanted
to come to his house in New Hampshire, he could do that. I was
already in New Hampshire when Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko flew up on the
last weekend of February.

33. Despite Mr. Dandar's and Dr. Garko's best efforts, Mr. Minton
continued to refuse to provide any further funding. On Sunday
morning, I again told Mr. Dandar that I was against Mr. Minton
providing any further funding, because it was putting him at such
terrible risk legally. Mr. Minton was scheduled to go back into
deposition in the wrongful death case to comply with Judge Schaeffer's
order to answer between 80-90 questions to which he had previously
pled the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Minton and I were both very concerned
about this. Mr. Dandar went over each of the 80-90 questions to help
Mr. Minton work out what to answer for each one, including how to
avoid disclosing the existence of the $500,000 UBS check in May 2000
payable to Ken Dandar from Mr. Minton. Mr. Dandar coached Mr. Minton
not to answer the questions truthfully.

34. I have written this affidavit for no other reason than to tell
the truth and avoid the consequences I would inevitably face were I to
continue to evade discovery and lie in deposition. Mr. Minton was
already facing penalties for contempt. It was evident to me that I
faced a similar future, especially concerning my obstruction of
discovery into LMT. I had no question the Special Master and his
computer experts would soon discover missing hard drives, videos and
documents that were originally ordered to be produced over two years
ago. With that would also come the disclosure of my untruthful
testimony as regards discovery. Scientology has been relentless.
Even when Mr. Minton and I approached them to try to settle, hoping
they would let us walk away from all of this, they insisted that
before they would even discuss settlement, we had to be forthcoming
with what had really occurred in this case. We had no other option,
and to date they have still refused to talk about settlement. I feel
that the actions I have taken in connection with this wrongful death
case have been disgraceful. I would rather confront the consequences
of my actions now than prolong the inevitable. I am available to
testify before the court to answer any questions if this is needed.

35. In light of this affidavit, I hereby recant any false statement I
have made under oath that may contradict my sworn statements in this
affidavit.

ss. Stacy Brooks
____________________________________
STACY BROOKS

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me to be true
and correct to the best of her ability this 29th day of April, 2002,
by Stacy Brooks. She has produced Geogia DL # (Number intentionally
omitted) (ID) as identification and did take an oath.

ss. Vonda B. Fraska
________________________________________
Notary Public

[xganon]

MINTON TESTIMONY DAY ONE (VOLUMR ONE), 17/may/2002,
=====================================================
in Estate of MacPherson vs Church of Scientology FSO,
Pinellas County (FLA), CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
=====================================================

SUMMARY

At(p01) header, At(p03) appearances, at(P04) MR FUGATE
to call(Line10) Robert S Minton. who is(Line17) duly sworn.
At(Line23) the Court raises the notice to produce,
and at(P05) Mr Dandar is satisfied apart from the draft RICO
suit. Mr Howie(Line16) gives a list of documents produced,
the response on that one being they have no such draft.

A(P06) the Court has ordered production of LMT tax returns,
but currently not Ms Brooks' personal tax returns.
Mr Minton has(Line 10) raised, and maintained, a valid 5th
amendment privilege concerning his personal tax returns.
At(P08), the request for any all bank statements was objected
to as unduly onerous, and on 5th amendment grounds; at least,
beyond any already produced voluntarily. With the above
exceptions there all document requests have been complied with.
At(P09) the Court asks what detailed laws apply to earning
money overseas and transferring it on or out of the country.

At(P11) the earning is lawful but failing to report it for tax
is not, the transfer is lawful but failure to report large
amounts transferred is not. At(P12) Mr Howie has one other
objection, that all cheques between Minton and Brooks or
vice versa are already disclosed, or else overly burdensome.
The Court will not accept the overly-burdensome grounds;
cheques or bank statements for 2000-2001 will be produced.
At(P14), Mr Minton has admitted perjury and, if notice is served,
then Mr Howie will accept service as his attorney. At(P15)
examination of Minton then(Line 12) begins. At(P16) Mr Fugate
his placed before the witness his three affidavits, of April/19th
("recantation"), of April/24th ("2nd affidavit") and of same date
("3rd affidavit"). Mr Minton is asked to confirm that they are
the affidavits he signed, and that he stands by them as accurate;
which, except(at P17) for some small errors in amounts on cheques,
he does. The purpose of this(Line 17) was to put on record that
he identified these as the affidavits he had executed.

At(P18) Mr Minton had been added(Line 19) as party to the counter-
claim, and has been given the transcripts so far to read.
He acknowledges(P19) that he is the Minton referred to in them,
and has funded cases against the Scientology Corporation since 1996;
at(P20), including LMT staff and building costs as well, probably
to a total amount of ten million dollars. This is broken down into
Wollersheim about $700,000(Line 20), secured against judgment on
a UCC-1 form; and at(P20) a further sum into Fact-Net, a Colorado
non-profit organisation.

At(p21) Minton weirdly describes FactNet as an "enterprise" which
"sold" anti-cult litigation services; though in 1989 Minton as its
chief officer agreed with Scientology it would confine its attacks
mainly to cults other than them. At(P23) FactNet had been sued by
RTC for publishing copyright materials the alleged Church uses to
defraud people, and Minton concede a stipulated settlement of
$1,000,000. That is, it was not an amount paid, but to be paid if
there were future violations. [Query, has anyone signed a bond to
pay if payment becomes due?]. The Court(p24) queries why this is
relevant in a list of actual payments to anti-scientology causes.

Minton says(Line 14) he probably put in $300- to $400,000, including
payments of expert witnesses like Jesse Prince. Minton met attorney
Dan Liepold who, at(P25) was then representing Fact-Net. Mr Liepold
came to a parting of the ways with the firm of Hagenbaugh and Murphy,
because the FactNet case was expensive for little return, and went
into sole practice, at(P26), some time in 1986. Mr Minton put in
$180,000 on a loan agreement which, at(P27) remains largely unpaid.

Keith Henson(Line06), whom Minton describes as "outlandish",
was sued for breach of copyright over publishing material which
revealed the practice of medicine without license. He lost
(Line18) for $70,000 plus costs at a jury trial. Minton paid
Henson and his attorney Graham Berry, at(P28), around $28,000.
Henson was "convicted of terrorist threats against the Church
and then fled to Canada" [i.e. he was set up on crazy charges and
allowed no proper defense then fled the country in fear of his life,
which the alleged Church now use as something to attack him with],
which the Court states is not really relevant to amounts paid.

Arnie Lerma(Line 14) was, at(P29) again sued by RTC over publishing
copyright material which the alleged Church uses to defraud people;
[he was found against, but in the minimum amount of $500 x each of
five infractions]. He was paid about $60,000 mainly as living expenses.
Mr Fugate raises(Line 12) defense exhibit 81, a list of amounts and
recipients. At(P30), Mr Lerma was on the advisory board of LMT as was
Mr Henson, and another man called Gerry Armstrong.

At(P31) Minton says he handed Armstrong at least $100,000, who used
these monies to fund a case against David Miscavige personally. Fugate
the sets out to blacken Mr Armstrong's name as another one who has
"fled to Canada" [Mr Armstrong is a Canadian citizen who, when working
for Scientology, wished to marry and settle in America. After a
falling out with Scientology they signed an agreement that neither
would defame the other, which the alleged Church broke with impunity,
but pursued him for endless sanctions when he replied until he was
driven back into exile in his native Canada]. The court again says
that the details, outside the amount, are irrelevant.

LMT also employed (Line19) Grady Ward as web and security consultant.
At(P32) Mr Minton is paying Ward until present time. [Grady Ward was
accused of breaching copyright on the material Scientology uses to
defraud people, it was never proved, but the court showed him a
settlement it had drafted on his part and unlawfully signed if for
him. Many defendants have been unlucky in the courts against
Scientology, this could be because Scientology has money and
fights cases hard]. Query, Ward ceased making public comment
on Scientology from roughly then to date: is this a condition
by Minton on continued payment? The figure is about $100,000.
Fugate asks whether it is over and above LMT salary. The Court
makes clear only money to cases, not salaries, is relevant.

AT(P33) Fugate asks whether this was over and above salary, Minton
answered that the only one of those mentioned so far who received
salary was Mr Ward; but not whether the sum named was over and above
salary in Ward's case. Also (Line16) about $100,000 was given for
a case in Germany, and about $300,000 for a case in France.
These (Line 25) so far all refer to cases other than MacPherson.

At(P34), he says the total to McPherson is about $2,000,000;
objection, no foundation about whether and how McPherson was
funded at all. Fugate(Line21) hands out copies of a list
scheduling accounts to various cases. At(P35) Mr Dandar
raises the three existing orders against information on
funding him, the Court says that much of the information
has been introduced but she can if he wishes suppress
further discuss and enquiry upon it: she advises at(P36) that,
since perjury is alleged against him, this would be against
his interests, but she will suppress the introduction of
new information. Do you want to prevent discussion? Dandar
does not, but leaves a standing objection on record. The Court
emphasizes at(P37) he should discuss it now because it goes
to his credibility and the allegations against him.
At(P38) the expenditure of monies donated is still protected
from enquiry, so is knowing how much he has left to litigate,
so is what bank account they went into. At(P39) the latter
may go to bar disciplinary procedures, but not to perjury here.
Further down(Line13) he issues photocopies of all Minton
cheques concerned, and explains to Mr Dandar how they
are numbered, defense exhibits 93-A through 93-I.

At(P40) Minton confirms they are his cheques to Mr Dandar.
Cheques A,B,C, D,E,F, are upon the personal account of
Bob Minton; cheques G and (or through?) I are cashiers'
cheques upon the Union Bank of Switzerland. Minton agrees
that G and I are also cheques paid for by him and issued
by to Mr Dandar. At(P41) cheque G for $500,000 and cheque
I for $250,000. [Cheque H is not discussed here].
These are entered into evidence, subject to the existing
orders which limit the extent of enquiry upon them.
Minton also raises a list of large cheques issued,
which he keeps in his calculator case.

At(P42), these are not called "drafts" in America, though
that may be the European term for them. There are (Line19)
a series of codes along the bottom that might on an ordinary
cheque say cheque number, Fleet Fidelity bank, account number
of Bob Minton. Here they say cheque number, upon Chase
Manhattan Bank, and an account held by the Union Bank
of Switzerland [who have been paid in dollars to issue it;
it can be deposited like any other cheque but, unlike a
personal cheque, is considered "as good as dollars" for
immediate dispatch of goods purchased].
At(P44) it is "payable at" a branch of Chase Manhattan Bank
in New York; at(P45) the number preceding the account is the
American Bankers Association number for CMB New York.
The Court's own cheques carry a similar number saying
that Mercantile Bank is the banker. To the right of that
is an account number; in this case an account that the
Union bank of Switzerland maintain to make dollar
disbursements in America when they need to.

At(P46) the system is that you can phone your bank, if it
has phone authorisation, and say "please debit so much from
my account and turn it into a cashier's cheque payable
to Mr So & So, on your account (at Chase Manhattan Bank
or wherever)." And they send the cheque to Mr So and So
for you, or you collect it from them and send it yourself.
At(P47) just like you can write a cheque on your account
with them, so they can write a cheque on their account
with Chase Manhattan or however. There is nothing on
this cheque which says you paid for it, the payee doesn't
know who paid for it unless you tell him. There is nothing
on cheques 93-G and 93-I which says Bob Minton paid for them,
the payee would only know this if Bob told him. At(P48) there
is nothing one can see on the cheque which says this, though.

Further down(Line10) Mr Minton says that the total paid
to LMT is $1.1M in personal cheques plus $0.75M as these
two cashier's cheques, total $1.85M. At(P49), was any
other money paid to Dandar above this? Yes, $200,000.
He is not sure whether this was one or two cheques, but these
are other than those cheques 93-A to I which should be located.
With them, the total would be $2.05M. At(P50) The sequence
is missing a cheque of 17/oct/1998 for $100,000, and another
of 01/dec/1998 for $100,000. These are not in the pile of
photocopies cheques provided today. Other than that, the pile
is accurate to his personal records. A total of $2.05M was paid
for the Estate of Lisa MacPherson.

At(P51) that was support for the case, how much money
was put into LMT? $2.5M, including all payments to employees.
And in to the film THE PROFIT? about $2.47M. At(P52)...
How much to Stacy Brooks? around $350,000.
How much to Jesse Prince? around $300,000.
Was this on a regular arrangement? Yes, he said he needed
about $5,000 per month to live on, and this is what he
was paid monthly up to and including last month.
At(P53) that was the average amount, but it was somewhat
irregular as to amount and interval. Further down(Line17),
Minton provided $50,000, nominally as a loan, for Jesse to
buy a house so he could live in the Tampa bay area.

At(P54) He says Jesse was somewhat under Stacy's wing,
who looked after him and encouraged Bob to look after him.
How much of this is funding to the wrongful death case?
Minton says it should include at least part of what was
spent on Jesse so he could be a witness, and on the LMT
and the film which were both designed to influence the case.
Plus the money direct to the Estate. At(P55) Minton cannot
figure a total on the spot. The Court doubts that the film
is relevant, unless they produce a copy and it then has
anything about the case in it.

At(P56) the film, which contains nothing directly about
the case, has had some local release in Clearwater and
Tampa, at a proper movie theatre in Clearwater and a
press preview in Tampa. It has been reviewed in the
S.P.Times and the Tampa Tribune and, though this is not
relevant to the case, shown at a location in France.
At(P57) even Tampa is marginal, unless a jury member had
traveled there to see it. Other than a juror who saw the
film and made the connection with Scientology, it can
have very little impact. Minton says it was designed to
pollute the jury pool, the Court feels it is unlikely to
unless it both identifies Scientology and the link with
the killing of Lisa MacPherson. What is it about, anyway?
At(P58) Mr Fugate will return to questions on that later.
The Court wonder how it is identifiably anti-Scientology.

At(P59) Kendrick Moxon says this issue arose before Judge
Beach in attempting to depose Mr Alexander and Ms Greenaway in
connection with making the film, and Judge Beach saw the film.
He ruled that the film was clearly meant to identify, and
criticise, Scientology; and that this could pollute the
jury pool. The Court: how many people in Clearwater saw it?
At(P60), Moxon says Mr Lirot told that hearing they had hired
a dinner-club theatre in Clearwater, not far from the
Fort Harrison, and shown it to an audience of 2000 people.
The Court opined that one showing to 2000 people was more
like an amateur than a commercial distribution. Mr Fugate
said he would get back to it and seek to show relevance.

At(P61) as regards how much of the $10M applies to the Lisa
MacPherson case, the Court does not accept the film is as
yet shown at all relevant on the testimony so far.
Further down(Line19), Mr Fugate asks the witness about
Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenaway who made the film.
At(P62) Bob put them on the LMT board, and owns Courage
Productions 50/50 with Peter Alexander which Patricia Greenaway
already works for. [Note, Alexander and Greenaway live together
as a couple; their main business is Totally Fun Company, which
equips and supplies theme parks]. The Court had received a
message about an apparent emergency with another judge
which she must attend to as acting chief judge, and the time
was approaching noon. There was therefore a RECESSS AT 11:43.
At(P63) is the reporter's certification. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What follows is VOLUME TWO.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At(P64) header, at(P65-66) appearances, at(P67) Mr Fugate
resumes direct examination of the witness Robert Minton.

Further down(Line07), we have gone through the funding of
anti-scientology cases, was there a time when you particularly
decided to concentrate on Florida? A: I don't understand.
Why did you come here? Because I was already helping a case here.
How did you become involved in that case?

At(P68), that was in oct/1997; around feb/1997 this case was
filed, and on 09/mar/1997 I met was introduced by Mr Wollersheim
to Mr Dandar, in Clearwater, after a picket against the CofS.
Wollersheim made suggestions how the wrongful death case could be
won; I only listened in on their meeting without participating.
At(P69), I didn't meet Dandar again until I contacted him
in oct/1997 as attorney in the MacPherson case. I had been
financing the Wollershiem case, which seemed to be getting nowhere.
I thought this wrongful death case was key in fighting the
abuses of Scientology, and offered to put in $100,000:
cheque 93-A in the bundle.

At(P70) Why were you attracted? Because it seemed a chance to
nail Scientology hard for a serious offence in an easily-won case;
and generate a lot of publicity against CofS. Did you discuss
with Dandar what the level of winnings might be? Not then,
but in dec/1997 he was talking about 80 to 100 million dollars.
And did you make similar comment in the press? Yes.
At(P71), and did you then believe this to be true? Yes.
Was there any specific agreement about funding the case?
I checked with my attorney and Mr Dandar checked with the bar,
we found it was perfectly proper so long as there was no control,
and Mr Dandar set that forth in a letter. The money was to be
repaid if the Estate won as an interest free loan, after covering
their other costs first.

At(P72) Who was party to this? Myself and Mr Dandar, who had
also OK'ed it with his client first. Some time later did you
met his clients yourself? Yes. What happened? The dead girl's
family would come down to Clearwater for the anniversary of her
death on 5th/dec. At(P73) this was the first time Lisa's aunts
saw the complete set of her autopsy photos, which I had obtained
after their public release. Did you(Line18) have any agreement
with them directly about funding, or return upon it?

At(P74), Yes. What was it? You mean just the loans? We'll
come back to that. The Court: where you say you had a secret
agreement for receiving money into LMT, over and above the
repayment of loans, was that only with Dandar or with the Estate?
Only with Dandar when we first entered into it but he said,
at(P75), he had to consult his client before accepting money
form outsiders. [There is a confusion here, whether or not
deliberate: the court asks about "extra-payback", Minton replies
only about the interest free loans]. The Court: is there
correspondence on file? Yes, the previously referred to initial
letter from Dandar to Minton, and a handwritten note from Minton
to Dandar. Did the letter from Dandar comport with the agreement
you felt you had made? It was a little skimpy, but it would do.

At(P76) How did you see this money? as forwarding my general
"anti-scientology campaign." Did you expect a return on investment?
The Court: leading question. At(P77) what did you expect to get
consequent on this funding? Primarily this was a flagship case
against the abuses of Scientology. I paid Dandar a cheque in
oct/1997 and, when I was down here on 1/dec/1997 for the picket
I heard [which he echoes uncritically] the allegations from Scn
that the dead girl's family were just out for a lot of money; I
said it would be good to put winnings into a single focused
campaign against Scientology abuses.

At(P78) Did you have anything specific in mind? Yes, I had just
been elected onto the board of FactNet, to take office on 15/dec.
You discussed this with Dandar? Yes, he said he had already
thought something similar and discussed it with the family.
Had you discussed with Mr Dandar your feelings about Scn? Yes
And what did you then feel about it? I really didn't like it.
At(P79) Did Dandar discuss with you his own feelings about Scn?
Yes, I don't think I've met anyone who hates Scientology more.
Now, about this published time-line of harassment? Ok...
Were you posting on the Net at this time? Yes, from about
oct/1995, ending in 2001. I have some sample postings marked
94-A through 94-G. Do you identify these as yours? Yes.

At(P80) 94-A is yours? yes. It talks about hanging Miscavige
in effigy? Yes. 94-B is ours? Yes. It says John Travolta
is a shill for Scientology? Yes. 94-C is yours? Yes.
It says Hubbard will be hanged and burned in effigy? Yes.
What were these meant to do? To stir up opposition to Scientology.
At(P81) 94-D of nov/1999 is yours? Yes. And it criticises
attorneys Wienberg and Hertzgerg? Correct. And you engaged in
such extreme criticisms during this period? Yes, I have
apologized to Weinberg and Hertzberg for that post. OK,
but I do want to you identify whether each of these is yours:
94-E of 26/july/1998 is yours? Yes. Can you read this bit out?
24 "On Sunday, Rinder calls and asks if Jesse Prince

25 is on my payroll. Jesse will be devastating for

01 Scientology. Get ready."

At(P82) What was the purpose of this? It was to confront and
discomfort Scientology, especially after the meeting I had with
Rinder and Rathbun in july/1998 which broke off acrimoniously.
This is discussing whether Mr Prince was on your payroll; was
he then on your payroll? Rinder assumed I was paying Jesse.
This was more or less true, he got money most months with
slightly irregular timing and amount. He was telling us all
the stuff he knew about Scientology from his time in it.
At(P83) Did you then put Prince in touch with Dandar? Yes
When, in relation to this posting? Shortly after. 94-F is
yours? (the Court: made sure these were entered in evidence).
Yes, of July 1999.

At(P84) you say you called Mr Miscavige's mother... and you
gave an address and TelNo, are those accurate? I believed
so at the time. Why post her contact details? To annoy
Scientology. the Court: and presumably to induce others
to phone her? Partly that too. The letter concludes by saying
Scientology officials' families will not be kept out of things
[Bear in mind here that Scientology had no hesitation in
harassing Minton's wife and children, directly in their
own neighborhoods not just by giving addresses i.e. they did
worse first; although two wrongs still don't make a right].
At(p85) You wrote that? Yes. Intending what effect? Chiefly
the part about pressure upon anyone who funded Scientology
misdeeds being included. [Just as CofS have targeted people
who fund any deserved action against them and did worse first,
though again that doesn't make it right for Minton to do it].
And the part about families? That was just being inflammatory.
94-G is yours? Yes. This is where you reply others asking what
message you left? Yes. And the message just gives your name
and phone number, saying that you were the principal opponent
of Scientology and had some messages to pass on to DM? Yes.

At(P86) You wrote that? Yes. And you believed you were in fact
"Scientology's Public Enemy Number One." Yes; it wasn't a
name I made up, it was something the press said about me.
They used that very line? Yes. At(P87) and you were proud
of that? At the time, yes. You meant these postings to be
as offensive as possible? Yes. And that was what the critic
community did too? Yes. The Court: can we take it that all
postings from your email address, B...@Minton.org, are from you?
Yes. You said you wanted to "get in Scientology's face",

At(P88) did you employ or fund others to do that too? Yes.
Did Mr Dandar read your postings? I usually sent him copy;
Dell Liebrich also said she read everything by or about me
on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. This newsgroup
is generally hostile to Scientology? Yes.
At(P89) I notice criticism was often answered by someone
trying to blunt it from a pro-Church position? Yes, the
newsgroup is open to all to post in. So some pro-Scientology
people do get replies in? Yes, the majority is critical of
Scientology but there are a minority of pro-Church people,
and of ex-members who still think the beliefs are good if
no the organisation.

At(P90) I asked originally whether you discussed any of
these postings with Mr Dandar? He was aware of them, yes
How do you know that? It came up in conversation. And I
sent him copies of the most important articles. At times
he never quite knew what to do with all the email from me.
You were fairly prolific on the newsgroup then? Yes
Were some of these postings from LMT when it appeared? Yes
At (P91), from computers there? Yes. And from computers
at your home in New Hampshire? And -- do you have a laptop?
Yes. So some also from your laptop? Yes. Did your postings
discuss the wrongful death case? Fairly often. And your funding
of it? Yes. And Mr Dandar knew they did? Yes. He encouraged it;
he wanted Scientology to know he was well funded.

At(P92) did you have anything to do with Ms Brooks and Mr
Prince coming to Clearwater, to work for Mr Dandar. Yes.
Starting with Mr Prince, what exactly? I was giving them
both money and said they needed to go down there to work
with Mr Dandar; they would have gone wherever required.
And when they came here to Florida, their sole source of
income was you? Yes. And they did come here to work for
Mr Dandar? Yes. The Court: in what capacity, as consultants
or the like? Mr Fugate: I will ask. The Court: working as
a consultant is a fairly normal thing.
At(P93), by Mr Fugate, what did you think they were here to
do then? I didn't specifically say "consultant" or "expert
witness", just whatever Mr Dandar needed them to do.
And you communicated with Mr Dandar about these arrangements?
He made clear he needed them, if he could get someone to fund
and facilitate their presence. Did he know they were paid by
you? OOBJECTION leading (Sustained). Were they funded by you?
Yes. Did you tell Mr Dandar their financial status? Yes.
Where did you tell Mr Dandar?

At(P94) THE COURT: I am not happy about this: after all,
Mr Minton was romantically involved with one of them and
the other was his close friend. So, does "paid" mean you
paid them to do work? Or what... you have a lot of money?
I used to. And you were sharing it with someone important
to you, Ms Brooks? Yes. And with Jesse prince as a friend...
so, you weren't paying Ms Brooks to live with you as a
commercial hire? No; and I was completely supporting Mr
Prince. So you weren't paying him for work, but supporting
a friend in need? At(P95) actually it wasn't that way round:
I paid him to work for me when I did not know him, and it was
only later that we became friends. What were you paying him
for before he was at Dandar's? Before that he worked with
Dan Liepold based at FactNet: he told us all the stuff he
learned in Scientology. So he was paid for work against
Scientology? Yes. Which you required him to do? Yes.
He didn't simply volunteer it, he was paid for it? Yes.
And the same with Ms Brooks? Well, no, we had a personal
relationship and, as we were living together, I obviously
supported her. OK; direct examination BY MR FUGATE resumes.

At(P96) so Mr Prince and Ms Brooks were both paid to do anti-
Scientology work? Yes. Did Mr Dandar know this? I think so.
What did you understand each of them was in Florida to do?
In each case, to work with Mr Dandar on the wrongful death case.
MR DANDAR: Between what dates? Q: Ok, between what dates?
At(P97) Mr Prince was in Florida for later 1998, most of 1999,
when LMT was formed then at LMT but for Mr Dandar during the
first six months of 2000. After that he came back and spent
part of the day at LMT, going to Dandar's office as needed.
And Ms Brooks? sometimes in 1998, more often in 1999, then
with LMT she spent the first six months of 2000 at Dandar's.
Did you talk to Mr Prince about his work at Dandar's? Yes.

At(P98) And Mr Dandar knew this? Yes, sometimes argued about
it. Did you talk to Ms Brooks about her work at Dandar's?
Yes. And Dandar knew this? Yes. You talked earlier about
them being "your eyes and ears in his office": was that
accurate? yes. The Court: did she say she was, or did she
say Prince was? Well... The Court: he should know who said
this; I thought her testimony was that she said she was.
At(P99) Mr Fugate: I was going to ask his understanding of
the situation; but let's move on. And when that pair were
in Florida, were they working on any affidavits? Mr Prince
wrote at least one... I think he also wrote some for Mr Liepold
on Wollershiem, FactNet, or Lopez. And Ms Brooks wrote
affidavits? Not affidavits in recent years, but she was actively
advising Dan Liepold and Ford Greene on those cases.

At(P100) and this writing of affidavits etc would be described
on the Internet by you and other members of the critic community?
Yes. And you told Mr Dandar about such postings?
OBJECTION leading; OverRuled. Could I hear the questions again...
At(P101) this activity was described on the Internet? Yes.
And... I can't remember what the other question was. The Court:
move on, then. Did you communicate to Dandar about how the case
was run? Yes. How? verbally. In more detail? After the
oct/1997 cheque I wrote on the Internet I wanted Miscavige
prosecuted for murder, and sent Dandar a copy. I was told
at(P102) Mr Dandar was leery of me at first, but by the time the
cheque cleared he was no longer leery. Within a month I had a
draft of the first amended complaint. Even in 1997 I was trying --
I don't remember it was Miscavige or just RTC -- to add parties.
I asked Dandar why he hadn't put more inflammatory language in it.
The reply was? well, the draft evolved over a period of weeks
and became more inflammatory in tone including the word "murder".
At(P103) what sort of things did you want included? Anything
that would hammer scientology. You discussed these wishes
with Brooks and Prince? Not right then, because I had only just
met Ms Brooks; but I did later. So, later in this process of
communicating your wishes, that pair were in Florida? Yes.
And you communicated your wished through them? Yes; mostly
for more emphasis on Scientology in the case. Did you
come to understand that there was a trial team? Yes.

At(P104) Who was on it? Dr Garko, though not initially; plus
Brooks, Prince and Dandar were the core of it, with others
on the fringe including me. Dud you believe Mr Dandar
considered you part of the team? Well, yes, because everything
he shared with them he shared with me. This continued
into 2002? Yes. I now bring this document as exhibit 95...
At(P105) You recognise that? Yes. As a document you received?
Yes. Two pages? Yes. I wish to move this into evidence...?
MR DANDAR: It is marked Confidential. The COURT: It is marked
confidential to Bob Minton and, if you say hew is part of your
trial team, it is privileged; if, as I think you're saying,
he is not then it isn't. MR DANDAR: He is not part of the team.

At(P106) You provided this document to us? Yes.
You received it around mar/2002? Yes, by courier.
With any enclosure? Yes, a phone encryption device,
Had you requested one? No. Could you read the letter out?
The COURT: we don't need that if the letter is in evidence.
Does the "re" line say it is about the MacPherson case? Yes.
Could you read the letter and I will ask several questions...
At(P107) the letter is read out, saying it is from Mr Dandar's
video production specialist and offering a device to obviate
phone tapping, invoice for cost included. And there is a
note on the second page? The COURT: he must identify it.

At(P108) Is this note what you received at the time? Yes.
What does it say? It suggests payment by untraceable means.
The Court: this does... what: scrambles conversation against
people on a wire-tap understanding it? Yes. So you felt
Scientology had placed an illegal tap on your phone?
I didn't, Mr Dandar did. Why use it then? Well, in fact I
never used it. He said at several points, at(P109),
that my phone and my car might both be bugged. He believed
he was being bugged, and I was too. He wanted to have
conversations about funding without being tapped into.
Mine was non-working on arrival and had to be returned
to factory for repair. His was working but incompatible
with his switchboard type, and also had to be returned.

At(P110) by this time the discussions on funding has finished
and we didn't need it for that, nor did I ever use it later.
The Court: but why think of having this; if you and I wanted
to talk about money, lawfully, on an unbugged line, then we
would be happy with our privacy? Presumably. So you must have
considered there might be an illegal wiretap, especially given
what you have written about people following your every move?
At(P111) Actually we found there were many easier ways to
track our movements -- maybe they would put an infiltrator
in the office, which is much more effective than the tap Mr
Dandar was worried about. Come on, you were concerned about
a tap too? No. Never? Well, I thought about it at times.
And Ms Brooks wasn't? No. So neither you nor Ms Brooks
was ever concerned about phone-tapping by Scientology?
We may have believed it at one or other time; but we bought
expensive bug-sweeping equipment for the Florida offices,
and hired outside experts to employ it.

At(P112) you weren't concerned, but you hired outside people
to come and sweep your office? Mr Dandar's private eye was
very sure there were bugs but none were found on sweeping.
When LMT closed down, the equipment went to New Hampshire
unused. However there is nothing I have ever said on the
phone about Scientology that could not become publicly known.
So I wonder why encryption devices were sent out? Well, they
were always Mr Dandar's idea not mine. Resume direct BY MR FUGATE:
At(P113), Why did it suggest untraceable means of payment?
I suppose, so Scientology didn't know I was buying it.
Do you know the electronics guy, Rick Spector? I'd met him once
years before but didn't know much about him; he was Mr Dandar's
security and electronics man. Is he in court today? Yes.
Where? To the right of Mr Dandar.

At(P114) The Court: he is working as part of Mr Dandar's trial
team? Mr Dandar: yes, he is an independent contractor for us.
Were phones used to communicate among LMT people? Yes. What sort?
small "Mextel" mobiles. Did you help Mr Dandar prepare his website?
Yes. How? I helped him register his own domain. I wish to
introduce an exhibit....? At(P115) OBJECTION, relevance.
The Court: OK, what is the relevance? Mr Fugate: it shows an
association between Minton and Dandar. Don't most lawfirms
have a website these days? Mr Fugate: Yes.

At(P116) does it mention the wrongful death case? No, but I
does say Mr Minton is administering Mr Dandar's domain.
Can I ask, why set up this site Mr Minton? Because Mr Dandar
wanted a domain. The Court: what is a domain? It is registering
a memorable name as the name for your information, like
www.lisatrust.com for the LMT website; but Mr Dandar didn't know
how to set one up, so I did it for him. The Court: OK it does
show that Minton and Dandar were friends, so Minton helped Dandar
out on a technical issue (though I don't see any other relevance).
At(P117) it's offered merely for association and contact.
The Court: so at the time, you were more or less friends?
Yes, it was just done as a favour to him. Not as part of the
MacPherson case? He wanted a domain, so I did it for him; I
paid but it was only cheap. MR FUGATE: How much? $50/year
for 3 years maybe; after my second deposition I transferred
control entirely to him.

At(P118) and the bill? No, I haven't; but Moxon and Rosen made
a big deal of my name on his domain registration, so I took it
off and transferred all control to him. Now, on those Mextel
cell-phones, I have itemized bills which I will distribute
now to deal with later... the Court: we will be going through
dates and times of calls? I think we should take a short break.
FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS.
At(P119) the phone bills were entered as defense exhibit#97.

At(P120) Did you receive a subpoena for your Mextel records? Yes.
Does that appear to be it in the pack? Yes. The following pages
are Mextel bills? Yes. Your Mextel records as subpoena'd? Yes.
At(P121) I'd like to move this into evidence.....?
OBJECTION, relevance. Also the witness needs to identify each
bill as his. Mr Fugate: We see at the front who the phone was
registered to. Mr Dandar: the first four months are registered at
the office of Dandar & Dandar, so privileged. Mr Fugate: they
are all records of Minton and LMT, and after the first four
months the registration changes to show that. At(P122), the Court:
what does the subpoena demand? Mr Minton: I believe, to my phone
records. The Court: it asks the archivist at Mextel Ltd, for any
and all records of Robert S Minton from nov/1999 to dec/2001.
Mr Fugate: the records produced show each of the TelNos concerned.

At(P123), the Court queries exactly which phones were meant
and Mr Moxon, who issued the subpoena, says it was for all
phones used by LMT i.e. the base phone and all staff mobiles.
Mextel responded they were not listed as LMT but Minton, so
we amended the subpoena to add phones owned by Minton.
At(P124) the records went to Mr Keane as discovery master,
and it was agreed with the other side -- McGowan representing
LMT -- that they were LMT phone records, including those
registered to Mr Dandar. The Court: you gave proper notice
to the other side? Yes. Where is the notice to Mr Dandar?

At(P125) it may not be in that bundle, but it exists and can
be produced if demanded; and they did, on receiving it,
file a motion for a protective order [which was rejected].
Mr Fugate: I can get further documentation to cover this.
The Court: Otherwise I can foresee objections to, say,
Dandar & Dandar phone records being included. At(P126)
Moxon: they are LMT records. It says Dandar & Dandar on
them, was he asked about their release? Well, we go on the
acknowledgement by Mr McGowan as LMT attorney they are
LMT records. And was LMT then cooperating in settlement
negotiations with Scientology? Minton: not yet by that time.
Moxon: it is an old motion. The Court: dated 11/feb/2002.

At(P127), Moxon: there were no negotiations by that time.
However, according to the timeline of Ms Brooks testimony,
the following are admitted to have happened already.
[2001, early September, Mr Prince withdraws as witness, it may
be partly because he was brought up on a judge charge which the
court has ruled involved impropriety (+178), it may be partly
because Mr Minton threatened to stop paying Mr Prince's monthly
living expenses if Mr Prince did not comply. Mr Dandar files a
motion for sanction because Mr Prince has been forced to withdraw
by being framed for a drugs offence.
Ms Brooks says she is simply acting to protect herself from harm
and therefore her intentions were (+177) that she and Minton "were
going to try to distance ourselves from the case so that we could
get protection so that it could move forward without hurting us."
2001, October (+185), at a deposition with Judge Beech, Minton
comes close to being jailed for contempt over non-disclosure.
2001, December (+191), Mr Minton is coming under criticism for
ceasing to fund because, inevitably, some critics close to the
case know in private what is going on, though it is not public
knowledge at the time. Mr Minton has had to post $20,000 bond
in deposition. Brooks says Dandar is pressing Minton for more
money, and she is pressing Minton not to pay].
[2002, January (+193), Dandar wants Minton to come and meet him
in various locations, which Mr Minton declines to do.
2002, February(+194), Minton finally goes ahead with a meeting,
where Dandar and Garko come to Minton's house in New Hampshire.
2002, March, order disputed: this is when Brooks says that
she and Minton began settlement talks with the alleged Church.
At around the same time, in her version before the talks,
another cashier's cheque was issued (+216).
2002, March/24th. This is the date on which the second
affidavit of Robert Minton was signed, though it may not
have been filed with the court until a few days later].

Further down(Line 6), the Court: I rule that you do not get any
record of Dandar & Dandar unless Me Dandar consents to it. Mr Fugate:
judge---. The Court: objection sustained; move on. BY MR FUGATE:
Mr Minton, did you have meetings with Dandar in aug/1999? Yes.
Where and when? At(P128), 25 or maybe 26/may 1999, Philadelphia.
May, or august? I can see on cheque 93-E issued there; yes, August.
The details of that cheque are? $250,000 payable to Dandar & Dandar;
it is dated 27/aug 1999, I think dated the next day from the evening
I wrote it and handed it over. The reason it is post-dated by one day
is that I had to transfer money into the chequing account to cover it.

At(P129) the Court: I'm sorry, I'm getting messages I need to deal
with as acting chief judge; we must take a recess.
A BRIEF RECESS WAS TAKEN.
At(P130), MR WEINBERG: Your Honour, the process concerning the
phone records was as follows. We asked Mextel to produce records
for LMT, and Mextel told us there were no records for LMT, only
for Minton. We asked Mextel for records of Minton, and Mextel
produced those folders. Hearings were held on motions by Ms Brooks
and Mr Minton, with Mr Dandar present, to block this discovery.
Even though the bills for the first three months of eighteen are
billed to Dandar & Dandar, you will see that the phones are those
of Minton, Brooks, and Prince at others at LMT. Mr Dandar did
not himself have one of these cell-phones. After those first three
months, the bill was thereafter paid by Bob Minton.

At(P131) We maintain that, first, there are several hundred calls
from these people to Dandar & Dandar, which goes to the degree of
association or indeed case control; and, second, paying the first
few bills through Dandar & Dandar further demonstrates association.
At(P132) we can go through the records on Tuesday, but we want to
make clear bow they are not Dandar & Dandar records but LMT records.
The Court: I hear that... Mr Dandar? First, the way the order was
issued and the records brought then no deposition held violates the
rules. Now the first three months have my name on, and I was NEVER
noticed of this subpoena.

At(P133) the reason, by the way, is that the newly-formed LMT had
no credit, so I arranged the phones for them as a favour.
I object because they breached the rules; and now they're trying
to put the fruits of that into evidence. The Court: OK, first
let's deal with privilege; I will not let anyone get your records
and delve into your office's communications to clients. At(P134)
I think you concede these are not your office's dealings but
LMT's dealings. Incorrect procedure I will look at separately,
but disclosure of privileged material will not happen and I will
order the return of anything privileged to you. Mr Dandar: I would
have to check the content. The Court: come back when you have.
Mr Moxon: we have here a certificate of certification showing Mr
Dandar was noticed of the subpoena. When they were, wrongly,
delivered to us before deposition, we did not open them; we
handed them to the deposition master as ordered.

At(P135) I am handing up a copy of the letter noticing Mr Dandar,
so he is incorrect on that. The Court: if I were a lawyer then I
would consider a call to deposition with order to produce a proper
notice. The archivist would happily bring the phone records of Bob
Minton for that period, and for all I know LMT; but Dandar & Dandar
attorneys should give him pause. At(P136) Moxon: absolutely. The Court:
I am not sure your version differs from Dandar's. Mr Dandar: I got
notice of the deposition; but it was not of a type where the depo
would be cancelled if the records were produced, and the subpoena
did not name records by me so I had nothing to object to.

At(P137) The Court: so this is not a demand for records but a
notice of normal deposition. Mr Dandar: correct. The court:
but surely you would have expected this bulk of records to contain
those first three months. Mr Dandar: normally in such cases records
arrive at deposition and the court reporter objectively marks
what they are, so it can be authenticated how the records arrived...
At(P138) they followed the procedure for a real deposition, then
just cancelled the depo and took the records, which is why I object.
The letter here from Mr McGowan, copied to you, says there is an
agreement between the parties to cancel the deposition and hand
the sealed phone records to special master Keane.

At(P139) so this seems to say you agreed to canceling depo?
Me Dandar: I'm not so sure of that. So where are the sealed records.
The Court: I assume they were unsealed and categorised by Mr Keane
per the agreed order; I don't read agreed orders in any detail, I
expect parties will stick by what they agreed. It says Mr Keane
is within five days to list the general nature of the records without
publishing specific content. At(P140) counsel for Minton and LMT are
to list what is discoverable, and all parties are to be noticed of
their decision. So were you noticed? Mr Dandar: No. Never? No never,
and my name does not appear as one of the stipulated parties. I don't
want to debate this forever, but I do want to put my objection on
record.
Mr Fugate: if he wants to look at those records and re-visit this on
Tuesday we are OK with that. The Court: you did get a copy of the
letter?

At(P141) I did, in which Mr McGowan negotiates with Mr Moxon and Mr
Keane
about disclosing records of Robert S Minton; but, since it did not talk
about disclosing records of mine, I did not foresee and object to that.
The Court: You didn't get a copy of the order? [see above and original:
that is not his point]. Mr Dandar: I may have. Mr Moxon: he got a copy.
The Court(to Moxon): I don't see certificate of service? No
Why not? I don't know, Mr McGowan handled it. The Court: OK, Mr
Dandar,
you can check the records until Tuesday and make any objection of
privilege then. At(P142), Mr Dandar: OK. The Court: now, do whatever
with these papers about deposition, and let's move on.
Resume direct examination of Robert Minton, BY MR FUGATE:
earlier we spoke on a 26/aug meeting and 27/aug 1999 cheque? Yes.

At(P143) can you say who and where? Ms Brooks and I met Mr Dandar
in Philadelphia where he was doing some sort of deposition, on our
way back to New Hampshire. Mr Dandar gave us a briefing on the case,
and his purpose was to get more funding. Now it had been a subject
of discussions between Ms Brooks, Mr Prince and myself... What had?
At(P144) we had discussions about bringing more scientology into
the case. Prior to this meeting? Yes. Which was on...? There may
have been two meetings, the evening of the 25/aug then the morning of
26/aug, I'm not quite sure. You're going by the date of the cheque,
which was dated a day after the meeting? Yes; we met and discussed
this in my hotel room before dinner, then went out to dinner with
others, then carried on talking in my hotel room after dinner.
When was the cheque handed over? after dinner. Who was there?
Ms Brooks and myself plus Mr Dandar.

At(P145) How was it done? I wrote out a cheque and handed it to him.
And how had the request for funding first been made? A few days
earlier,
by phone; we were traveling, probably in Colorado, so we arranged to
meet Mr Dandar on the way back, in Philadelphia. Was there a discussion
about whether to keep funding? Not directly but Jesse, Stacy and I
talked about bringing in more Scientology, and adding parties, now
that Dandar had Jesse's 20/aug 1999 affidavit. At(P146), we wanted this
process speeded up. To be clear, was Jesse at the meetings with Dandar?
No; so, we wanted it much more a case about Lisa dying on the
Introspection
Rundown. Mr Dandar's response was that this would be costly, and for the
first time I paid him more than $100,000 at once i.e. I paid $250,000.

At(P147) you have a copy of that cheque before you? Yes. What is the
"for"
line? It says "for MacPherson". You wrote that? Yes. Meaning what?
Meaning it was for the MacPherson wrongful death case? Did Mr Dandar
state any opposition to you proposals? Only that they would cost money.
And you gave him a cheque? Yes. By this time in aug/1999 was Mr Prince
working in Dandar's office? He was. Was he being paid by Mr Dandar
then?
I'm not sure of the timing, I thought of it as all one thing. At(P148)
do you know what money was used by Mr Dandar to pay Mr Prince? The
money
I donated to the Estate. By this time in aug/1999 was Mr Brooks working
in Dandar's office? Not full-time, no, but she would frequently go down
there for up to a week at a time. Did you have a second meeting with
Mr Dandar? Yes. When was it? some time in the late fall. Where was
it?
Dandar's new offices on West Kennedy. Mr Dandar had a previous office?

At(P149) previously he had an office of Cypress Street but he had moved,
permanently or prior to a third address, to large offices on West
Kennedy
where this meeting took place. Opposite the hotel? Yes; I think there
was
some sort of state police office in the same building. The Court: When
was this again? In the late fall of 1999. BY MR FUGATE: What happened
there?
Present were Jesse, Stacy, and myself, with Mr Dandar and Dr Garko.
Mr Dandar went through his reasoning about adding parties. At(P150):
This had been tried before; this time the aim was to add Miscavige as
leader of the Sea Org. Do you know why that was? It was clearly to
focus strongly on Scientology practices and the Scientology
organisation.
Mr Dandar was thrilled by the idea; I was suggesting ways to do what he
had been proposing for a couple of years. It was the natural thing to
try.

At(P151) Judge Moody had opened a door for it, and this was our last
chance to get it through. In aug/1999 were you aware of an agreement
not to add parties? At that time the others were surprised I did not
already know about it. The others there certainly knew it existed and,
I subsequently learned, was the stumbling block for the attempt.
At(P152) when did you learn that the agreement existed? When Mr Dandar
sent me a large document in the second half of 1999. How big?
(the witness gestures) About six inches thick? Yes. It was a motion
and opposition for adding parties. I don't fully read documents that
size. I finally read it all sometime around jan/2000. The first folder
in it was the 1997 agreement, and that was when I read it in full.
Do you recall what it was about? Well-- The Court: how is this relevant?

At(P153) This agreement was the subject of the breach. Mr Minton, do
you mean you paid the money at one meeting and found out the problems
at the next? Found out about... The Court: he's saying he did not
find out about the agreement until the fall meeting, and has said it
several times. Mr Minton: the agreement was that the Estate would
not add Scientology corporations or their senior officials in return
for Scientology... The Court: given I'm not even sure this thing is
relevant, now I have to hear him list the terms of an agreement
to which he is not even a party; what I would like to know is
whether he knew about it in the fall of 1999, not just early 2000.
At(P154) BY MR FUGATE: Returning to the meeting in the fall...? OK.
I think you said it discussed a way to get round Judge Moody's order?
No, I said to get through a gap Judge Moody had opened up for us...
OK. ...which was adding Miscavige as head of the Sea Org. We
already knew what we couldn't do re corporates, that was a done deal.
Dandar and Garko gave their views on the new strategy.

At(P155) Mr Dandar was enthusiastic, he though it would make Scientology
pay up and/or pay more. I thought Dr Garko then supported it, but Ms
Brooks reminded me of things he then said which expressed reservation.
Mr Prince was in favour. Ms Brooks was then very much in favour, since
this had been her preferred strategy in several cases. I was against.
Why? Simply because of the extra cost. But I didn't say that much.
It was a long, hot meeting and I was at the far - street - end of the
conference table, the opposite end to the air conditioner. At(P156):
my only question was "what about Ray Mithoff?" Mithoff would have known
a lot about the facts of Lisa's death, but they were concentration on
"pressure points" i.e. the fastest way to winning. Although I did not
agree with their line, I just said "talk it over with your client and,
whatever the group decision it is, I will back it" [hardly case
control!]

At(P157) you meant financial support as well? Financial support was
the ONLY kind I could give him. Was anything said about the meeting
as you left it? In the elevator on the way down Mr Dandar said the
meeting "had not happened" and should not be disclosed.
How did you respond? I said "OK". Why did you think this was
being said? Because I should not, strictly, have been involved in it.
You say Mr Dandar had sent you six inch thick of case pleadings;
had you been getting packages of pleadings even before then? Yes.
At(P158) you continued to get them after that meeting? If anything
more often once we were at LMT in Florida, either posted to us or
Ms Brooks and Mr Prince would bring them over. Did Mr Dandar discuss
with you things which were confidential in the case? Yes.
This is exhibit 98...? The Court: as with Mr Lirot, you may bring
matters into hearing if you have the documents on you to distribute.

At(P159) can you identify this document? It is a posting I made
to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup. The Court: "Bob's barn"
is also an email address of yours? Yes. So anything posted from
Bob's Barn is yours? Yes. At(P160), also "RobertSMinton.org",
the same with that? Yes. BY MR FUGATE: Do you see the highlighted
part? Yes. First, may I move this into evidence as defense#98 if
there is no objection...? There was not. What does that part say?

18 A "After the insulting settlement proposals and
19 multimedia cryathon presented to Lisa's family and
20 Mr. Dandar."

Were you privy to any information about a settlement hearing?
Yes, Mr Dandar told me what took place there in around july/1998.
It was a mediation? It was described as a "settlement conference".

At(P161) did you then know it to be confidential? I knew it
was not something to be broadcast. But several moths later
you did make a posting about it? Yes. To be clear, this was
a settlement conference in the wrongful death case? Yes.
And did you receive from Mr Dandar copies of depositions
in the wrongful death case? Yes. Roughly when was this?
At(P162) I can't refer to documents because the special master
has them but there were one or two depositions on paper received
at LMT, one or two at New Hampshire, and others by email from him.
So, presumably, something he had received as floppy disk copy
of the depo them emailed to you? Yes. Were you were told they
were confidential? I don't think do originally but about the last
few deposition emails he said they were "not from him" and should
not be posted. Which depo was that? Of Theresa Summers. Did you
then post it? No.

At(P163) the Court: depositions on floppy disk? (the Court
Reporter has typed it up on a word processor; when you buy
a transcription, you get not just a print-out on paper but
a copy on disk which can be emailed, searched, etc).
I now come to the Brenda Hubert knowledge report...
At(P164) this is exhibit 99, can you identify it? It is one of
my postings on a.r.s. Did you receive a knowledge report of
Brenda Hubert? Yes. How? From Mr Dandar or his office in 1999.
Were you given any instructions about it? Don't say it was him
and don't post it on the Net. Did you post it? Yes, about a
year later. Were you asked where you got it? I was asked in
deposition whether I had got it from Mr Dandar. And you said?
No. How did you say you got it? Sent anonymously by post.
At(P165) was this true? It was not, and I later recanted it.
The Court: what is the document called? A knowledge report.
Mr Dandar: you posted it on the Net about a year later? Yes.
For what purpose? To put pressure on Brenda Hubert to come
forward. In what way put pressure? To make her feel bad
about what had happened to Lisa, to make her feel an obligation
to come forward and tell the truth. The Court: what made you
think she would have read it? The hope was that someone who
knew her would read it and tell her, as Mr Dandar thought she
definitely knew more than she had told so far, The Court:
there was no targeted effort to get it direct to her? No.
You knew that Brenda Hubert was a defense witness? Yes.

At(P167) did you phone Brenda Hubert? I have some vaguer
Recollection that yes, I did. For what purpose? To bring
It directly to her attention. Apart from emailed depositions,
did you receive other email from Mr Dandar during 1998, 1999.
2000 or 20001? Mr Dandar did not put much in writing about
the case; the emails I got were mostly requests for funds.
To which computer - home, LMT, or laptop? Potentially to
all of them, because they would be on the server often until
two downloads to maybe different computers. At(P168) it was
sent to multiple addresses so you could get it wherever you
were? No, though sometimes multiple addresses were used.
[Note, misunderstands the answer: the address "is" Mr Minton
and a password known to him, which he could use on any of his
computers to access mail]. Which machine did you get them on?
I could get them on all three computers; typically they would
be addressed to both b...@minton.org or bobm...@lisatrust.net.
Did you get phonecalls from Dandar discussing the case? Yes.

At(P169) I'm going to resume this later, but for now I return
to the phone-bills. Can I now go to defense exhibit#81, the
list of LMT board members...? OK, I've found it. As part
of your being "Scientology's public enemy number one", did
you cause others to come to Florida and assist in the case?
Yes. Who? Attorneys Dan Liepold and Ford Greene. At(P170)
what, in the wrongful death case, did they do? I have
testified in detail about my relationship with Mr Liepold,
who was more experienced in litigating against Scientology
than Mr Dandar. Dandar needed assistance in two areas.
What were they? First, what issues are or are not religious,
second what Scientology corporations are alter egos for each
other in enforcing payment. Ford Greene knew most about
religiosity. Dan Liepold was also keen to be involved.
I wanted Mr Dandar to consult them, so I brought them down
here and set up meetings.

At(P171) had you received requests for assistance?
Meaning what... Requests from Mr Dandar for assistance
on these issues. No, I don't think so; but Mr Liepold
knew the issues, was happy to be involved, perhaps hoped
for good fees on the case. The real difficulty between
Mr Dandar and those two was his reluctance to cede part
of his contingency fee to them. Mr Liepold then said
that he didn't work for free so, absent contingency fees,
he needed to be paid hourly, and we arranged this.
At(P172) did you in fact pay Mr Liepold for his assistance?
It was part of the general donations I made to Dandar; they
were paid. So they couldn't get a share of contingency...
did they do any other work? Ford Greene did a whole brief on
religiosity issues. Dan Liepold was involved supervising him,
as Mr Dandar felt he needed supervision. Other difficulties
arose between the three of them.

Also, at(P173), if I could go back to early 1998, I was then
represented by Steven Jonas of Hale & Dorr in Boston, and
he said... MR HOWIE: OBJECTION, privilege. MR DANDAR:
OBJECTION, hearsay and relevance. The Court: the privilege
is Mr Minton's and his to waive; but sustained on hearsay.
BY MR FUGATE: moving on, did you use in the wrongful death
case a witness called Gerry Armstrong? Yes. At(P174)
You also provided Mr Armstrong with funds? Yes. You also
had Mr Armstrong on the LMT advisory board? Yes. And you
brought him to Florida to participate in the wrongful death
case? The money donated to Dandar did that. You had dealings
with him prior to this case? Yes. And he was involved in
criticism of Scientology? Very much so. Were there restrictions
on his appearing as a witness? Yes. What were they?

At(P175) Well, he entered into a settlement agreement.
The Court: I know all about what he said in California,
how he breached it, and how he left for Canada: all of
which I am telling you is irrelevant to this hearing.
MR FUGATE: OK; could Armstrong, to your knowledge, coma
and be a witness? Mr Dandar: calls for a legal conclusion
which the witness is not qualified to make. The Court:
sustained. At(P176), did you arrange for Mr ward to come?
Mr Dandar: OBJECTION, outside the scope of any motion
Being considered by this hearing. The Court: unless you
can somehow establish relevance...? Mr Fugate: Did you
discuss with Mr Dandar the purpose of forming LMT? Yes.
What was said? LMT was going to be the leading anti-
Scientology group based in Clearwater itself.

[xganon]

0046------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: Let me see if I can answer that.
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q Was your presence in Mr. Dandar's office as you've
4 described -- or in the affidavit as the eyes and ears for
5 Mr. Minton -- was that known, to your observation and
6 knowledge and the best of your belief, to Mr. Dandar?
7 A Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko.
8 Q Okay. And there was no question about that --
9 A We talked it.
10 Q -- in your mind.
11 Were there conversations that you were present at
12 between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar about the direction,
13 scope, et cetera, of this wrongful death litigation?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Can you tell us about those?
16 A Well, there were a number of discussions, but one
17 that I described in my affidavit is one that happened in
18 Philadelphia in, I believe, August of 1999. I had been --
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry, August --
20 THE WITNESS: August, 1999, I think.
21 A Anyway, I had been working with Mr. Dandar and
22 Dr. Garko over that summer. And I had told Mr. Minton that
23 I was very concerned because I didn't feel that Mr. Dandar
24 was really getting it about how he could interject
25 Scientology into the case. I'd had a number of
0047------------------------------------------------------------------

1 conversations with Dr. GarKo in which Dr. Garko said he
2 didn't want to inject Scientology into the case, and
3 Dr. Garko was Mr. Dandar's main consultant. So I had told
4 Mr. Minton that I felt like he really needed to set this
5 straight with Mr. Dandar; that he was funding a case about
6 Scientology causing Lisa McPherson's death, not just a
7 simple wrongful death case.
8 So Mr. Dandar wanted -- wanted Mr. Minton to meet
9 him in Philadelphia -- I think he had a deposition there or
10 something. I'm not sure why he was going to be there. But
11 he wanted to meet Mr. Minton in Philadelphia because he
12 wanted to ask him for more money in August of '99. And he
13 really preferred to meet with Mr. Minton alone, without me
14 there, 'cause --
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q He being --
17 A Mr. Minton -- Mr. Dandar.
18 Q Okay.
19 A Because he and I just didn't have a very good
20 relationship.
21 Q And he would be Mr. Dandar.
22 A Yeah. Mr. Dandar.
23 But I did go with Mr. Minton to this meeting, at
24 Mr. Minton's request, and at my request, that he let me.
25 And we did meet with Mr. Dandar, and Mr. Minton told him --
0048------------------------------------------------------------------

1 I mean, this is in my presence, so -- this was in my
2 presence.
3 Q Okay.
4 A -- that -- what I just said; that, you know, he
5 was funding a case about Scientology's involvement in Lisa
6 McPherson's death, not just a simple wrongful death case. I
7 think he mentioned that he knew that Dr. Garko was not in
8 favor of this. You know, because I had said so. And he
9 said that he really wanted to see Mr. Dandar taking more of
10 an active interest in, you know, understanding Scientology's
11 practices and beliefs and you know, listening to me and
12 listening to Jesse Prince about, you know, how to litigate
13 this case.
14 Q And when you say that -- and I'm going to stop you
15 here and we'll go back to where you were -- but do you mean
16 how to interject, into the litigation, attacks on the
17 beliefs or practices of Scientology?
18 A Yeah.
19 Q And you've -- have you read the fifth amended
20 complaint -- I don't mean today, but have you read it
21 recently?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And the language that's in there about the
24 Scientology technology, about the introspection rundown,
25 about -- that the murder, if you will, or letting Lisa
0049------------------------------------------------------------------

1 McPherson die to avoid a public relations flap -- are those
2 the sorts of things that you're talking about that needed to
3 be emphasized in the litigation?
4 A Yes.
5 THE COURT: Honestly, this is the very thing
6 that really ought to come from her as opposed to --
7 when -- I had no idea what she meant when she said
8 bring Scientology into it.
9 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: So this is your witness. Why don't
11 ask you her what she means.
12 MR. FUGATE: Okay. Well, actually, I was going
13 by the affidavit, but I apologize.
14 THE COURT: Okay. Well --
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q What did you -- what did you mean?
17 A When I -- you mean when I said that it needed to
18 be brought --
19 THE COURT: I don't mind the leading when we're
20 going through all the preliminary stuff. When we
21 get to things I would presume would be critical,
22 rather than saying, "Is this what you mean --"
23 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Your Honor --
24 THE COURT: -- for all the parties, when we get
25 there, let's let the witness testify. Stick to the
0050------------------------------------------------------------------

1 critical areas.
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q Let me back up. Let's go back to Mr. Prince a
4 moment. Did you know, at that time, Jesse Prince?
5 A At what time? I mean, well --
6 Q The Philadelphia meeting, you just mentioned it
7 for the first time.
8 A Yes.
9 Q And how did you know Jesse Prince?
10 A Well, I knew Jesse Prince when we were both in
11 Scientology. I had known him since 1976, actually. And
12 after I left Scientology, I hadn't seen him until the summer
13 of 1998 when he contacted Mr. Minton and mentioned my name
14 in his e-mail. And then I called him. And that -- at that
15 point Jesse Prince started working with us.
16 Q Okay. And when you say at that point Jesse Prince
17 started working with us, what do you mean?
18 A Well, Mr. Minton started paying him; he sent him
19 out to Los Angeles to help Mr. Leipold with a case -- with a
20 Scientology litigation case that he was working on at that
21 time. And from that point forward, that was what Mr. Prince
22 did.
23 Q And to your knowledge -- and I'm directing it to
24 your knowledge -- was his sole source of income in the
25 period of time we're discussing up to, I guess, the present
0051------------------------------------------------------------------

1 to be a Scientology critic or to do what you just described?
2 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency.
3 MR. FUGATE: I asked if she knew --
4 THE COURT: I got it. Overruled.
5 A Yes.
6 BY MR. FUGATE:
7 Q And --
8 A Since July of '98.
9 Q And do you know that for any particular reason?
10 A Well, I know that because for a lot of the time I
11 was either directing that he be paid or paying him myself.
12 Q And do you recall --
13 A For Mr. Minton.
14 Q -- as you sit here what he was paid on a month's
15 basis from approximately '98 to whenever that payment
16 ceased?
17 A I would say -- well, starting in probably early
18 '99, I think -- I can't remember exactly when he started
19 being paid by Mr. Dandar as a consultant, but at least
20 starting at that point he was paid $5,000 a month up until
21 just last month. And before that, it wasn't as regular of a
22 payment, like a salary or something, but it was -- I would
23 say, you know, he was -- Mr. Minton was making sure he had
24 enough money every month to live. So 4- to $5,000 a month
25 probably.
0052------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Now, I interrupted you on the meeting that you
2 were about to discuss in Philadelphia. Can you tell us what
3 happened at that meeting?
4 A Well, I think I started to say that Mr. Minton
5 told Mr. Dandar that he wasn't happy about the direction the
6 litigation was taking; he wasn't happy that -- specifically
7 he wasn't happy because both Jesse Prince and I had told
8 Mr. Minton that we didn't feel that Mr. Dandar really
9 understood Scientology; that he was paying lip service to us
10 about it, but that he wasn't really taking the time to grasp
11 it himself.
12 And for example, you know, I would write questions
13 or Jesse would write questions for him of a deposition of a
14 Scientologist, and Mr. Dandar wouldn't really listen to us
15 about how to ask the questions or what questions to ask or
16 whatever. And -- and we were very frustrated 'cause we felt
17 that Mr. Dandar was not competently addressing the
18 Scientology issues of it.
19 So Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar that, and so did I,
20 at this meeting.

21 EXAMINATION
22 BY THE COURT:

23 Q That's what -- that's the question I have. What
24 are Scientology issues?
25 A Well --
0053------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q What exactly were you concerned about?
2 A Well, for example, Lisa McPherson died while on
3 step zero of a -- of a process that is called the iso- --
4 the introspection rundown. It's a Scientology practice.
5 And it's a -- it's a --
6 Q Believe it or not, I know what it is. I do.
7 'Cause I --
8 A Okay.
9 Q -- I've learned a lot about the introspection
10 rundown and step zero, and zero-zero.
11 A Okay. Well, then -- you know, this is a -- this
12 is a procedure that is the way a person who basically has
13 gone into a full-blown psychotic episode -- that's -- this
14 is what -- this is how they're treated for that in
15 Scientology.
16 And you know, I have been on an isolation watch,
17 as they call it. Mr. Prince had been on an isolation watch,
18 or more than one. I don't know. And so we -- we had some,
19 you know, experience ourselves in what Lisa McPherson had --
20 what -- what had been happening for her.
21 Q What you believe --
22 A Yeah.
23 Q -- would have happened to her.
24 A Would have happened, yes.
25 Q In an introspection rundown --
0054------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Right.
2 Q -- step zero. And you had conveyed this to
3 Mr. Dandar?
4 A Right.
5 Q And you didn't think that he had adequately --
6 A Well --
7 Q -- expressed that.
8 A Well, yeah. And specifically --
9 Q Here I am asking -- I'm sorry. I need you to tell
10 me.
11 A Well, at the time, as I recall, there were some
12 depositions of some of the people who had been involved in
13 her care, some Scientologists. And with other attorneys
14 that I have worked with, one of the things that I would do,
15 is I would actually compose questions for deposition and
16 actually interject some Scientology procedure into the
17 wording of the questions.
18 Like -- like there's a procedure in Scientology
19 which is called a security check or a confessional, and
20 that's a procedure where a person is asked a lot of
21 questions about various criminal things or unethical things
22 or, you know, in some other way things that they don't feel
23 good about having done.
24 And the whole point of the procedure for --
25 according to the Scientology belief, is that this will help
0055------------------------------------------------------------------

1 the person to sort of purge themself of all of these bad
2 things that they've done. And at the end they'll feel a lot
3 better 'cause now they've confessed all this stuff.
4 And so there's certain questions that during the
5 course of a security check the person will from time to time
6 ask the person. Like, "During this security check, have you
7 told me an untruth? During this security check, have you
8 told me a half truth?" You know, this kind of thing. To
9 just sort of make sure that the person's really, you know,
10 coming clean as you go along.
11 Well, I had worked with other attorneys and I had
12 suggested to them that whenever they're deposing a
13 Scientologist, they should pepper the deposition with these
14 kind of questions, because it would -- it would be very
15 startling for a Scientologist to have an attorney from the
16 other side asking him things that obviously indicated that
17 he understood something about Scientology. And it would
18 perhaps, you know, cause the person to be more likely to
19 tell him things that they might not otherwise be willing to
20 tell him.
21 Anyway, that was my idea.
22 Q Okay.
23 A So that's an example of what I meant.
24 Q So when -- but I still am -- I'm still not
25 clear -- and I think this is somewhat critical -- is when
0056------------------------------------------------------------------

1 you -- when Mr. Minton was there and you were there and you
2 said we want you to inject Scientology issues into the case,
3 you said that, you know, you had told Mr. Dandar about step
4 zero -- I'm not maybe saying step zero -- but zero, and what
5 would have happened there. And I guess you didn't feel he
6 had adequately covered that?
7 A Right. We didn't feel that he was really
8 understanding how -- you know, just how terrible all this
9 Scientology stuff really was. That was my feeling at the
10 time. That he -- you know, here he is and he's supposed to
11 be litigating this case about this woman who died in
12 Scientology's hands and he's not even learning enough about
13 Scientology to really understand about how to go about, you
14 know, putting the Scientology part in his pleadings or -- or
15 in the depositions or -- or in his responses to the
16 Scientology stuff that was, you know, going back and forth
17 and --
18 Q So at least at the time in Philadelphia, on
19 whatever date it was in October of '99 --
20 MR. FUGATE: August, I think it said.
21 THE COURT: August, I'm sorry, of '99.
22 BY THE COURT:
23 Q -- you were not suggesting anything that he put in
24 anything that was untrue. You were suggesting that he deal
25 with Scientology issues that you had told them were
0057------------------------------------------------------------------

1 accurate, I gather. Is that it?
2 A Well, you know I felt -- you know, I had been --
3 it had been my job since 1993 -- this is now 1999 -- and it
4 had been my job to litigate against Scientology. And so,
5 you know, my whole -- my whole perspective was to view all
6 of the things that were involved in Scientology as harmful,
7 and that, you know, Lisa McPherson's involvement in
8 Scientology had been harmful, and that -- from the beginning
9 of getting into Scientology I -- you know, I was going
10 through a lot of papers having to do with her history in
11 Scientology and whatever.
12 And I was doing what I had always been doing,
13 which was going through and finding, you know, all the
14 negative aspects of her experience in Scientology, you know,
15 that -- so that Mr. Dandar could use that as part of the
16 background for his attack on Scientology as part of the
17 case.
18 Q So that I'm clear -- and I'm not sure that I am --
19 the step zero, that being the isolation, for lack of a
20 better word, part of the introspection rundown --
21 A Right.
22 Q -- that you were very familiar with, you had
23 participated in one --
24 A Yes.
25 Q -- you therefore thought you had some insider
0058------------------------------------------------------------------

1 information about what Lisa McPherson probably went through
2 based on your own experience.
3 A Exactly.
4 Q What you told Mr. Dandar or your frustration with
5 Mr. Dandar or what you and Mr. Minton told Mr. Dandar about
6 the fact that he wasn't exploring this adequately, was the
7 information you had given him about step zero on the
8 introspection rundown that you wanted him to include true
9 from your perspective?
10 A Yes. From my --
11 Q That's what you believed had -- had happened to
12 her, and he wasn't -- he wasn't exploring it.

13 A That's right.

14 Q Okay.
15 A That's right.
16 Q So that was at that meeting.
17 A Right.
18 Q Was there anything else about Scientology issues
19 that you all talked about at that meeting? When Mr. Minton
20 was there and you were there?
21 A You know, your Honor, I think we spoke about it in
22 fairly general terms. I was -- as I said, I was concerned
23 about the fact that his main trial consultant was directly
24 at odds with what Mr. Minton wanted and what I wanted. And
25 I was feeling that Mr. Dandar was being counseled away from
0059------------------------------------------------------------------

1 the direction that Mr. Minton wanted Mr. Dandar to be going
2 in. And so we were speaking in more general terms about
3 that situation that we saw; that -- that Mr. Minton was
4 funding the estate in order to bring a case against
5 Scientology's practices that caused Lisa McPherson's death.
6 He wasn't funding a wrongful death case in which somebody
7 just died because of negligence or something.
8 Q Some workers just didn't do a good job.
9 A Right. He wasn't -- I mean, you know, that wasn't
10 what he was doing. He was engaged in a very specific
11 anti-Scientology campaign, and that's -- you know,
12 everything that he was funding was to further that.
13 Q At -- what the practices of Scientology were;
14 what -- all of that.
15 A Yes.
16 Q Okay. And once again, all of that against the
17 Scientology -- were those all things that you had told
18 Mr. Dandar were probable in light of the fact that you were
19 there?
20 A Well, yes, they were -- they were probable in
21 light of the fact that I had been in Scientology. I hadn't
22 ever known Lisa and I had left before -- I mean, I'd never
23 known her. I'd left before anything ever happened to her.
24 But -- but as I said before, it was my job to basically
25 fabricate some areas based on my experience.
0060------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Well, I --
2 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor --
3 BY THE COURT:
4 Q That's my problem. How do you fabricate a
5 scenario based on your experience? Was your experience one
6 thing and you were fabricating some -- fabricating means
7 that this is your experience, A, and you know that that's
8 what would have happened, and you are fabricating B.
9 A All right.
10 Q Or are you saying that your experience was A and
11 you were -- or won't use the word fabricate, but you were
12 expressing A -- in other words, was the truth A and you were
13 coming up with B, or were you suggesting the truth is A and
14 you need to exploit it?
15 A I think I'd have to say it was a little bit of
16 both.
17 You know, of course, at the time I felt that --
18 that everything I was saying was quite true. I think I'd
19 have to say that because of -- because of the responsibility
20 I felt I had to the attorneys that I was working for, I
21 think I would have to say that I took A and used A to
22 extrapolate -- extrapolate into B. In other words, I took
23 what had been my experience and then kind of hypothesized,
24 based on that, into situations that were maybe not quite
25 exactly the same as what I experienced or, you know, maybe I
0061------------------------------------------------------------------

1 could interject my experience into it, but -- but then I
2 also went a little bit further than that too.
3 THE COURT: Could I just have one more
4 question? I'm sorry to interrupt your flow here.
5 MR. FUGATE: Go right ahead, Judge.
6 BY THE COURT:
7 Q When you're saying it's something that the untruth
8 of it is, are you suggesting that the untruthfulness was a
9 little bit like those declarations where you're saying you
10 have personal knowledge of something or you know something
11 is true, have reason to believe something's true, that you
12 didn't?

13 A Yes.
14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. FUGATE: Can I ask a question?
16 THE COURT: Sure. I'm sorry. Yes, you can.
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
18 BY MR. FUGATE:
19 Q Were you mixing fact and fiction? Is that what
20 you're saying?
21 A That would be one way to put it. I think I'd try
22 to be a little kinder to myself and say I was mixing facts
23 and hypothesis.
24 Q All right. But the purpose of the hypothesis
25 was -- was it to attack religious beliefs and practices?
0062------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well, yes, in furtherance of the goals of whatever
2 litigation I was working on.
3 Q In other words, you -- you weren't trying to
4 say -- ask these questions 'cause it's going to eliminate a
5 great practice; you were trying to take a practice and make
6 it somehow bad? Is that what you're saying?
7 A Yes.
8 EXAMINATION
9 BY THE COURT:
10 Q But was it a true practice; whether it was good or
11 bad, whoever might be the beholder, was it a practice that
12 you knew to be true?
13 A Yes. But it was a practice that when I was in
14 Scientology I knew to be good, but then when I got out of
15 Scientology, I knew it to be bad. So --
16 Q But --
17 A That's what I mean by the perspective of it.
18 Q I guess what would be important for me to
19 understand is that you obviously were in the Church of
20 Scientology, you knew a lot about it --
21 A Yes.
22 Q -- and whatever you thought when you were in it
23 was good and when you were out of it was bad. Were you,
24 when you were telling others who didn't have a clue, like
25 me --
0063------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Mm-hmm.
2 Q -- and like Mr. Dandar, I take it at some point in
3 time, were you relating truthful information as far as what
4 had happened in Scientology or were you saying to them,
5 "This is what happens in Scientology, but that actually
6 doesn't sound so bad, so I'm going to tell you about this
7 and I can testify to it, but it really isn't true --"
8 I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say is were you
9 passing on what you learned that you had decided at one time
10 was good and now you've decided it was bad?
11 A That's how I felt about it at the time.
12 Q So you didn't feel like you were lying to all
13 these people, did you?
14 A I didn't feel like I was.
15 Q You felt like you were passing on the expert
16 testimony that -- the consulting ability that you had having
17 been at one time an insider --
18 A Yes.
19 Q -- and that you were giving them the information
20 as an insider that they needed to know to pursue whatever
21 they were pursuing.
22 A Yes. And -- but taking it a little bit further
23 than that 'cause they were asking me for a little bit more
24 than that --
25 Q Okay.
0064------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A -- they were asking me for help in putting a spin
2 on it that would further the -- the particular goals that
3 they had for the litigation.
4 THE COURT: Okay. And that might be important
5 to follow up, and I'm going to let you follow up on
6 that because I've been going far too long. Like the
7 spin on this case that she was asked.
8 MR. FUGATE: That's where I would --
9 THE COURT: Well, let's have it. Then we'll
10 take a break.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
12 BY MR. FUGATE:
13 Q All right. Using the word spin, if we can
14 complete the Philadelphia meeting, then I'm going to come
15 back to what you were doing. But was the spin what
16 Mr. Minton was looking for and what he was paying for, to
17 your observation and knowledge?
18 A Well, I would say yes, but I have to explain that
19 a little bit.
20 Mr. Minton was never in Scientology.
21 Q Mm-hmm.
22 A So Mr. Minton's understanding of Scientology was
23 not as good as he thought it was.
24 Q Okay.
25 A He thought he had a very good understanding of it.
0065------------------------------------------------------------------

1 But he didn't have as good an understanding of it as he
2 felt.
3 Mr. Minton's education about Scientology came from
4 the Internet. And he had learned what he knew about
5 Scientology from, I guess you'd have to say, the most vocal
6 critics of Scientology. And the most disaffected
7 Scientologists, I guess.
8 And so he -- he had a -- he didn't -- he didn't --
9 he didn't look at it as a spin. You know, he looked at it
10 as the truth, you know; that Scientology was a bad thing.
11 It was an evil thing and it had to be gotten rid of and that
12 was his job. I mean, that was his, you know, crusade, I
13 guess.
14 Q And was that the subject matter of the meeting
15 that you're talking about; was that sort of the attitude of
16 what was being --
17 A Yeah.
18 Q -- conveyed in the August of 1999 Philadelphia
19 meeting?
20 A Yes.

21 EXAMINATION
22 BY THE COURT:

23 Q I think you're going to have to be more specific.
24 I want to know -- I mean, I know one specific now. What's
25 specific? Because that's what we need to get down here to.
0066------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Are you asking me what's specific?
2 Q Yeah. In mean, in this meeting, we know that
3 there was some discussion about the isolation and zero --
4 A Well --
5 Q -- whatever. I don't even recall the terminology.
6 A You know, I'm not sure that we specifically talked
7 about step zero.
8 Q Okay. I'm sorry.
9 A You know, like I said, we were talking about it in
10 pretty general terms.
11 Q Okay. Then tell us what those were. In other
12 words, I need to know, really, what you all told Mr. Dandar
13 at that meeting.
14 A Okay.
15 Q To the best of your recollection, and I do
16 understand that it was some time ago.
17 A Yeah.
18 Mr. Minton started out saying, "Look, I realize
19 that I'm not supposed to be controlling this litigation, but
20 I got to tell you, that if you don't start emphasizing
21 Scientology more than you've been doing and if you don't
22 start focusing on the -- on the destructive practices that
23 led to Lisa McPherson's death in this litigation, I really
24 don't understand why I'm funding it. So I understand that,
25 you know, I'm not supposed to control it. But I'm telling
0067------------------------------------------------------------------

1 you that it's not going in a direction that I'm going to
2 want to still fund."
3 So that was sort of how it started. And then --
4 and then I talked about, you know -- and I mean, it was an
5 uncomfortable meeting because I was -- you know, I told him
6 that I didn't feel like he was really -- you know, I told
7 him that I didn't feel like he was really concentrating on
8 the Scientology practices in the case, and that the whole
9 case was about the Scientology practices. You know, it
10 wasn't just a plain wrongful death case; it was a woman who
11 was -- who was killed by Scientology.
12 Q And you believed that to be the case?
13 A I did.
14 Q And you passed that information on to Mr. Dandar
15 and said that's what needed to be explored here based on
16 your experience as a Scientologist?
17 A Right.
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q When you're saying Mr. Minton was dealing with the
21 most vocal critics of Scientology and he didn't quite
22 understand Scientology, do we take that to mean that he was
23 even more critical of Scientology?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And was it his purpose, as you understood it,
0068------------------------------------------------------------------

1 regardless of what your position was, and Mr. Minton's
2 position was, to attack the religion, to attack the
3 religious beliefs --
4 A Yes.
5 Q -- and practices?
6 And is that what he was talking to Mr. Dandar
7 about?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And was there -- were there any conversations --
10 and tell us if there were or weren't, what they were --
11 about how he wanted to have that done, how he wanted the
12 practices attacked?
13 A Well, he wanted -- he -- specifically he wanted
14 Mr. Dandar to start doing what -- what Mr. Prince and I were
15 advising him to do. And like I said, you know, it was sort
16 of -- it was sort of, generally speaking, for him to stop
17 worrying about, you know, experts, about vitreous fluid and
18 all these other things that he was doing and start putting
19 his attention on -- on educating the court about the
20 destructive practices that had led to Lisa McPherson's
21 death.
22 Q And what did Mr. Dandar say?
23 A He said -- you know, he said, "Okay, I see your
24 point." He said, "Okay, I see your point." And then Bob
25 gave him a check for $250,000.
0069------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q And after he got the check for $250,000 -- do you
2 know, by the way, whether it was made out to Ken Dandar as a
3 loan or if it was made out to Lisa McPherson litigation?
4 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency.
5 THE COURT: He asked if she knew.
6 A I don't know.
7 BY MR. FUGATE:
8 Q And the check would speak for itself?
9 A I --
10 Q Whatever it says.
11 THE COURT: If you're done with that
12 conversation, this would be a good time to take a
13 break.
14 MR. FUGATE: Let's take a break, Judge.
15 THE COURT: I want you to finish with what went
16 on in October. And I have --
17
18 MR. LIROT: August.
19 THE COURT: -- one question to ask --
20 MR. LIROT: August.
21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I keep saying October
22 and you keep correcting me. It's August.
23 MR. FUGATE: It just seems like it.
24 THE COURT: I'm sorry.
25
0070------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q There was a check that was given to Mr. Dandar by
3 Mr. Minton at the meeting?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay. And you just didn't see the check, is that
6 where we --
7 A Well, I mean, I saw him write it, but I --
8 Q Didn't pay any attention to what it said.
9 A I didn't really.
10 Q And after that check was given to Mr. Dandar, did
11 the -- were there other iterations or other complaint
12 renditions filed in shortly thereafter?
13 A I believe shortly thereafter -- I can't remember
14 which amended complaint it was, but there was an amended
15 complaint filed pretty -- pretty soon after that.
16 Q And who participated in the drafting of that
17 complaint to your knowledge?
18 A Well, I did, Jesse Prince did -- I mean, that was
19 the complaint that was based on Jesse Prince's affidavit.
20 MR. FUGATE: This would be a good time to
21 break, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Okay. I have a couple questions
23 about that.
24
25
0071------------------------------------------------------------------

1 EXAMINATION
2 BY THE COURT:
3 Q When you say you participated in the drafting of
4 the complaint, this was at -- I guess you were a consultant
5 at that time of the firm of Mr. Dandar?
6 A Well, I wasn't being paid by Mr. Dandar anymore.
7 Q Were you being considered his expert or his
8 consultant, either one?
9 A I'm not sure what he was considering me to be. I
10 was basically there to make sure that Mr. Minton's --
11 Q Okay.
12 A -- instructions were being followed.
13 Q Mr. -- Mr. Prince, I take it, was their --
14 A Mr. Prince was -- at that time --
15 Q -- consultant or an expert --
16 A -- was being --
17 Q -- or something.
18 A -- paid by Mr. Dandar, yes.
19 Q Okay. And the destructive practices that led to
20 the death of Lisa McPherson -- in other words, you said
21 Mr. Minton said, "I want the destructive practices that led
22 to the death of Lisa McPherson included" -- did he believe
23 and did you believe those, whatever they are, to be the
24 truth as far as what had happened, based on your knowledge
25 and his, "I don't like Scientology."
0072------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yes.
2 Q Okay. And -- and so in the participation in the
3 drafting, whether it was you and/or Mr. Prince, or you,
4 Mr. Prince, Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko, and the complaint was
5 done, did you believe it contained those practices that you
6 felt led to the death of Lisa McPherson?
7 A Well, your Honor, I didn't know --
8 Q I understand that.
9 A -- what led to the death of Lisa McPherson. But
10 it contained a very plausible scenario.
11 Q That based on your experience you thought was
12 plausible --
13 A It was possible.
14 Q -- and Mr. Dandar learned this, I take it, at
15 least to some extent, from you, Jesse Prince, all the people
16 he had consulted with about Scientology practices.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Is there anything you told him to include in his
19 complaint that you knew to be false?
20 A No.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That's all I have. Let's
22 take a break.
23 And by the way, you're on the stand and you
24 need to understand that while -- I didn't do this
25 with Mr. Dandar because he's the lawyer in the
0073------------------------------------------------------------------

1 litigation -- you really can't consult with anybody
2 or confer with anybody even about your testimony
3 while you're a witness.
4 THE WITNESS: Not even -- I can't even talk to
5 my own attorney?
6 THE COURT: I don't know the answer to that. I
7 know a defendant can. And I mean a defendant in a
8 criminal case. I don't think anyone else can.
9 MR. LIROT: I think you're correct.
10 THE COURT: So the answer is no.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay.
12 THE COURT: You can't. I think I'm right on
13 that. You check it. A criminal defendant, they
14 finally said, if it's too long a break and you don't
15 let a criminal defendant talk, it's error. Other
16 than that, nobody gets to talk to their lawyer. So
17 you're not a criminal defendant, so you do not get
18 to.
19 THE WITNESS: All right. Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. But that doesn't mean
21 you have to sit there. You're free to go. You're
22 free to go have water; you're free to use the rest
23 room, take a smoke, whatever you want to do.
24 THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you.
25 THE BAILIFF: What time, your Honor?
0074------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Oh, what time is it? It's 20
2 minutes till 3. 3:00.
3 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor.
4 (A recess was taken.)
5 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Fugate.
6 MR. FUGATE: Ready to proceed?
7 THE COURT: I sure am.
8 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your
9 Honor? I'm going to hand her up, Counsel, the
10 affidavit of Jesse Prince that she just made
11 reference to in the filing of the fifth amended
12 complaint.
13 MR. LIROT: What's the date of the affidavit,
14 Mr. Fugate?
15 MR. FUGATE: It's sworn and subscribed the 20th
16 day of August, 1999.
17 THE COURT: Is that the one that you all
18 provided me yesterday?
19 MR. LIROT: No. That one --
20 MR. FUGATE: Oh, they provided. No.
21 THE COURT: Somebody provided me.
22 MR. FUGATE: I promise you I didn't provide you
23 the one yesterday.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor?
0075------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Remember yesterday I said I have
2 not seen the affidavit --
3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I did.
4 THE COURT: -- of Jesse Prince?
5 MR. WEINBERG: I did.
6 THE COURT: Is that it?
7 MR. FUGATE: Listen, I'm sorry. I thought it
8 was the one that they had just --
9 MR. WEINBERG: I'm pretty sure, your Honor,
10 it's the August 20th one I gave you yesterday.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. FUGATE: Sorry, Judge.
13 THE COURT: That's all right.
14 Let me make sure I have the same one. I've got
15 it -- I say it's first affidavit of Jesse Prince
16 'cause I don't know if it's true, but it's the first
17 one I know about.
18 MR. FUGATE: The one that I -- may I approach,
19 your Honor?
20 THE COURT: You may.
21 MR. FUGATE: I'm talking about the one at --
22 sworn and subscribed the 20th day of August, Donna
23 West, notary --
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 MR. LIROT: May I approach and make sure we're
0076------------------------------------------------------------------

1 looking at the same document?
2 THE COURT: Sure.
3 MR. FUGATE: 18 pages, stops at 45 --
4 THE COURT: 18 pages dated the 20th day of
5 August of '99, signed by Jesse Prince, notarized by
6 Donna West.
7 MR. LIROT: That looks to be the document that
8 I have, Judge.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. FUGATE: We're all on the same page?
11 THE COURT: We're all on the same page.
12 BY MR. FUGATE:
13 Q Is this the affidavit that you made reference to
14 which was filed to support the fifth amended complaint
15 engaging a more direct attack on Scientology?
16 MR. LIROT: Objection. Foundation. I don't
17 know if she ever looked at the affidavit at that
18 point in time.
19 THE COURT: Yeah. If she knows.
20 BY MR. FUGATE:
21 Q Do you recognize the affidavit?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did you have anything to do with it at or about
24 the time it was prepared?
25 A Yes.
0077------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Okay. And what did you have to do with the
2 preparation of it?
3 A Well, Mr. Prince and I had a number of
4 discussions.
5 Q I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.
6 A I'm sorry. Maybe this is off.
7 THE COURT: I think it is. Can we turn the
8 system on? Let's see if we can get the system on.
9 It'll help.
10 BY MR. FUGATE:
11 Q If we can't, just speak up.
12 A Okay. I'm sorry. What was the question?
13 THE COURT: It's obviously on now.
14 MR. FUGATE: It's on.
15 A What was the question again?
16 BY MR. FUGATE:
17 Q Did you take part and assist in the preparation of
18 this affidavit?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Now, if you flip to page 17, I'm going to ask you
21 to read paragraph 43 to yourself.
22 THE COURT: Tell me again, which one?
23 MR. FUGATE: Page 17 of the Prince affidavit.
24 It's the paragraph enumerated 43.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
0078------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY MR. FUGATE:
2 Q Have you had a chance to read it?
3 A Yes.
4 THE COURT: I haven't quite, so let me just --
5 MR. FUGATE: Oh, I'm sorry, Judge.
6 THE COURT: Give me just another couple
7 seconds.
8 Okay. I've finished it.
9 BY MR. FUGATE:
10 Q What it says, "It's apparent to me that these
11 individuals, Mithoff, Rathbun, Miscavige, had no option
12 other than permit her to die in isolation rather than take
13 her to a hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk
14 embarrassing questions from attending physicians, etc." Was
15 that true?
16 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency. It's not
17 her affidavit.
18 THE COURT: Well, she said she assisted in it
19 and I think, therefore, that she can say whether or
20 not they discussed this and that type of thing. So
21 I'm going to overrule the objection.
22 BY MR. FUGATE:
23 Q Was that true?
24 A No.
25 Q When it says that, "Scientology provides an option
0079------------------------------------------------------------------

1 called end cycle, which is permitting and ordering a person
2 to die," was that true?
3 A No.
4 Q Is there such a thing as an end cycle, as it's
5 portrayed here?
6 A No.
7 I know where it started.
8 MR. LIROT: Excuse me. Objection, based on
9 competency.
10 THE COURT: Overruled. If she was in the
11 church, she says she was --
12 MR. LIROT: We don't know to what level. We
13 don't know if she was on the same level as
14 Mr. Prince, Judge.
15 THE COURT: Well, I don't know that.
16 EXAMINATION
17 BY THE COURT:
18 Q Would you know if there was --
19 What level were you at?
20 A Well, I was a Class 4, XDn auditor, OT5.
21 Q Doesn't mean a thing to me. Would you -- have you
22 ever heard of anything called end cycle?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did you know what it was?
25 A Yes, your Honor. Actually, that term first began
0080------------------------------------------------------------------

1 being used in this context in the first case that I worked
2 on in 1993. Because the man --
3 Remember when I was saying about Graham Berry, the
4 attorney?
5 Q Right.
6 A Well, the person that was his client was a man
7 named Steve Fishman, who was being sued by Scientology for
8 libel because he had been quoted in a TIME magazine article.
9 You remember that 1991 -- okay, well --
10 Q I don't, I'm sorry.
11 A There was a big article about Scientology in TIME
12 magazine in 1991. And one of the things in the article was
13 Steve Fishman saying that he had been ordered by Scientology
14 to commit a murder and then to commit suicide. And this is
15 where this started. And he used this term, he was ordered
16 to do an end of cycle.
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
18 BY MR. FUGATE:
19 Q Who used the term?
20 A Steve Fishman.
21 And so one of the first things that Mr. Berry
22 asked me was, what I knew about this ordering people to die
23 by end of cycle. And I told him that there was no such
24 thing in Scientology.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So whatever level you were
0081------------------------------------------------------------------

1 at -- and somebody will have to explain whatever she
2 said, because I wouldn't know what level that was --
3 But whatever -- is that a high level? Were you a
4 high level --
5 THE WITNESS: It was a high level.
6 THE COURT: You know enough at your level to
7 know there was no such thing when you were in
8 Scientology called end of cycle or end cycle.
9 THE WITNESS: Right.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Your objection's overruled.
11 BY MR. FUGATE:
12 Q But did you craft a declaration that described end
13 cycle as something like this we see in Mr. Prince's
14 affidavit?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And did you assist in the crafting of this portion
17 of this affidavit describing the end cycle?
18 A Well, I assisted in getting Mr. Prince into the
19 proper frame of mind in which he could then write this.
20 Q And write this, paragraph 43 that I've just read
21 the two sections of, is not true, is it?
22 A Not to my knowledge.
23 Q Would you take a moment and read paragraph 44?
24 Are the allegations as set out in there, to your
25 knowledge, true?
0082------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A No.
2 Q And would those allegations as set out in there,
3 to your knowledge, then be false?
4 A To the best of my knowledge.
5 Q And did you have any information at all that
6 Misters Mithoff, Rathbun or Miscavige had ordered the death
7 of Lisa McPherson?
8 A No.
9 Q Or that they had wanted to prevent what's
10 described here as a public relations flap and said, "Let her
11 die"?
12 A No. But that idea came from me.

13 EXAMINATION
14 BY THE COURT:

15 Q I'm sorry?
16 A I said no, but that idea came from me.
17 Q What idea?
18 A The idea that they would have let her die to avoid
19 a PR flap.
20 Q Did you -- did you come up with that idea thinking
21 it was true, or did you come up with that idea knowing it
22 was false and thinking it just would hurt them?
23 A I --
24 Q Or something in between?
25 A I would say it was something in between. I
0083------------------------------------------------------------------

1 certainly knew it would hurt them.
2 Q I think we can agree on that.
3 A Yeah. The -- but your Honor, I know for sure --
4 Q Take your time.
5 A Sorry.
6 Q It's all right.
7 A I know for sure that these people didn't sit by --
8 Q Who are these people?
9 A Scientology.
10 Q Okay.
11 A They didn't sit by and let her die.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
14 BY MR. FUGATE:
15 Q When you said a moment ago -- and I'm going to
16 come back to this -- that you -- words to the effect as --
17 if I recall -- don't even trust my memory, I guess -- that
18 there was anti-Scientology critics. Was there a
19 fraternity-like atmosphere among those of you that were
20 critics of Scientology?
21 A Yes.
22 MR. LIROT: Objection.
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 BY MR. FUGATE:
25 Q And when you embarked on the career, at least that
0084------------------------------------------------------------------

1 we've had described here from '93 to a couple of months ago,
2 your income was derived from being an anti-Scientologist and
3 a critic of Scientology, is that correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And are you saying to the court that you believed
6 in that period of time that what you were doing was right?
7 Is that what you've been saying to Judge Schaeffer?
8 A Yes.
9 Q But having said that, are these allegations that
10 are set out in Mr. Prince's affidavit true or false that I
11 just read to you -- had you read?
12 A They're false. But within that fraternity of
13 critics, I have come to feel now that -- and I have come to
14 feel that Mr. Dandar feels this way, and that -- well, the
15 people who are within that fraternity called critics of
16 Scientology feel so strongly a hatred for Scientology that
17 they feel that the end justifies the means, no matter what
18 it takes, to destroy Scientology. And I think that -- I
19 think that Mr. Dandar knew that to be the case with
20 Mr. Minton, and I think that he played on that and that
21 he --
22 THE COURT: Who -- we've got two "he's" there.
23 We talking about --
24 THE WITNESS: Mr. --
25 THE COURT: -- Mr. Minton --
0085------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Dandar knew that Mr. Minton
2 felt that strongly against Scientology. And I think
3 that Mr. Dandar felt that he could play on that
4 animosity that Mr. Minton had, and that he did play
5 on that animosity that Mr. Minton had to encourage
6 Mr. Minton to lie under oath for the good of his
7 case. I have felt that I needed to lie under oath
8 for the good of this case. I have seen others --
9 BY MR. FUGATE:
10 Q Have you lied under oath, as you say, for the good
11 of --
12 A Yes, I have.
13 Q -- Mr. Dandar's case?
14 A Yes, I have. And I've seen others in this
15 proceeding lying under oath for the good of this case.
16 EXAMINATION
17 BY THE COURT:
18 Q Who?
19 A Ms. Liebreich and Mr. Dandar.
20 Q So you -- you believe that -- I believe you
21 believe that all of these people feel, as you indicated, the
22 critics of Scientology feel -- I think you said the means
23 ju- -- I think is --
24 A The end -- the end justifies the means.
25 Q I think is the means justifies the end or -- isn't
0086------------------------------------------------------------------

1 it?
2 A The end justifies the means.
3 Q Well, whatever -- we know --
4 A You know what I mean.
5 Q I do.
6 A You would do anything to achieve the goal because
7 the goal is so righteous.
8 Q I think that would be the means justify the end,
9 which would be to abolish Scientology --
10 A Okay.
11 Q -- or to get rid of Scientology --
12 A Yeah.
13 Q -- or to --
14 A Right.
15 Q -- make them look --
16 A Yes.
17 Q And this is because of the -- what did you call
18 it, the hatred?
19 A The hatred.
20 Q And you were there at one time?
21 A Yes, I was.
22 Q Or maybe you still are?
23 Mr. Minton was there --
24 A Yes, he was, but he's not anymore.
25 Q Okay.
0087------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A And neither am I.
2 Q And you --
3 A And it's not because I've been extorted by
4 Scientology.
5 Q Whoa, whoa. We're going to let someone else talk
6 about that.
7 But for now you believe and why you think that
8 this occurred is you think Mr. Dandar also hates Scientology
9 and so does Ms. Liebreich?
10 A I would say that Mr. Dandar thinks that he can
11 make a whole lot of money by using people who hate
12 Scientology.
13 Q So you think that this is a monetary thing for him
14 rather than --
15 A Yes, I do, your Honor.
16 Q -- rather than a hatred of Scientology; rather
17 than sort of a -- what do we call that, sort of a strange
18 moralistic view.
19 A That's what I believe.
20 Q You think to him it's money.
21 A Yes. Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
23 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your
24 Honor.
25 THE COURT: You may.
0088------------------------------------------------------------------

1 I've got to go back to one thing 'cause this is
2 kind of important.
3 BY THE COURT:
4 Q You indicated that in 43 and 44, that in the
5 affidavit, that those items that were read to you by
6 Mr. Fugate were not true. And that you -- you had indicated
7 before that you and Mr. Prince had worked on them. I think
8 you even said you got him into the mood --
9 A Yes, ma'am.
10 Q -- or whatever that meant, I don't know. Maybe
11 some of it's --
12 A Into the state of mind.
13 Q What does that mean?
14 A In other words, I had many conversations with
15 Mr. Prince in which we discussed this scenario, in which she
16 was held against her will and these leaders of Scientology
17 were orchestrating this. And we talked about how
18 Mr. Miscavige would have been getting reports every day
19 about her -- about what was happening to her because it was
20 going to be such a PR flap. And I mean, you know I -- I
21 helped Jesse --
22 Q Believe this?
23 A Believe this.
24 Q Okay. Did you ever -- this is what is important
25 to me. Did you ever tell Mr. Dandar that this information
0089------------------------------------------------------------------

1 was false?
2 A No. I told Mr. Dandar the obvious, which was that
3 I wasn't there and neither was Jesse, so we couldn't
4 possibly know.
5 Q But you didn't say what you said in court, which
6 is this is false.
7 A No.
8 Q Okay. Thank you.
9 A I said this could have happened.
10 Q This -- so in other words, you told him that based
11 on your experience -- and obviously you weren't there, but
12 based on your experience --
13 A This could have --
14 Q -- this could have happened.
15 A -- happened.
16 Q And did Jesse tell him the same thing?
17 A Yes. And I think when Jesse testifies he'll tell
18 you that it did happen.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
21 BY MR. FUGATE:
22 Q Well, let's talk about what you mean by it did
23 happen.
24 THE COURT: No. She said Jesse will say it did
25 happen.
0090------------------------------------------------------------------

1 MR. FUGATE: No --
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q Did Jesse Prince accurately describe something
4 called an end cycle in this affidavit or is that a false
5 statement as you said?
6 A It's my belief that it's a false statement, but
7 I'd like to talk about that for a minute --
8 EXAMINATION
9 BY THE COURT:
10 Q Okay.
11 A -- if I could.
12 There is -- there is a series of procedures in
13 Scientology which is called a series of assists. An assist
14 is a procedure that's used to help a person when they're
15 sick. Various procedures to try to deal with what the
16 Scientologists believe is the cause of illness. And in one
17 of those issues about assists, I believe that I did see at
18 one point in my Scientology career an instruction when a
19 person was dying to help them be at peace about dying. And
20 I don't remember exactly 'cause this was a long time ago.
21 Q Sort of what Hospice might do?
22 A Kind of a Hospice thing.
23 And I believe that term, end of cycle, was used in
24 the description of that. Because -- because in
25 Scientology -- you know, a Scientologist believes that you
0091------------------------------------------------------------------

1 live many lifetimes, and when you die, they call it an end
2 of cycle. Because when you finish -- you know, when you
3 finish breakfast, it's an end of cycle. It's an end -- an
4 ending of something. And I do believe that in -- there was
5 an assist instruction in which that term was used to
6 describe that process of helping a person die at peace.
7 Q Okay.
8 A And --
9 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your

10 Honor?
11 THE COURT: You may.

12 MR. FUGATE: I'm showing her, Counsel, the
13 fifth amended complaint, which is filestamped --
14 well, I can't read it without my glasses -- January
15 of 2000, I think.
16 BY MR. FUGATE:
17 Q I'm going to ask you to look at that --
18 THE COURT: I take it this is the one we all
19 agree that -- that I've got in my book.
20 MR. LIROT: Yeah. Yes.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 Q I'm going to ask you to take a look at that and
23 flip to, if you would -- whatever --
24 MR. LIROT: This is -- if I could ask the court
25 to verify I have the correct document, this is on
0092------------------------------------------------------------------

1 page 18 of 18, with a certification dated
2 December 21st, 1999?
3 THE COURT: That's the one I have.
4 Ma'am, is that the one you have?
5 THE WITNESS: Let me see. Says 21 December.
6 MR. LIROT: Very good.
7 THE COURT: Now, where did --
8 A You wanted me to read what?
9 BY MR. FUGATE:
10 Q If you would go to page 12, where it says count I,
11 statutory wrongful death.
12 A Okay.
13 Q And read paragraph 34 to yourself.
14 A Okay.
15 Q I'm sorry. Did you have an opportunity to read
16 it?
17 A Paragraph 34?
18 Q Yeah.
19 Now, is that description of end cycle in there a
20 description of an end of the cycle as you just described it,
21 an assist; or is it the concept that you imported and that
22 you had talked to Mr. Prince about putting into the wrongful
23 death complaint?
24 A It's the latter. It's the concept that I had
25 talked to Mr. Prince about putting in.
0093------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q And were you aware of your involvement with
2 Mr. Dandar of any information -- any fact that would support
3 that allegation in this lawsuit?
4 A No.
5 Q And was Mr. Prince aware of any, as far as you
6 knew, when he drafted the end cycle portion of the affidavit
7 that supported this allegation and allowed the complaint to
8 be filed?
9 MR. LIROT: Objection. Speculation.
10 THE COURT: Sustained.
11 MR. LIROT: She doesn't know what Mr. Prince
12 knew.
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 BY MR. FUGATE:
15 Q Well, the end cycle as described here is what you
16 said was your concept that you talked to and told Jesse
17 Prince about, is that correct?
18 A Yes. This was the use of end cycle that was
19 started by Steve Fishman.
20 Q And it's not a true concept, is it?
21 A No.
22 Q And it's not portrayed to be a true concept in the
23 affidavit or the complaint, is it?
24 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency. She
25 doesn't know what was true.

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer]

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West
Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320
Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport
Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

0145------------------------------------------------------------------

1
2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6
7 Plaintiff,

8 vs. VOLUME 2
9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13
14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
15
DATE: May 3, 2002, afternoon session.
16
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
17 St. Petersburg, Florida.
18 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
19
REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
20 Notary Public,
State of Florida at large.
21
22
23
24
25

0146------------------------------------------------------------------

0147------------------------------------------------------------------

1 APPEARANCES (Continued)
2 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN
MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP
3 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
4 Attorney for Stacy Brooks.
5
ALSO PRESENT:

6
Ms. Donna West

7 Ms. Dell Liebreich
Mr. Rick Spector
8 Mr. Allan Cartwright
Ms. Lara Cartwright
9 Ms. Sarah Heller
Mr. Ben Shaw
10 Ms. Joyce Earl
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

0148------------------------------------------------------------------

1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
2 PAGE LINE
3 EXAMINATION The Court 155 20
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 181 14
4 EXAMINATION The Court 186 24
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 193 16
5 EXAMINATION The Court 194 6
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 207 2
6 EXAMINATION The Court 208 5
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 210 16
7 EXAMINATION The Court 211 3
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 214 13
8 EXAMINATION The Court 219 4
DIRECT (Resumed) Mr. Fugate 220 10
9 EXAMINATION The Court 221 6
Recess 232 12
10 Reporter's Certificate 233 1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

0149------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: Okay. Continue on.
2 MR. LIROT: We'll wait for Mr. Fugate, but I
3 want to make a statement before we start.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. FUGATE: Sorry, Judge, actually I was in
6 line at the men's room. Believe it or not.
7 THE COURT: Counsel wanted to make a statement.
8 MR. LIROT: The only thing, Judge, he made a
9 comment about Mr. Dandar participating in the
10 pickets. And I know I talked to him about it --
11 Mr. Dandar never participated in any picket. I
12 think his statement was he was in a vigil or
13 something like that. But he was just very concerned
14 about that.
15 THE COURT: All I know is I saw a picture of
16 Mr. Dandar carrying a sign that appeared like what
17 somebody might carry in a picket, vigil, whatever
18 one wanted to call it. I don't know that it was a
19 picket, to tell you the truth. I don't know what it
20 was. But I know I saw Mr. Dandar with a sign
21 involving this case.
22 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge.
23 THE COURT: Involving Lisa McPherson. But I,
24 quite frankly --
25 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your
0150------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Honor? I'd offer --
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q Well, first of all, do you recognize the folks in
4 the photo there that I've just handed up, which would be our
5 Exhibit 74?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And can you identify it, please?
8 A Well, it's the trial team.
9 Q Okay. And the trial team would be -- who is on
10 the far left, as you look at the photo?
11 A That's Jesse Prince.
12 Q Okay. And what is he holding in his hand?
13 A He's holding --
14 THE COURT: Did you not just put this into
15 evidence?
16 MR. FUGATE: Yes. Well, I tried --
17 THE COURT: Did I not see it?
18 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge.
19 THE COURT: I mean, we can see it. It's in
20 evidence, right? It's a picture of -- what do you
21 want her to explain? It's in evidence.
22 BY MR. FUGATE:
23 Q Okay. Is Mr. Dandar in the photograph?
24 A Yes, he is.
25 Q Okay. And is this outside the criminal court --
0151------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Yes.
2 Q -- in Pinellas County?
3 THE COURT: And whatever -- this is isn't the
4 one I saw. I saw a picture with Mr. Dandar holding
5 a sign himself.
6 MR. FUGATE: Yeah. I've got those, Judge --
7 THE COURT: I think.
8 MR. FUGATE: -- as well. Put those in here --
9 Well, let's try to address the judge's concerns
10 and move forward. Would that be 74, or you say it's
11 already in?
12 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, did you get your copy?
13 THE CLERK: Yes, Judge.
14 THE COURT: I believe that's 74.
15 THE CLERK: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Here, did you get this, Madam
17 Clerk?
18 Continue.
19 BY MR. FUGATE:
20 Q And to follow up, did Mr. Dandar, to your
21 observation, participate in picketing?
22 A Yes. I do believe I recall him actually holding a
23 sign a couple of times, but you know, he also participated
24 in the -- what sort of became known as the annual memorial
25 for Lisa McPherson.
0152------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Which is --
2 A A lot of people would come to Clearwater --
3 Q December 4th and 5th or thereabouts each year?
4 A It was on the anniversary of her death, on
5 December 5th.
6 Q Now, in your affidavit, you -- you have a term,
7 the secret agreement. And to go right to the heart of that
8 issue, can you describe what you mean -- what you're
9 describing in your affidavit as the secret agreement and how
10 it differs from the other funding agreement as you
11 understood it?
12 A Well, as I --
13 MR. LIROT: Objection. No foundation. I don't
14 know what the other agreement is. I don't know what
15 the secret agreement is. I need a foundation for
16 this, Judge, at least.
17 THE COURT: Well, it's her affidavit. She's
18 called it secret agreement, so we need to know --
19 she needs to testify about it.
20 MR. FUGATE: I'm asking her to do it in her
21 words, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 A Okay. I said before, that there was an agreement
24 between Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and the estate that the bulk
25 of the proceeds from the wrongful death case would go to the
0153------------------------------------------------------------------

1 LMT.
2 BY MR. FUGATE:
3 Q Okay.
4 THE COURT: And I think that what -- what's
5 fair here, if this was counsel's objection, we need
6 to know, ma'am, not what you -- we need to know sort
7 of what you participated in. In other words, when
8 you say there was an agreement between this one,
9 this one and this one, where you participated and
10 what parties were present and this type of thing.
11 THE WITNESS: Okay.
12 THE COURT: Okay?
13 A I was told by Mr. Minton that this agreement
14 existed; it was mentioned at the -- when Mr. Dandar and
15 Ms. Liebreich attended the first board meeting of the LMT;
16 we all greeted each other and chatted afterwards and talked
17 about how exciting this was and --
18 BY MR. FUGATE:
19 Q Was there specifically conversation about the
20 funding by Mr. Minton and --
21 A Yeah. How exciting it was that the bulk of the
22 proceeds was going to go to the LMT and --
23 Q All right. Did -- you identified Ms. Liebreich.
24 Were those words that came out of her mouth?
25 A Those were words that came out of Mr. Dandar's
0154------------------------------------------------------------------

1 mouth, but she was there and she was -- she nodded in
2 agreement, and she was very appreciative of Mr. Minton's
3 help and --
4 Q And was there an understanding in that discussion
5 that there would be a payback of the moneys that had been
6 put into the case?
7 MR. LIROT: Objection. Competency.
8 BY MR. FUGATE:
9 Q If you know.
10 THE COURT: With that, if she knows. I mean,
11 it seems like we started off talking about the
12 proceeds from recovery.
13 MR. FUGATE: No. The --
14 THE COURT: Talking about something else now?
15 THE WITNESS: The secret agreement, your Honor,
16 wasn't that he would get -- that he would get the --
17 his loan back; the secret agreement -- I mean, that
18 was just a regular loan agreement that he had made
19 with the estate and Mr. Dandar at the beginning;
20 that, you know, he would be repaid the money that he
21 had loaned them from the proceeds of the case.
22 MR. LIROT: Objection. Best evidence.
23 THE COURT: Overruled. Apparently best
24 evidence would be nice if we had something in
25 writing, but we don't apparently.
0155------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE WITNESS: But the agreement that I'm
2 referring to was an agreement that was separate from
3 that loan agreement.
4 THE COURT: Yeah. This was the agreement
5 you're talking about that the -- that the --
6 THE WITNESS: Bulk.
7 THE COURT: -- bulk --
8 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
9 THE COURT: The bulk of the proceeds --
10 THE WITNESS: The bulk of the proceeds.
11 THE COURT: -- would go to the --
12 THE WITNESS: -- LMT. And Mr. Minton was very
13 excited about this and talked about it on the
14 Internet.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q Published it.
17 A On the Internet.
18 And also talked about it on a radio show that he
19 was on and -- and this was --
20 EXAMINATION
21 BY THE COURT:
22 Q How could it be secret if it was on the Internet?
23 A It wasn't secret at that time.
24 Q You put it in your affidavit.
25 A Yeah. And the -- well, I'll get to the secret
0156------------------------------------------------------------------

1 part --
2 Q Okay.
3 A -- in just a second. But you know, the people at
4 the LMT knew about it and it was sort of a happy thing. I
5 mean, everybody was very happy about it.
6 Q And everybody who read the Internet knew about it,
7 I guess.
8 A Yeah. For sure, that's true.
9 Q Okay.
10 A And then -- then what happened was Scientology
11 started to interject an argument into the wrongful death
12 case saying that, you know, this was all a business deal;
13 Minton was going to benefit from this case; this was -- you
14 know, he was -- you know, doing all these things for
15 business reasons. And Mr. Dandar got, you know, really
16 upset that Scientology was doing this. You know, we had a
17 couple of conversations in which I said to him, Mr. Dandar,
18 there's nothing wrong with the bulk of the proceeds going to
19 the Lisa McPherson Trust. And you know, so what if
20 Scientology says that about it?
21 But Mr. Dandar was --
22 THE COURT: Sounds like me, doesn't it? Isn't
23 that what I said?
24 Okay. Sorry.
25 A Yeah.
0157------------------------------------------------------------------

1 But Mr. Dandar was really concerned about it. You
2 know, the Scientology attorneys were really turning this
3 into a major issue. And so Mr. Dandar told us that we were
4 going to have to stop talking about this agreement about the
5 bulk of the proceeds. And -- and then --
6 BY THE COURT:
7 Q And when did that occur?
8 A When he said that?
9 Q Yeah.
10 A In the fall. It started to be, you know, don't
11 talk about that, don't talk about that, in the -- in the
12 fall of 2000.
13 Q Okay.
14 A As I recall. Maybe late summer. Whenever the --
15 you know, you'd be able to tell by the record of the case
16 because whenever that thing started happening where they
17 were accusing Minton of investing in the lawsuit, you know,
18 that whole thing.
19 I think it was late summer or fall of 2000. And
20 then it -- December, 2000 is when the secret agreement
21 became a real serious issue because that was when Mr. Minton
22 signed the false affidavit about it. And he felt extremely
23 uncomfortable about it because -- and I actually encouraged
24 him to feel extremely uncomfortable about it, because it
25 seemed to me that if he was putting in writing and swearing
0158------------------------------------------------------------------

1 to the fact that there was no agreement, well, then -- then
2 there wasn't going to be any bulk of the proceeds going to
3 anything. And you know, he spoke to Mr. Dandar about this,
4 and Mr. Dandar said --
5 MR. LIROT: Objection. We don't know if she
6 was anywhere near these conversations.
7 THE WITNESS: I was. I was there.
8 THE COURT: Overruled.
9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Whenever I talk about
10 one of these conversations, I mean 'cause I was
11 there.
12 BY THE COURT:
13 Q Okay.
14 A You know -- and he talked to me about it quite a
15 bit, Mr. Minton did. Because I was saying, you know, "Don't
16 do this. It's not a good idea."
17 But he spoke to Mr. Dandar about it; Mr. Dandar
18 said, "Look, you know, the agreement still exists. It's
19 just that we can't talk about it and we can't -- you know,
20 it -- we've got to get away from this in the case because
21 they're really trying to use this as a way to, you know,
22 derail the case, so --" or whatever.
23 And so, you know, of course, that's what's going
24 to happen when the -- when the -- when we get a judgment.
25 But we have to say that it's not.
0159------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q If we just file a bunch of false affidavits, we
2 won't derail the case.
3 A Well, you see, your Honor, that's a good point you
4 bring up, because -- right.
5 Q I'm sorry. I just kind of interjected myself, and
6 I didn't need to do that.
7 A Well --
8 Q I'm sorry.
9 A That's how I feel about it too. It's --
10 subsequently, I lied about this in a deposition; Mr. Minton
11 lied about this in a deposition.
12 Q About this --
13 A About the fact that --
14 Q The bulk of the proceeds were going --
15 A Right.
16 Q -- to be --
17 A That was asked -- that was specifically asked, I
18 think it was by Mr. Moxon, I think. You know, I -- and
19 first he asked me about it and I tried to get around it by
20 distracting him in another direction, but you know, that
21 didn't work. And so then he asked me again, you know, "Is
22 there an agreement for the bulk of the proceeds?" And I
23 said, "No." Well, you know, I was lying. And Mr. Minton
24 started lying about it. And --
25 Q Why, for heaven sakes?
0160------------------------------------------------------------------

1 A Well --
2 Q You had already said -- you said what's the big
3 deal? It's okay.
4 A I know, but Mr. Dandar felt very, very strongly
5 that it was important that we do this. And --
6 Q Did he ever say why? Other than they were just
7 making a big deal about it and --
8 A Because they -- because --
9 Q It was derailing the case?
10 A Yeah. Because Scientology was using this
11 agreement to turn the case into a case about Mr. Minton and
12 not about Lisa McPherson. That was basically the -- the way
13 that he spoke about it. Scientology was turning it into a
14 case about Mr. Minton and not about Lisa McPherson.
15 Q Okay.
16 A And so the only way to get the attention off of
17 Mr. Minton was to say that there was no agreement.
18 Now, you can imagine this was a little difficult
19 to do after he'd gone on the radio and posted things on the
20 Internet saying that there was. And of course, Mr. Moxon
21 was bringing these things out at his deposition and saying,
22 "There's no agreement? Well, then why did you say there was
23 an agreement?" You know, it was -- it was -- it was just so
24 obvious. You know, it was just so obvious.
25 But --
0161------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Well, you knew that -- you knew -- you've been in
2 this Church of Scientology. You knew they had fine lawyers.
3 A The best --
4 Q And you knew that they absolutely would have known
5 what was out on the Internet said by Mr. Minton.
6 A In a heartbeat.
7 Q And surely, surely, you knew therefore there would
8 be a deposition where Mr. Minton would be asked about,
9 "Well, look here what you said." Did you talk to him about
10 this?
11 A Yes, I did.
12 Q Did you say, "We're crazy to do this"?
13 A Yes, your Honor, I certainly said that.
14 Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar, "I can't believe you're
15 asking us to do such a stupid thing"?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 Q And what did he say? What did --
18 A Well --
19 Q -- Mr. Dandar say?
20 A In fact -- in fact, I had, even before that
21 started, to say to Mr. Minton, "Stop funding this case, we
22 need to get away from it as far as we can." And to
23 Mr. Dandar, you know, "You cannot keep asking Mr. Minton --
24 especially him -- to lie. You know, he's getting in worse
25 and worse and worse trouble. And you know, don't keep
0162------------------------------------------------------------------

1 asking him for money because all it's doing is getting him
2 into more and more and more depositions where he's having to
3 lie more and more."
4 Q What did he say?
5 A "Stop asking him for money."
6 Q What did Mr. Dandar say?
7 A He went like this.
8 Q That same --
9 A The same thing.
10 MR. FUGATE: The gesture, for the record?
11 THE WITNESS: It was a gesture.
12 BY THE COURT:
13 Q But he didn't say anything?
14 A He said, "That's up to Bob."
15 You know, this whole thing came up that -- then it
16 came about that Mr. Dandar and his group of people were
17 feeling that I was manipulating Mr. Minton and that I was,
18 you know, having some sort of sinister influence over him,
19 for reasons which I -- have never really been clear to me.
20 But there was this whole thing and, you know, that I was
21 doing something really bad to be trying to get Mr. Minton to
22 stop his funding of the case and to stop this -- you know, I
23 don't think that other people were aware of the fact that
24 this perjury was going on, because I certainly wasn't saying
25 a word about it to anybody else except for Mr. Minton and
0163------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Dandar. And -- but there was a -- there was a
2 deposition on August 15th, 1999 -- no, I'm sorry -- 2000 --
3 was it '99 or 2000? Just a minute. I'll tell you.
4 FROM THE GALLERY: 2001.
5 A August, 2001. Sorry.
6 THE COURT: Who -- who in the world is giving
7 her answers back there? Please.
8 A On August 15th, 2001. Okay. So that was after.
9 So I'm sorry. I was mixed up.
10 I'll go back to the December, 2000 time.
11 Mr. Dandar had --
12 BY THE COURT:
13 Q Okay. Let -- I've written down a wrong date here
14 now.
15 A Yeah. Forget the August 15th. I'll get to that
16 in a minute.
17 Q Okay. So what are we going back to?
18 A We're going back to December, 2000.
19 Q 12-2000. I got you.
20 A That was when Bob signed the affidavit that said
21 there was no agreement. I believe that was the same time as
22 Liebreich signed an affidavit that there was no agreement.
23 And I think it was shortly after that that Mr. Dandar filed
24 a motion attacking those two pleadings -- I mean, those two
25 affidavits, asserting that there was no agreement.
0164------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Well, you know, I was starting to feel like
2 Mr. Minton was getting set up to be royally shafted.
3 Q Good choice of words. I had another one. I was
4 waiting to see if you could find --
5 A I was thinking of something else.
6 Q I'll bet you were.
7 A I began to feel that way very strongly. And you
8 know, Mr. Minton felt very strongly about this cause,
9 that -- about being against Scientology. He felt very, very
10 strongly about it. And he was providing funding --
11 Q I'm sorry. I was coughing. He was what?
12 A He was providing funding to Mr. Dandar without
13 asking for any accounting of what was being done with the
14 money; despite the fact that he was being put into grave
15 legal danger by doing so. And I began to feel that he was
16 being sold down the river. And --
17 Q This was -- are we back now to this 12-2000 thing?
18 A We're moving a little further from there.
19 Q After --
20 A We're moving into the future --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- from December, 2000.
23 Q What was it that happened in December, 2000? What
24 was the point of that date?
25 A He signed that false affidavit.
0165------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Oh, okay.
2 A And then -- okay, this is into -- now we're -- now
3 we're moving into 2001. Now things are falling apart to
4 such a degree that it's a nightmare. Because now
5 Scientology has started to, you know, depose me and demand
6 documents out of the Lisa McPherson Trust because
7 Scientology has now made the connection between the Lisa
8 McPherson Trust, all the witnesses that are, you know, being
9 paid at the Lisa McPherson Trust, all the people that are on
10 the advisory border -- I mean, that's basically --
11 Mr. Minton had gathered up all of his Scientology critics
12 that he was helping in one way or another in litigation
13 against Scientology or in whatever other capacity he was
14 funding them, and it was all under the umbrella of the Lisa
15 McPherson Trust. You know, the witnesses for the Lisa
16 McPherson case worked for the Lisa McPherson Trust.
17 And you know, the two things had just -- well, you
18 know, Judge Beach, one day in a deposition, I almost had a
19 heart attack, he -- you know, we're trying so hard to keep
20 these things apart -- and Judge Beach says, you know,
21 "There's no --" this is Mr. Minton's depo that I was in --
22 he said, "There's no difference between Mr. Minton and the
23 LMT, the Lisa McPherson case -- it's all the same."
24 And so now they started to be able to -- they
25 started making document demands at the LMT and --
0166------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q They being Scientology?
2 A Scientology. And I started evading discovery and
3 lying about our records, and --
4 Q Why?
5 A -- and at that point --
6 Q I mean, why?
7 A Why?
8 Q Why were you lying about your records? I mean,
9 was there anything --
10 A Because I'll tell you why.
11 Q -- was there anything illegal about LMT?
12 A You know what? I wasn't sure if there was
13 anything in those records that could hurt the case or not.
14 And if there was any possibility that it would hurt the
15 case, we had to not give it to them. And so -- and you
16 know, Mr. Minton was doing everything possible to protect
17 the case; Mr. Dandar was doing everything possible to
18 protect the case; and -- and then I was doing everything
19 possible to protect the case; you know, not turning over,
20 you know -- you've seen all the stuff in the affidavit, you
21 know, the unedited videotape, the hard drives -- you know, I
22 had these hard drives -- well, Mr. Minton and I both -- got
23 these hard drives removed, you know, about a half an hour
24 before the judge ordered that these -- maybe it was you --
25 Q I don't think it was because I don't remember
0167------------------------------------------------------------------

1 doing that.
2 A Maybe it was Judge Quesada. But in any case, you
3 know, about half an hour before the judge ordered that
4 nothing could be taken out of the LMT, we're getting the
5 hard drives out of the computers and shipping them off. I
6 mean, you know --
7 Q But why? I guess I just -- I'm just beside myself
8 trying to figure out why? Was there something illegal about
9 LMT? And I'm talking now about was it doing drugs, was it
10 doing some criminal activity, was there something wrong with
11 it?
12 A No, your Honor.
13 Q It was set up to -- to -- to be what? An
14 anti-Scientology organization?
15 A It was set up to expose the deceptive and abusive
16 processes of Scientology.
17 Q Okay. And then -- so there was nothing illegal
18 about that.
19 A No.
20 Q I mean, that's free speech. It was set up as a
21 for-profit organization, as I remember. If there was an
22 agreement, if there was an agreement that said that, golly,
23 if the aunts of Lisa McPherson got a bundle of money,
24 they'll contribute to this group so that they would have
25 some money, there isn't anything illegal about that, that
0168------------------------------------------------------------------

1 you knew of?
2 A Right.
3 Q Well, then what in the -- what in the hell were
4 you hiding stuff for?
5 A Because Mr. Dandar was so adamant about not
6 letting Scientology delve into the connection between the
7 LMT and the case. He was so adamant about --
8 Q Well, you're a smart woman.
9 A Yeah. Well --
10 Q You sit here today, and I'm listening to you and
11 you're as bright as you can be. You're a smart, bright
12 woman. If he had said that to you, didn't you ever say,
13 "We're crazy and we're not going to lie and put ourselves in
14 jeopardy for your crazy thoughts? I'm not going to do it
15 and Bob's not going to do it." I mean, you know, it's hard
16 for me to envision, ma'am, why you'd lie, destroy things
17 about an entity that's legal.
18 And you must understand that this is
19 extraordinarily frustrating for a court. Why you'd lie
20 about an entity that's, as far as I know, legal, about money
21 that might be coming to it which is legal. I don't know any
22 reason in the world why a smart person like you -- and I
23 have to guess Mr. Minton's a smart man -- would lie, destroy
24 stuff, subject yourself to the -- to the wrath of the court,
25 for what? Mr. Dandar and his -- his supposition that this
0169------------------------------------------------------------------

1 was going to hurt the case?
2 A Yes, your Honor.
3 Q You believed him?
4 A No. You see, you have to understand. It goes
5 back to the thing that I was telling you about before, which
6 is the state of mind of the fraternity of critics; that, you
7 know --
8 Q Who -- who is in that fraternity? I mean, the
9 ones that I know of that are connected with this case.
10 Jesse Prince?
11 A Yeah.
12 Q You?
13 A Yeah.
14 Q Your ex-husband?
15 A Yeah. Lots of other people. The people -- the
16 people that are named in paragraph -- let me see.
17 Q Can you include Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and
18 Mr. Garko in that, Scientology critics?
19 A Mr. Minton.
20 Q The fraternity?
21 A Mr. Minton.
22 Q Okay.
23 A On paragraph 18.
24 Q Okay.
25 A There's a bunch of people named in there. There's
0170------------------------------------------------------------------

1 some others that are in the courtroom right now. You know,
2 and these people could feel that right now what I'm doing
3 right now is so treasonous; you know, they are so mad at me
4 for getting up here and telling the truth about this stuff,
5 I can't even begin to tell you.
6 Q Who are they?
7 A Because I have sold out the Lisa McPherson case; I
8 have sold out Ken Dandar, who is the hero of the critic
9 community, because he's the attorney for the Lisa McPherson
10 case. And -- and that is the perspective that this group of
11 people has. We were part of this group of people. And the
12 idea that I would sit there in front of Kendrick Moxon, you
13 know, who is the enemy, and -- and give him our documents
14 out of the Lisa McPherson Trust or that -- you know, that we
15 would actually tell him the truth about what we were
16 doing -- it just wasn't an option.
17 I mean, it just -- it was -- you know, we were
18 part of a very, very, very tightknit group of people with a
19 very, very strong purpose: To destroy Scientology. And it
20 was -- it was a cause. It was a cause. And you know,
21 Mr. Dandar took advantage of that, I feel. And -- and put
22 Mr. -- Mr. Minton and me in a position where we were
23 basically being held hostage to this case. Because he knew
24 we had lied in deposition; he knew that these things had
25 happened. I was begging him to stop asking Mr. Minton for
0171------------------------------------------------------------------

1 any more money. I was begging him to -- to let us go. He
2 wouldn't do it. Finally in -- finally in August, 2001 --
3 Q Why didn't you go back to New Hampshire, wherever
4 Mr. Minton is, and say, "See ya, sayonara, bye."
5 A Why didn't he do that?
6 Q Yeah. Why didn't you both do that.
7 A Well, I -- okay. So now, starting August 15th,
8 2001 was when this nightmare started to get really bad for
9 me. Because there was a deposition --
10 Q Now we're up to August, 2000 --
11 A Now we're almost done. There was a deposition of
12 me, and it was in Tampa, and I think Mr. Moxon was the
13 attorney. He usually was. And Mr. Dandar and Mr. --
14 Dr. Garko were also in this deposition. And Judge Beach was
15 in the deposition. And this was -- and I had been
16 ordered -- subpoenaed to bring all kind of records. And I
17 appeared in this and I walked into this deposition and I
18 didn't bring anything. I don't think I brought -- maybe I
19 brought some -- you know, something, but nothing substantive
20 at all. And --
21 Judge Beach sat there in that deposition and told
22 me that if he ordered me to turn over documents and I didn't
23 do it, he was going to put me in jail.
24 Well, I went to the moon. I was so scared.
25 'Cause, you know, it really finally hit me, you know, what
0172------------------------------------------------------------------

1 kind of -- what kind of situation that we were really
2 putting ourselves in. You know, we were about to go to jail
3 for this case. And -- and even if we did go to jail for the
4 case, it wasn't going to save the case, because it was
5 already so off the rails with all of this stuff that was
6 going on.
7 Q Did you ever, in your smartest -- I mean, as I
8 said, I look at you and I look at you as a -- as a bright
9 woman who is very articulate, who -- who I don't know what
10 your level of education, but you certainly sound like -- did
11 it ever occur to you that once you said -- took the tack
12 that you're taking now, which is boy, this is a bunch of
13 lies, that somebody like me might not be most upset?
14 A You know, your Honor --
15 Q Or did you think that I'd say, "Well, finally
16 we're all getting to the truth of this" and I'd just be
17 happy as a clam? I mean, did you ever think --
18 A I thought -- I'll tell you what I thought. I
19 thought that I was in a very, very untenable position.
20 Because now I was faced with a choice. Either I could start
21 telling the truth -- and in my mind, that was going to
22 derail the case. Mr. Dandar was telling Mr. Minton at every
23 opportunity that it would derail the case. Don't tell them
24 about those checks. Don't tell them about the secret
25 agreement. You know, so -- so either we could tell the
0173------------------------------------------------------------------

1 truth and derail this thing, which was, you know, considered
2 by the critic community to be -- to be the symbol of, you
3 know, truth and justice for Lisa McPherson and against
4 Scientology.
5 And you know -- and you know, by now I was feeling
6 very differently about it. But Mr. Minton was still feeling
7 that way.
8 And -- and so either we could start telling the
9 truth and derail the case or we could go to jail. And from
10 August 15th forward, that's the way I started seeing it.
11 And so I went up to New Hampshire after that
12 deposition, and I asked Mr. Minton if I could please call
13 Dell Liebreich and tell her what was going on.
14 Q When was this, ma'am?
15 A This was later in August.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I think.
18 Q 2001?
19 A 2001. It was after that deposition, because I was
20 so freaked out.
21 And you know, I said, There is no way Dell
22 Liebreich knows that this is going on. If she knew this was
23 going on, she would never allow it to happen. She will drop
24 this case. Because you know, the only way we could get out
25 of it was for -- for the case to get dropped. Otherwise,
0174------------------------------------------------------------------

1 you know, we were going to go to jail, or the case was going
2 to get derailed and be a mess, or -- you know, the only way
3 it could -- could end cleanly would be to drop it, you know.
4 And so Bob said, you know, "Shoot, they won't drop
5 it," you know, whatever. I said, you know, "You got to let
6 me try."
7 Well, you know, it -- Bob -- Mr. Minton's attitude
8 was, "She already knows everything that's going on and she's
9 not going to drop the case to save me or you."
10 Well, I called her and --
11 And I had discussed this earlier with Jesse Prince
12 and Teresa Summers, who were -- was another woman who used
13 to work at the LMT. And I told her --
14 Q "Discussed this." We're talking about --
15 A The idea of calling Dell --
16 Q Okay.
17 A -- and asking her to do this.
18 And -- but in any case, so I called her and -- and
19 I asked her if we could meet. I asked -- actually, I -- I
20 believe I asked her if I could fly to Texas to talk to her.
21 And she said, "Well, will Ken be there?" And I said, "Well,
22 I'd really prefer to talk to you alone." And she said,
23 "Well, okay. Come on then." Or something like that.
24 Q When was this call, do you remember?
25 A This was later in August of 2001.
0175------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q After -- sometime in August, but after your
2 deposition?

3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay.

5 A And then she called me back. I mean, you know, I
6 was so nervous doing this. This was like -- this was so --
7 I mean, for the critic community, for me to call Dell
8 Liebreich and ask her to drop the wrongful death case was
9 the most horrific thing I could possibly do. And so I was
10 very nervous about this. But I felt like we had to do it,
11 because I was -- you know, by this time I had had many,
12 many, many conversations with Mr. Dandar in which I had told
13 him that it was a terrible thing, what he was doing; that he
14 was continuing this thing at -- at the risk -- and putting
15 Mr. Minton at such a risk.
16 Q Did you ask him to call Ms. Liebreich and drop the
17 case? Did you ask him to drop the case?
18 A Yes. I had talked to him about it. And he
19 said -- you know, "This is -- this is a just and noble thing
20 that we're doing, and this has to continue forward. We have
21 to get justice for Lisa McPherson." And you know, all this
22 pious thing, that, by then, I didn't feel had anything
23 whatsoever to do with his motivation in this case.
24 So I called her and I asked her this. And you
25 know, this was a fairly major threshold that I'd crossed in
0176------------------------------------------------------------------

1 this whole process. Because at that point, I became
2 deliberately and consciously against this lawsuit. And --
3 and then she called back and said, "No, no, no. We can't do
4 it. I talked to Ken and, you know, he doesn't want me to
5 talk to you and I don't want to talk to you." And -- and,
6 you know, she was very distraught.
7 Q You didn't ask her to drop -- you had just asked
8 to meet with her alone --
9 A Right.
10 Q -- and she said she could not do that.
11 A Right.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Right.
14 Q Did you tell her why you wanted to meet with her?
15 A No.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I didn't. But later I had a conversation with Ken
18 Dandar, which was that -- you know, "I knew you wanted to
19 talk to her about dropping the case, and I told her not to
20 talk to you about that." And, you know, let me tell you,
21 she knows everything that's going on in this case and --
22 Q But you're past where we need to go. That's for
23 another time, for another question.
24 A Okay. Sorry.
25 Okay. So then when that happened, then I said,
0177------------------------------------------------------------------

1 you know, these people -- I mean, Mr. Dandar and
2 Ms. Liebreich do not care what happens to Bob Minton or me.
3 And -- and -- and I said that to Bob Minton. And I said,
4 "You have got -- we have got to distance ourself from this
5 case in every possible way. I've got to tell Jesse to
6 withdraw as an expert witness; you have got to stop giving
7 him any more money. I'm withdrawing as a witness. We have
8 to -- we have to withdraw in every way we possibly can to --
9 so that the court will stop letting Scientology depose us
10 and get discovery of us."
11 And so -- and so Mr. Minton and I called Jesse
12 Prince and told him that he had to withdraw as an expert
13 witness immediately. That day. And he did.
14 Q This was the same day as you made the phone call
15 to Ms. Liebreich?
16 A The next day. The next day, because I called her
17 at night. And then Mr. Minton and I talked about this into
18 the night, trying to figure out what to do.
19 And it -- you know, it still wasn't an option that
20 we were going to come in to court and start recanting. It
21 just wasn't.
22 It just wasn't.
23 We were going to try to distance ourselves from it
24 so that we could get protection so that it could move
25 forward without hurting us.
0178------------------------------------------------------------------

1 And so then --
2 THE COURT: Feel free to step into the
3 question, if you want, but it seems like she's
4 giving a narrative that goes to the issue, so --
5 MR. FUGATE: Better than I asking questions,
6 your Honor.
7 BY THE COURT:
8 Q Okay.
9 A So then Mr. Dandar decided to file a motion for
10 severe sanctions against Scientology for -- because his
11 expert witnesses had had to withdraw, because he was in such
12 fear of Scientology.
13 Well, so then he has Mr. Prince -- he -- he draws
14 up an affidavit from Mr. Prince which basically summarizes
15 his trial that he had just -- the criminal trial that
16 Mr. Prince had just gone through for drugs. And basically
17 Mr. Dandar did a motion that, you know, described that whole
18 thing and that Scientology was setting up as expert. And so
19 because of that Mr. Prince withdrew in fear of more
20 harassment, stuff like that.
21 Well, Mr. Prince withdrew because Mr. Minton and I
22 told him to.
23 MR. LIROT: Objection. This is all -- she's
24 not competent for anything why Mr. Prince withdrew.
25 THE COURT: Well, she's competent to say what
0179------------------------------------------------------------------

1 she told Mr. Prince, and then we'll hear from
2 Mr. Prince, I guess.
3 BY THE COURT:
4 Q What did you tell Mr. Prince as far as --
5 A I said, "Jesse, you've got to withdraw it, you've
6 got to resign from this case immediately. You know, you've
7 got to write a letter to Ken telling him that you're
8 withdrawing as an expert witness right away." Well, you
9 know -- okay --
10 Q And then you said that this affidavit -- did you
11 see the affidavit --
12 A Yes.
13 Q -- that Mr. Prince signed?
14 A After he signed it, he brought it in and showed it
15 to me and --
16 Q When was that? And where?
17 A In my office in the LMT --
18 Q Okay.
19 A You know, it must have been in September. Because
20 all of these things happened in pretty rapid succession by
21 now.
22 And -- I can't remember what else I was going to
23 say about that, but in any case --
24 THE COURT: You can stop if you want and you
25 can go on to whatever question you want.
0180------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The -- I don't want the record to suggest that
2 this witness knows what the motion for severe
3 sanctions is all about. Quite frankly, that's not
4 how I read the motion for severe sanctions.
5 It was because of what Mr. Dandar alleged was
6 wrongdoing on the part of the church as it pertained
7 to Mr. Prince. And my -- my order, which has yet to
8 be signed, that -- because we can't seem to agree on
9 the order because I was, quite frankly, trying to
10 make it fairly to keep the peace -- was because I
11 had found that the church had -- had acted
12 improperly in that criminal episode against
13 Mr. Prince. That's the order regarding severe
14 sanctions that I mean to sign when I can get around
15 it to.
16 That was what they said. As far as Mr. Prince
17 and his -- his reason for not being a witness, I
18 never bought it. Didn't buy it at that hearing,
19 don't buy it to this day. I think that if
20 Mr. Dandar wants to use Mr. Prince as a witness in
21 this case, he'll testify gladly.
22 I've said it before, I'll say it again: If
23 he -- if he can stand the baggage when this case
24 goes to trial -- by that I mean the lawyer --
25 whoever the lawyer might be for the case, well, I
0181------------------------------------------------------------------

1 believe, Mr. Prince will be here with bells on.
2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the significance of it is,
3 as far as I'm concerned, not direct --
4 THE COURT: That's not important. It certainly
5 isn't important in front of this witness. You can
6 tell me at the close of the case.
7 I just didn't want the record to suggest that
8 whatever this witness thinks about anything is
9 necessarily what it was or what was presented to
10 this court. She wasn't here. She doesn't know.
11 She doesn't know what argument was made. She
12 certainly doesn't know about my order, which hasn't
13 been signed yet. So, you know.
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q Well, what -- did you direct -- did you and
17 Mr. Minton direct Mr. Prince to no longer be an expert
18 witness for Mr. Dandar?
19 A Yes. We ordered him to resign immediately.
20 Q And was he still being paid by funds from either
21 Mr. Minton or LMT at this point in history?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And did he tell you that he had withdrawn as an
24 expert witness?
25 A Yes.
0182------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q And did you -- when I say you, LMT or Mr. Minton,
2 continue to pay him?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And did until when?
5 A Well, the last time he got paid was a check from
6 me on April 4th of this year.
7 Q And so he had showed -- all you're saying is he
8 showed you an affidavit saying he was withdrawing for a
9 different reason, and you didn't believe -- I take it you
10 didn't believe that reason to be true.
11 A No. That's not what happened.
12 Q Okay. What happened?
13 A He showed me an affidavit which detailed his
14 criminal trial. And the thing that was upsetting about the
15 affidavit was that all through his criminal trial he'd never
16 admitted to drug use, but now with Mr. Dandar having him
17 sign an affidavit in which he admits drug use -- you know,
18 and he didn't get found not guilty in that criminal trial;
19 he got null-prossed.
20 And so Mr. Minton and I had a fit that he'd signed
21 this thing.
22 THE COURT: What happened? Was that a hung
23 jury?
24 THE WITNESS: It was a hung jury.
25 MR. FUGATE: Hung jury.
0183------------------------------------------------------------------

1 THE COURT: And they elected to drop it.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It was a mistrial.
3 MR. FUGATE: That's what I understand.
4 THE COURT: I'd forgotten.
5 A So, you know, "Really, Jesse, are you nuts?
6 You've just totally exposed yourself to reprosecution on
7 this thing if somebody decides that's what they want to do."
8 And so Jesse had a fit and he's all, "Oh, my God. I didn't
9 realize that. That's terrible. We have to go talk to Denis
10 DeVlaming," you know, and this whole thing.
11 That's what the affidavit was about. It was
12 about, you know, this whole, you know, thing of his drugs.
13 BY MR. FUGATE:
14 Q But it also said something about his withdrawing
15 because he was fearful of harassment and no longer wanted to
16 be an expert for Mr. Dandar. Did you know that to be the
17 case?
18 MR. LIROT: Leading question, Judge.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 MR. FUGATE: Let's move on, Judge, so we can --
21 THE COURT: Good. Thank you.
22 BY MR. FUGATE:
23 Q Ms. --
24 THE COURT: The part of the affidavit that
25 Mr. Prince signed that dealt with what -- what
0184------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Prince alleged had happened to him in his
2 criminal trial as far as impropriety on the part of
3 the church, is that the part you're saying is false
4 or is what you're saying is false is that part where
5 he stated under oath why he wanted to withdraw as a
6 witness because he was afraid?
7 THE WITNESS: Right. That part.
8 THE COURT: That part?
9 THE WITNESS: That part.
10 THE COURT: The first part, you're not
11 suggesting was false.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 BY MR. FUGATE:
16 Q At or about this same time frame that this
17 affidavit by Mr. Prince was signed, had Mr. Minton, to your
18 knowledge, communicated to Mr. Dandar that he wasn't going
19 to fund him anymore?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And did there come a time in that -- I think if
22 I'm correct, where I think we are is August, September of
23 2001 -- did there come a time after that where you know that
24 Mr. Minton gave additional funding to Mr. Dandar?
25 A Yes.
0185------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Can you tell us about that?
2 A Can -- I just want to mention one thing that
3 happened in October with Judge Baird that led up to this.
4 Q All right.
5 A The first time that Mr. Minton started to get that
6 his commitment to the case began to crack, I suppose would
7 be the way to put it, was in October of 2001 when Judge
8 Baird almost put him in jail. And he was evading discovery
9 and trying everything he could think of to keep from having
10 to answer these questions in deposition about these checks
11 and all this stuff. And you know, to the point where at one
12 point he refused to even go to Florida to testify in the
13 deposition. And I went into that hearing --
14 THE COURT: I really don't think we have to go
15 here. No, you can't go there. You're going to
16 answer his question. Move to your question.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 BY MR. FUGATE:
19 Q Well, was there a time -- and this will get to the
20 next question -- was there a time when Mr. Minton took the
21 Fifth Amendment or invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege in
22 some deposition or a deposition?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And was there ever a discussion about the
25 questions that he had invoked the Fifth Amendment on, with
0186------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mr. Dandar, that you were present?
2 A Yes. With regard to the checks.
3 Q Can you tell us about that? When and where was
4 it?
5 A We were in New Hampshire.
6 Q And approximately when was it?
7 A As I recall.
8 Sometime in the fall of 2001. Perhaps September.
9 Early October. I don't remember when his deposition was
10 exactly.
11 Q And what was the discussion?
12 A Mr. Minton was saying --
13 MR. LIROT: Who was the discussion with?
14 THE COURT: Mr. Minton --
15 THE WITNESS: Mr. --
16 THE COURT: And Mr. Dandar, I think she --
17 I'm sorry. Maybe she didn't say. Who was the
18 discussion with?
19 MR. FUGATE: I thought she did, but --
20 THE COURT: I thought she did.
21 MR. FUGATE: -- who was the discussion with?
22 THE WITNESS: It was with the three of us. I
23 was in the room with Mr. Minton.
24 EXAMINATION
25
0187------------------------------------------------------------------

1 BY THE COURT:
2 Q And all you said was the Fifth Amendment regarding
3 the checks. I don't know what checks we're talking about?
4 What checks?
5 A There were two checks that Mr. Minton gave to
6 Mr. Dandar.
7 Q The $500,000 check and the 250 --
8 A I'm sorry, there was one check at that time.
9 Q One check. Okay.
10 A It was the 500,000.
11 Q So I know what check you're talking about now.
12 A Yeah.
13 And you know, Mr. Dandar said, "Just concentrate
14 on the checks you wrote. Just concentrate on the checks you
15 wrote."
16 Well, I understood that to mean and Mr. Minton
17 understood that to mean that --
18 Q Don't tell us what Mr. Minton understood it to
19 mean. You can tell us what you understood it to mean and
20 anything he may have said, but you can't get inside his
21 head.
22 A Okay. I understood it to mean that he was not to
23 talk about that $500,000 check. So Mr. Minton went into the
24 deposition and pled the Fifth Amendment on those questions
25 and a number of other questions.
0188------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Who told him to do that, if you know? If you
2 know. If you don't know, you don't know.
3 A Well, I believe it was a decision between
4 Mr. Dandar and Mr. Merritt, but I don't know for sure.
5 Q Okay. Well, you seem to be normally around
6 Mr. Minton.
7 A Right.
8 Q Did Mr. Minton get a phone call from someone or --
9 or what? I mean --
10 A Well --
11 Q Were you party to that -- privy to this
12 conversation?
13 A He spoke on the phone with Mr. Dandar and
14 Mr. Merrett.
15 MR. FUGATE: He being Mr. Minton?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 About what by now was a pretty serious effort
18 to avoid answering these questions.
19 BY THE COURT:
20 Q Why -- okay. Tell me this: We just talked about
21 how foolish it was to -- I hope you realize now how foolish
22 it was --
23 A Yes, your Honor, I do.
24 Q -- to try to hide this agreement and try to hide
25 whatever this -- if it was legitimate, if -- if LMT was
0189------------------------------------------------------------------

1 legitimate -- I don't know if it was or not. You said it
2 was -- but if it was and if there was nothing wrong with the
3 agreement, how silly it was to tell a bunch of lies about
4 that.
5 What's the deal with the checks? What's -- why is
6 somebody going to take the Fifth Amendment over a check?
7 Why is somebody not going to talk about a check? What in
8 Mr. Minton's mind or your mind, when you and he talked, was
9 wrong with that?
10 A With the check?
11 Q Where you lie about it, take the Fifth Amendment.
12 Fifth Amendment says I'm going not going to incriminate
13 myself. What was the problem with him writing a check to
14 Mr. Dandar for $500,000?
15 A Well, in fact, there wasn't anything wrong with
16 it. But Mr. Dandar was trying to downplay -- this is my
17 understanding -- two things --
18 Q Well, were you there when Mr. Dandar talked to
19 Mr. Minton about it?
20 A Yes. But not -- but this is my understanding --
21 Q Okay.
22 A -- this isn't what he said.
23 Q Well, that may -- we better hear what he said.
24 A What he said was, "Just testify about the checks
25 you wrote."
0190------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Q Okay. Now, I guess what I'm asking you now, then,
2 is, why would anybody think there's something wrong with it?
3 Criminal. Criminal. Fifth Amendment, we think of as
4 somebody saying, "I don't want to incriminate myself."
5 A Well, I can tell you that Mr. Dandar told
6 Mr. Minton that he hadn't told the court about it and so
7 Mr. Minton shouldn't tell the court about it either. He had
8 also -- he also told Mr. Minton that he hadn't told his
9 trial team about this money and that he was telling his
10 trial team that he was using money out of his retirement
11 fund to fund the case and that he didn't want them to know
12 that he was getting this money from Mr. Minton.
13 Q So Mr. Minton was willing to lie to a court of law
14 to keep Mr. Dandar's employees from finding out about a
15 check?
16 A No. No. But --
17 Q Does Mr. Minton care that little for the truth?
18 A No. No. But again, he was trying to protect
19 Mr. Dandar; he was trying to protect the case. It took
20 quite an enormous amount of pressure being put on him and me
21 for us to make the decision to break with the critic
22 community and come forward and tell the truth. It took an
23 enormous, enormous amount of pressure on us to -- to --
24 Q Pressure brought on you by whom?
25 A By the courts, by -- by the courts. You know,
0191------------------------------------------------------------------

1 this is why I was bringing up this thing about Judge Baird
2 in October. Because Mr. Minton was so distraught about the
3 possibility that Judge Baird was going to put him in jail
4 for contempt for all of his discovery abuse that he began to
5 crack about this whole situation. And so that by December,
6 when Mr. Dandar again approached him for more funding and --
7 you know, really Mr. Minton and I, by that time, were
8 basically staying in his house in New Hampshire and never
9 going out. You know, we were so -- we were in such a state
10 of fear about this situation that we had now gotten
11 ourselves into.
12 And also all of the attacks that were happening
13 from the critics because of Mr. Minton no longer funding the
14 wrongful death case.
15 Q But he was funding the wrongful death case.
16 A No. He had said in -- he had informed Mr. Dandar
17 in August or September that he was no longer going to fund
18 the case. And Mr. Dandar --
19 MR. FUGATE: Of 2001?
20 THE WITNESS: Of 2001. I'm sorry.
21 A And Mr. Dandar had these people on the Internet
22 that he was having post --
23 MR. LIROT: Objection. Foundation.
24 A This is my -- this was his belief and my belief.
25 THE COURT: All right. Then I'll sustain. If
0192------------------------------------------------------------------

[Nomen Nescio]

>From court...@hotmail.com Thu May 02 12:21:47 2002
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu
!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3
From: Court_Watch
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: ROBERT S. MINTON -- SECOND AFFIDAVIT -- APRIL 24, 2002
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 12:21:47 -0400
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 693
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-088.newsdawg.com

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564

Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1064585

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. 00-5682-CI-11, Division 11

ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, by

and through the personal Representative,
DELL LIEBREICH
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS

JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and
DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

Defendants.
____________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
____________________________________/

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT S. MINTON

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

Robert S. Minton, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am over 18 years old, have personal knowledge of the facts set
forth herein, and am otherwise competent to testify in this matter.

2. On March 9, 1997, I met attorney Ken Dandar for the first time
when I participated in a picket in Clearwater, Florida against the
Church of Scientology. The picket focused on the death of Lisa
McPherson. Mr. Dandar was introduced to me by Mr. Lawrence
Wollersheim at the Howard Johnson's Motel on U.S. 19 in Clearwater.
Mr. Dandar had an extensive discussion with Mr. Wollersheim at that
meeting in my presence to learn about the pursuit of other Scientology
corporations and church leaders as a litigation tactic to "go after"
Scientology.

3. I had previously loaned Mr. Wollersheim $700,000 and have since
loaned his attorney, Dan Leipold, $500,000 to assist in their
litigation against Scientology. My money was used in part to pay the
witnesses in that litigation to provide affidavits to support Messrs.
Wollersheim and Leipold's theories. The same witnesses have been used
by Mr. Dandar in this litigation.

4. Until October 1997 my financial involvement against Scientology
was limited to the Wollersheim litigation. At that time, I decided
that the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case would be a far more
effective centerpiece for me and I contacted Mr. Dandar in October
1997 and offered to loan the Estate $100,000 to defray costs and
expenses so this case could become a vehicle to attack Scientology on
a broad scale.

5. That $100,000 and all subsequent amounts, up to a total of
$2,050,000, I loaned to the Estate was specifically for covering the
expenses of litigating the wrongful death case. It was not a personal
loan to Mr. Dandar, and was not to be spent for other purposes or
other cases. The agreement I had with the Estate was that if the case
was won or favorably settled, I would get my money back from the
Estate (with no interest) once the Estate's expenses were covered.

6. Following receipt of my $100,000, Mr. Dandar sent me a letter
telling me that I would have no participation in the control of the
litigation. This self-serving statement quickly became untrue, as Mr.
Dandar immediately began consulting me about the conduct of the
litigation, briefing me on confidential information from the case,
sending me copies of deposition and hearing transcripts, and calling
me for advice. His statements concerning case control became
increasingly untrue throughout my involvement in the case when Mr.
Dandar would do things in the litigation designed to satisfy my wishes
and thus get more money from me.

7. Two days after I sent Mr. Dandar the first $100,000 check, I made
postings to the internet making my views clear - I wanted Scientology
charged with murder. Mr. Dandar then filed his First Amended
Complaint in the wrongful death case, expanding the case and claiming
that Scientology intentionally caused the death of Lisa McPherson.

8. In early December 1997 I first discussed with Mr. Dandar the
possibility that it would be a good idea if the Estate of Lisa
McPherson would agree to donate a substantial part of any proceeds
from this case to an anti-cult group as I believed this would mute
Scientology's criticisms of the Estate and Mr. Dandar and it was a way
for me to recover the funds I had invested in the litigation. Mr.
Dandar told me on or about December 5, 1997, that he had discussed
this matter with the family of Lisa McPherson and they agreed to
donate the "bulk" of any proceeds received, after covering expenses
and Mr. Dandar's contingency fee, to an anti-cult group. I later
testified about this agreement in a deposition in Boston,
Massachusetts on January 13, 1998 in the presence of Mr. Dandar. At
that time, Mr. Dandar told me that the anti-cult group that would
receive the money was FACTNet, an anti-Scientology group started by
Mr. Wollersheim. I was President and on the Board of FACTNet at that
time.

9. Shortly before this deposition, I had met Mr. Dandar at lunch time
at a Starbucks on Cambridge Street in Boston, across from Mass
General. Mr. Dandar was there taking a deposition in a disrelated
case. Mr. Dandar was asking about further funding for the wrongful
death case. He also wanted to know whether I had any offshore funds
that could facilitate the litigation. He told me that with every
dollar that I provided to support the litigation, Scientology would
spend $20.

10. Dell Liebreich and her two sisters, Lee Skelton and Ann Carlson
confirmed in depositions in May 1999 that they had agreed to donate
the bulk of any money to a cult awareness group. Further, Ms.
Liebreich and Ms. Carlson confirmed that they wanted a cult awareness
group named for Lisa McPherson to receive the "bulk" of the proceeds
from the case.

11. As a result of this agreement to pay the proceeds of a judgment
to an entity I controlled, and because the case had now been turned
into a broad attack on Scientology, I continued to provide money to
fund the case, a total of $400,000 through 1998 alone. This money was
used in part to pay witnesses to be used in the wrongful death
litigation. All of these witnesses were ex-Scientologists who had
left Scientology years before Lisa McPherson died, and had no personal
knowledge of any facts surrounding her death.

12. In June 1998 I was featured in a forty-minute segment on Dateline
entitled "The Crusader." The program focused on my activities
concerning Scientology. Throughout the filming of the Dateline
program, Mr. Dandar indicated his excitement at the possibility of
more sensational anti-Scientology coverage on national television,
especially if I could get Dateline to focus on the wrongful death
case. Mr. Dandar told me he was anxious to have any media against
Scientology especially if it would have some impact on the jury pool
in Florida.

13. Mr. Dandar encouraged me to get as much negative media about
Scientology as possible and I gave media interviews whenever I could.
I attended and organized regular picketing of Scientology facilities -
which Mr. Dandar and others in the trial team also attended on
occasion.

14. I also funded production of a movie about Scientology ("The
Profit"). I invested $2.5 million to have two anti-Scientology
critics produce the movie. Along with me, Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks
and other LMT staff, Mr. Dandar also had an acting role in the movie.
Mr. Dandar played an FBI agent. Mr. Dandar felt the movie would help
generate a negative view of Scientology with potential jurors in the
area. The only place in the United States the movie was ever
screened was in Clearwater and Tampa. The movie was of such poor
quality that distribution became impossible.

15. In August 1999, Ms. Brooks and I met with Mr. Dandar in
Philadelphia so that Mr. Dandar could brief us on the status of the
wrongful death case. I complained to Mr. Dandar that he was not
adequately pressing the Scientology aspects of the case and urged him
to make more use of Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince as Scientology
"experts."

16. Ms. Brooks and I told Mr. Dandar that we really wanted him to
focus the case on Scientology and its leadership as I was funding a
case about the "death of a Scientologist on the Introspection
Rundown," not just a "simple wrongful death case." It is my belief
that because I was funding the case, and in order to ensure that I
would continue to do so, Mr. Dandar was willing to shift the emphasis
of the case from a simple wrongful death suit to a case against the
beliefs and practices of Scientology. At the end of this meeting, Mr.
Dandar said this would cost more and I then handed Mr. Dandar a check
for $250,000, bringing the total I had loaned to the Estate at that
time to $750,000.

17. In the fall of 1999 I flew into the Tampa airport and was picked
up by Ms. Brooks and taken to Mr. Dandar's new office on Kennedy
Boulevard in Tampa for a meeting concerning whether Mr. Dandar should
add David Miscavige as a defendant in the wrongful death case.
Attending that meeting in Mr. Dandar's new conference room were Ms.
Brooks, Mr. Prince, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar and myself. The focus of
the discussion was not what the facts were concerning Mr. Miscavige,
but how to pressure him.

18. Mr. Dandar was enthusiastic about this prospect even though there
was no evidence to support it, as he felt it would force Scientology
to the settlement table and would increase the amount of any
settlement that Scientology would agree to. He also stated this would
generate sensational publicity for the case. During the meeting, Dr.
Garko specifically pointed out that there was not a single shred of
evidence to support adding Mr. Miscavige and was opposed to adding him
as a defendant.

19. The whole theory of adding Mr. Miscavige was based on an
affidavit of Jesse Prince dated August 20, 1999, which I have reviewed
and which has been filed in this case, speculating about events in
December 1995, three years after Mr. Prince had left Scientology
staff. This was the pattern used in this and other Scientology cases
I have seen - an attorney comes up with a strategy and gets one of the
paid "Scientology experts" to come up with a theory and write an
affidavit that could be used to support a court filing based purely on
speculation and written with allegations by innuendo.

20. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Dandar accompanied Ms. Brooks, Mr.
Prince and myself down the elevator. Just before the elevator arrived
at the first floor, Mr. Dandar said to us that we could never discuss
this meeting. We all agreed.

21. Subsequently, shortly before I was scheduled to be deposed in the
breach of contract case on October 11-12, 2001, Mr. Dandar asked me,
"Do you remember the meeting that never happened?" I answered, "No,"
and he laughed and said, "You're good! Just remember that answer."

22. During that deposition in October 2001, Mr. Dandar, on
cross-examination, asked me questions to elicit false testimony to
support his position that I had no control over the litigation: "Do
you know of anyone who was involved in the decision-making process to
add David Miscavige or any other Scientologist or Scientology
corporation to the wrongful death case?" I said that I supposed
Michael Garko, Dell Liebreich and Mr. Dandar had discussed it. Mr.
Dandar then asked me if anyone outside of the litigation team was
involved in the decision-making process, and I answered, "I don't
know." These answers were not truthful because Mr. Dandar did not want
me to reveal anything that would indicate that I had any control over
the litigation. He knew my answers were false. Not only did Mr.
Dandar elicit false testimony but he also had coached me to do so.

23. During the summer and fall of 1999 steps were taken to organize
an entity to be called the Lisa McPherson Foundation for the purpose
of being the beneficiary of the bulk of the proceeds of the wrongful
death litigation at some point in the future. This organization was
created with the full knowledge and support of the family of Lisa
McPherson, the Estate through its personal representative, and Ken
Dandar, the attorney for the Estate. In fact, creating this
organization had been suggested by Dell Liebreich, as she testified in
her deposition in May 1999.

24. In October 1999, Mr. Dandar incorporated the organization under
the name Lisa McPherson Trust (LMT). I was the President and sole
shareholder. Mr. Dandar organized the LMT as a for-profit entity but
he told me that we would reincorporate it as a non-profit when it was
time to distribute funds from the wrongful death case. At a dinner on
November 30, 1999, Ms. Liebreich and Mr. Dandar reaffirmed to me their
commitment to donate the bulk of the proceeds of the case to the LMT
when they visited Clearwater in December 1999 to picket Scientology
and to attend an LMT Board meeting. Subsequent to this reaffirmation
of the Estate's commitment, I made statements on a radio show in
Boston and in an Internet posting dated February 2, 2000, that the
Estate had "promised to give the vast majority of any settlement or
award from trial to the Lisa McPherson Trust."

25. Mr. Dandar put Ms. Liebreich on the Board of Directors of the
LMT, and it was Mr. Dandar who got Ms. Liebreich's agreement to use
the Lisa McPherson name. Mr. Dandar thought it would be good for the
"image" of the case to have her on the LMT Board. Ms. Liebreich
indicated her full support of the activities of the LMT. Mr. Dandar
was very happy about my setting up the LMT, as it was going to get
"Scientology onto the front page of the newspaper" and help create a
favorable jury pool for his case. I purchased a building in downtown
Clearwater for the LMT for $325,000 in November 1999. When we first
opened the LMT for business on January 6, 2000, Ms. Liebriech was the
first person we called. She congratulated us and gave us her full
support. This phone call was recorded on videotape.

26. I gathered the most vocal Scientology critics and most of the
anti-Scientology witnesses under the umbrella of the LMT. I paid the
witnesses through my funding of the LMT and put other critics on the
LMT Board of Advisors. Because I was funding both the case and its
witnesses, the wrongful death case and the LMT became virtually
interchangeable.

27. I paid for Mr. Prince to move to Clearwater and loaned him
$50,000 to buy a home. I arranged for Mr. Prince to work for Mr.
Dandar as his expert. He was paid $5,000 per month with the money I
gave Mr. Dandar. I had Stacy Brooks set up the LMT and paid her
$5,000 a month as the LMT president. Both were being paid by me, one
through Mr. Dandar and the other through the LMT. In the spring of
2000, I had Mr. Prince transfer from Dandar & Dandar to the LMT, but
his salary of $5,000 remained the same. David Cecere came to
Clearwater to be executive director of the LMT at $5,000 per month and
later, after his employment at the LMT was terminated, he became a
Scientology "expert" for Mr. Dandar in the wrongful death case. Ms.
Brooks gave disaffected former Scientologist Teresa Summers a job at
the LMT earning $3,500 per month, after Mr. Dandar had put her on the
witness list in the wrongful death case. I put Gerry Armstrong on the
Advisory Board of the LMT after Mr. Dandar put him on his witness
list. I had earlier given Mr. Armstrong $100,000. I later learned he
used these funds to forward an attack on Scientology and pursue a
lawsuit against David Miscavige and various Scientology entities.
Others on the "Advisory Board" of LMT included Ken Dandar, Dan
Leipold, Dell Liebreich, Keith Henson, Grady Ward and Arnie Lerma, all
of whom I financially supported in their litigation with Scientology.

28. On May 24, 2000, in deposition in the wrongful death case, I
reaffirmed the agreement between the Estate and myself regarding the
case proceeds going to the LMT. Soon thereafter, Mr. Dandar,
accompanied by Dr. Garko, his trial consultant, came to the offices of
the LMT and expressed his extreme concern to me about these public
statements and answers in depositions concerning the agreement between
the Estate, the Lisa McPherson Trust and myself, and stated that we
would have to "backtrack big time" on these statements. The reason he
gave was that my financial involvement in this case, as well as the
Estate's commitment to me concerning the proceeds, were allowing the
Church of Scientology the opportunity to characterize the relationship
as an inappropriate "business deal" (which is exactly what it was, a
"business deal") between the Estate and myself.

29. On December 1, 2000, after a board meeting of the LMT, Ms.
Liebreich reconfirmed to me on behalf of the Estate the commitment
that they had made to donate the bulk of the proceeds from the
wrongful death case to the Lisa McPherson Trust.

30. Later in December 2000, Mr. Dandar phoned me and said he had an
affidavit for me to sign concerning a number of points, including the
Estate's agreement with me. I asked that he forward the affidavit to
me in New Hampshire. Shortly before December 13, 2000, an affidavit
was couriered to me from Mr. Dandar that stated in part that "Dell
Liebreich has made no promise or commitment to make any donation to
the LMT, and is under no obligation to make any such donation." I
called Mr. Dandar and told him I was very uncomfortable with this
affidavit, because this statement was completely false and
contradictory to all previous testimony. The statement also made me
uncomfortable because I saw it as an opportunity for the Estate to
renege on the agreement and that was in large part why I was funding
the case. Mr. Dandar explained to me that it was critical "for the
good of the case" to make this agreement appear to "go away" in the
eyes of the Court and the Church of Scientology. He also told me that
he would get Ms. Liebreich to sign a similar false affidavit for the
same purpose and he in fact had her do that on December 20, 2000.
Dandar also filed a false affidavit in this case that there was no
agreement. He also assured me that the agreement was still real, but
that it would henceforth be secret.

31. I am aware that Mr. Dandar subsequently used these three
affidavits to make misrepresentations to the Circuit Court and to the
Second District Court of Appeals. In September 2001, during my
deposition in this case, I was asked about the agreement I had with
the Estate, and because I had signed the affidavit of December 13,
2000, I asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege. In another deposition in
the Breach of Contract case, in October 2001, I outright denied the
existence of such an agreement and "backtracked" as much as possible
by saying that I had "misunderstood" various communications from Mr.
Dandar. I did this because Mr. Dandar insisted it would "protect" me
as Scientology had been closing in with discovery orders that I was
seeking to avoid.

32. It was my observation and intent that the LMT was not only the
vehicle designated to receive the proceeds of the wrongful death case,
it was also used to avoid discovery in the case and disguise the fact
that witnesses were being paid. The LMT, represented by Mr. Dandar,
maintained that it was separate from the wrongful death case in order
to avoid discovery and prevent witnesses from being deposed. Mr.
Dandar filed many motions on behalf of LMT and me to try to prevent
discovery requests from going forward. The truth was that LMT was
inextricably linked to this litigation.

33. To frustrate Scientology's discovery efforts, the LMT refused to
produce evidence subpoenaed in the case, "lost" evidence and removed
evidence from the premises. In one incident, Ms. Brooks informed me
that LMT's attorney, John Merrett, who worked closely with Mr. Dandar,
advised Ms. Brooks to leave unedited video footage in the hallway and
it would "be taken care of." These videos of witness statements had
been ordered produced by the Court. In another incident, on my
instructions, the hard drives from the LMT computers were removed from
the LMT before the Special Master put in place a stay regarding the
evidence in the LMT though they too had been compelled by subpoena.

ADDITIONAL MONIES

34. Several weeks before my deposition on May 24, 2000, I had several
conversations with Mr. Dandar regarding additional funds he said he
needed for the trial of the wrongful death case. He asked me for
enough money to take him through the trial. He told me an additional
$500,000 would be sufficient. He told me he had a way to hide the
funds from Scientology and told me I should arrange payments in such a
way that the funds could not be traced back to me. He told me he
would not put these funds in his client trust account and that he had
another account that Scientology could never find.

35. Mr. Dandar also told me he did not want the money to appear to
come from me because my financial involvement was making the case too
messy and that he wanted to conceal the money from his employees, Dr.
Garko and Tom Haverty, to justify cutting back payments to them. He
told me I should never disclose these funds were from me. From this
point forward, Mr. Dandar told me that he would tell his employees he
was funding the litigation from his retirement account.

36. Following these conversations with Mr. Dandar about the $500,000,
I caused a check dated May 1, 2000 in that amount to be issued to Mr.
Dandar by the Union Bank of Switzerland, payable at Chase Manhattan
Bank in New York. I handed this check to Mr. Dandar at the Bombay
Bicycle Club in Clearwater, Florida a few days after May 1, 2000.

37. I was later deposed about the amount of money I had provided to
fund the wrongful death case. Prior to my deposition Mr. Dandar told
me to ignore this check for $500,000 and only concentrate "on the
checks you have written." When asked in deposition how much money I
had provided, I testified falsely and omitted this $500,000 check.

38. I was also served with a deposition subpoena in the wrongful
death case to produce all documents relating to my payments to Mr.
Dandar or his law firm. Mr. Dandar told me not to produce this check
for $500,000. He said that he had not disclosed this check to the
Court and that I should not disclose it either. He told me that I did
not have to disclose the check because I did not write it. He said
the check came from "Fred." Fred was Mr. Dandar's nickname for me as
the source of funds that would not be traced back to me.

39. By August 2001, I was extremely reluctant to advance any further
funds to Mr. Dandar for the wrongful death case and advised him
accordingly. I no longer believed that Mr. Dandar and Ms. Liebreich
planned to honor their commitment to me regarding the proceeds of the
case. We had been forced to dissolve the Lisa McPherson Trust because
it had become mired in the wrongful death case.

40. I had already loaned approximately $1.8 million to the Estate
through its attorney, Mr. Dandar, and he then approached me for more
money starting in late December 2001. By February 2002, there was a
certain desperation in his pleas for more money. I did not want to
provide any further funds and refused to meet with him in January 2002
in Nashville, Tennessee.

41. The next request for a meeting by Mr. Dandar happened just prior
to his going to the Cayman Islands in January or February 2002. He
called me in New Hampshire prior to this trip and asked me to meet him
in the Caribbean on the Wednesday of the week that he would be in the
Caymans. He also said to me that if I wanted to send him more money,
I could wire it from my bank to a Cayman Islands bank for him. I told
him on the phone that I would see if I could arrange my schedule to
accommodate his request for a meeting. Mr. Dandar told me the name of
the hotel I should book in the Caymans. Once he arrived in the
Caymans, he called me again and left a message to make sure I was
going to be able to meet him there. I did not take his calls, because
I was still uneasy about any further discussions with him about more
money.

42. Once Mr. Dandar returned from the Cayman Islands, he again
contacted me several times. I told him that I had no plans to
travel, but if he wanted to come to New Hampshire he was welcome. A
date was set for the weekend of February 23, 2002. Within 24 hours of
this meeting being arranged, Mr. Dandar called and asked if it was OK
for him to "bring Michael Garko." I said that was fine with me.

43. The next day Mr. Dandar called me again and I mentioned to him
that money discussions would be more complicated with Dr. Garko
around. Mr. Dandar understood perfectly and said we should couch any
discussions concerning any new funding of the case in terms of "Fred"
or "your friends," or "overseas investors."

44. Ms. Brooks and I picked up Messrs. Dandar and Garko at the
Manchester, New Hampshire airport on Saturday and we drove to my home
in Sandown. I began our meeting by informing Mr. Dandar that I no
longer trusted him, the Estate of Lisa McPherson, or Dell Liebreich,
the Estate's personal representative. Ms. Brooks told Mr. Dandar
that she was adamantly against my giving Mr. Dandar any further money
for the wrongful death case because I was getting deeper and deeper
into legal trouble as the case continued. During the course of that
weekend, Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko assured me that "the case has never
been stronger," and that all that was needed was enough money to get
the case through trial.

45. All discussions concerning money in the presence of Dr. Garko
were couched, at Mr. Dandar's insistence, as if the money were not
coming from me but from European "friends" of mine. The purpose of
this masquerade was intended to keep Dr. Garko in the dark about who
was really providing this money.

46. The result of this February 23-24, 2002 meeting was that I told
Mr. Dandar I would see what I could do about additional monies to
support the case. In Dr. Garko's presence I said that I would see if
my "friends overseas" were willing to be of any further assistance.
Another issue of principal concern to me was that people that Mr.
Dandar and the Estate were apparently close to, such as Patricia
Greenway, Deana Holmes, and Shirley Wilson had launched a smear
campaign against me beginning in the fall of 2001. I believed that
the smear campaign was orchestrated by Mr. Dandar to make me feel
guilty about not providing any more funding. I told Mr. Dandar he had
to get these people to stop their campaign against me if he wanted to
get any more money from me. In fact, when Mr. Dandar returned to
Tampa, Patricia Greenway's smear campaign stopped at once.

47. To try to alleviate my concerns about my pending contempt
proceedings, Mr. Dandar (with Dr. Garko present) reviewed with me the
approximately 86 questions that I had previously pled the Fifth
Amendment to and that Judge Schaeffer had ordered me to answer in
deposition. Mr. Dandar asked me the questions to work out how I would
answer each one. It was clear to me that he did this to help me to lie
about the funds that I had given him for the wrongful death case.

48. One question on that list concerned a transfer of funds to the
Lisa McPherson Trust. Mr. Dandar asked me how I planned to answer
this question. I stated that I would tell Kendrick Moxon when he
asked me in deposition that the monies came from an anonymous source
who had contacted me by email using the nickname "The Fat Man." Mr.
Dandar gave me a very skeptical look and said something to the effect
that "Bob, nobody will believe that ridiculous answer."

49. On February 26, 2002, Mr. Dandar sent me a letter that we had
discussed during his visit to New Hampshire. This letter was a
"suck-up" letter because I wanted something in writing from Mr. Dandar
to reassure me that he and the Estate were appreciative of all that I
had done to be of assistance to this case.

50. The second item I wanted confirmation on from Mr. Dandar
concerned the "secret agreement" between the Estate, Mr. Dandar and
me. Shortly after he returned to Tampa, Mr. Dandar called me and
said, "You know I cannot put the secret agreement in writing. If
anyone ever got hold of it, it would ruin the case." However, he
assured me in no uncertain terms that the agreement was still in place
and the funds would go to a group that Ms. Brooks and I would set up
once we prevailed in the wrongful death case. He further went on to
tell me that he wanted to be my attorney for the rest of my life and
that together we would "destroy these evil people."

51. Once Mr. Dandar returned to Tampa from New Hampshire he became so
concerned about maintaining communication with me regarding getting
more money to him that he arranged to have me receive a phone
scrambling device for my telephone in New Hampshire as part of the
"trial team."

52. On March 2, 2002, I received the Privatel Model 960V RSA
Telephone Encryption Device from Rick Spector, of Rick Spector and
Associates, who is Mr. Dandar's videographer/private
investigator/security consultant. The reference on Mr. Spector's
accompanying letter was "McPherson v. Scientology," and the letter
stated, in part, "Ken has asked me to forward the enclosed telephone
encryption device to you [sic] attention and request that it be used
for future conversations between you and other members of the trial
team," and "I do expect it to go a long way toward keeping 'their'
noses out of our business." This letter confirmed my significant
involvement in the case.

53. Mr. Dandar called me several times prior to March 6, 2002, in a
frantic state about money and asked me whether I was going to "come
through for the case" or not. He said that we needed to talk about
this seriously and as privately as possible, and in the absence of two
phone encryption devices, he suggested that we both speak on our
digital cell phones.

54. Subsequently I caused to be issued a check dated March 7, 2002,
in the amount of $250,000 payable to Ken Dandar. Mr. Dandar called me
on the 15th of March to tell me my check had not been received at his
office. I told him I had sent it to his PO Box. I included the check
with other papers so it wouldn't be seen by his staff. I enclosed the
check in an essay from Caroline Letkeman. (Caroline Letkeman had
written this essay in an LMT essay contest and was paid a few thousand
dollars as a prize by the LMT. In response to an inquiry from Mr.
Dandar, I had advised him to use Ms. Letkeman as an expert witness.)
I told Mr. Dandar that the check was inside that document, at page 23.
Mr. Dandar, who was out of town, told me he sent Donna West to pick up
the overnight mail pack and then Mr. Dandar called me to confirm it
had been received.

CONFIDENTIAL AND IMPROPER INFORMATION

55. In Mr. Dandar's self-serving letter to me of October 9, 1997, he
stated that I was to have no control over the litigation. In
contrast to this statement, I was routinely informed of confidential
information concerning the case, consulted as to its progress and sent
deposition transcripts and documents. There have been a number of
instances in which confidential or improper information has been
imparted to me, either directly by Mr. Dandar or through his agents,
Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince, at Mr. Dandar's suggestion. For example,
Mr. Dandar advised me about his early mediation discussions in June or
July 1998 with the Church of Scientology. I later posted information
about those discussions on the Internet, not realizing the information
was supposed to be confidential. I learned from Keith Henson that he
had obtained copies of autopsy photos from Larry Bedore in the Medical
Examiner's office before they were made public. I was also told about
the content of depositions, many of which were sealed. Several
deposition transcripts were copied and delivered to me at the LMT
offices. The most recent deposition that was sent to me in email by
Mr. Dandar was that of Teresa Summers. Mr. Dandar said to me on the
phone before he sent the transcript, "You didn't get it from me."
Subsequently, Mr. Dandar filed a sanctions motion against Mr. Moxon
for not asking Ms. Summers whether or not she wanted the deposition
confidential. Mr. Dandar gave me a copy of a Knowledge Report by
Brenda Hubert and told me not to tell anybody I had gotten it from
him. I posted it on the Internet, in early 2000. When I was asked in
deposition about this document, I followed Dandar's instructions, and
said it arrived anonymously in an envelope postmarked from Florida and
that I didn't know whom it had come from.

56. With more pressure being brought to bear on me through discovery
orders, I became increasingly concerned that I was getting in more
legal trouble. In August 2001, I asked Ms. Brooks to call Ms.
Liebreich to set up a meeting with her. After discussion with Ms.
Brooks, it was my belief that Mr. Dandar was not informing his client
about the trouble I was getting into by advising me to lie in
deposition to protect him and the case. I learned that Ms. Liebreich
refused to meet with Ms. Brooks after Mr. Dandar advised her not to,
and at that point I began to be extremely concerned about my position
and the possibility that I could be prosecuted for perjury. I spoke
to Ms. Brooks about this and she and I discussed how to distance me
and the LMT from the wrongful death case in every possible way. Based
on that discussion, Ms. Brooks and I both spoke to Mr. Prince and told
him we wanted him to withdraw as an expert witness in the wrongful
death case. Because we were paying him, Mr. Prince wrote a letter to
Mr. Dandar withdrawing as his expert. Ms. Brooks also formally
withdrew as a witness. On August 24, 2001, John Merrett, an attorney
representing me and the LMT in Florida, wrote an e-mail on my behalf
informing Mr. Dandar that I would provide no further funding for the
case and that Mr. Prince would no longer be his expert.

57. Mr. Dandar responded by filing a motion for severe sanctions
against Scientology, falsely stating that his expert Jesse Prince had
withdrawn because Mr. Prince was frightened of being harassed by
Scientology. Mr. Dandar drafted an affidavit for Mr. Prince to sign
regarding the alleged harassment even though he knew Mr. Prince had
withdrawn for other reasons. Mr. Dandar filed this false affidavit
with the Court and used it as a basis for sanctions against
Scientology.

58. I became increasingly concerned with the perjury I had been
involved in and the possibility that I could be prosecuted. I
authorized my attorneys to contact Scientology's attorneys in early
February 2002 to initiate settlement discussions. My initial intent
was to extricate myself from this litigation and simply walk away
without affecting the course of this litigation. With my attorney,
Stephen Jonas, Ms. Brooks and I met with Scientology representatives
in New York. We tried to extract concessions from Scientology
concerning the two upcoming contempt hearings I faced - one before
Judge Schaeffer and one before Judge Baird - as well as a deposition
in the breach of contract case that was also scheduled within the next
two weeks. Scientology refused any concessions whatsoever.
Scientology made it very clear there were pre-conditions to talking
settlement, that they suspected I had been less than forthcoming in
both the wrongful death case and the breach of contract case, and that
any settlement discussions that took place would have to be predicated
on my telling the truth in those cases.

59. I called Mr. Dandar on the evening of March 28, 2002, and he
said, "Hi, Fred!" I said, "This is not 'Fred,'" in a very stern voice,
and said, "This is Bob Minton." I then told him that he needed to
arrange a meeting with his client, Ms. Liebreich, so that the four of
us (including Ms. Brooks) could discuss the wrongful death case. Mr.
Dandar said he would contact Ms. Liebreich and get back to us. The
next night I called Mr. Dandar and told him that we wanted to meet to
talk about dropping the wrongful death case. I told him that after
consultation with my counsel in Boston, I knew I had to be truthful
concerning all matters in this case, starting with the deposition
scheduled for April 8, 2002, in the breach of contract case.
Specifically, I told Mr. Dandar that I would be revealing the
existence of the $500,000 check issued to him by Union Bank of
Switzerland (UBS) in May 2000 and the March 7, 2002 UBS check for
$250,000. Mr. Dandar said that I couldn't possibly disclose that
information, that he had not disclosed this to the court and it would
land him in serious trouble. Mr. Dandar was quite frantic about this
and said I didn't need to reveal the checks as they did not have my
name on them, and, as he had said several times previously, "I've told
you before to just concentrate on the checks you have written." He
said to me that he had suspected from my call the night before that I
wanted to talk about dropping the case and, after advising his client
of his suspicion, he said Ms. Liebreich did not want to meet with us.
He said he had instructed her not to answer the phone so that we
couldn't speak with her. I made it very clear to Mr. Dandar that he
and I would both be destroyed because of the perjury if he continued
this case. He proposed that we meet him in Cleveland on Wednesday or
Thursday, because he had a heart checkup there on Tuesday.

60. The next morning I called Mr. Dandar again. I kept insisting
that I had to tell the truth. Mr. Dandar repeated that there was no
way that the two UBS checks could be revealed. When I kept insisting I
had to tell the truth, he said he did not want Ms. Brooks and me to
meet him in Cleveland or anywhere else, because, "it would give him a
heart attack."

61. In light of this affidavit, I hereby recant any false statement I

have made under oath that may contradict my sworn statements in this
affidavit.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

ss. Robert S. Minton
____________________________________
ROBERT S. MINTON

STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me to be true and
correct to the best of his ability this 24th day of April, 2002, by
Robert S. Minton. He is personally known to me and did take an oath.

ss. Suzanne Davidson
________________________________________
Notary Public

[Anonymous]

176

1 MR. FUGATE: I'm moving on then, Judge.

2 BY MR. FUGATE:

3 Q How about --

4 MR. DANDAR: It's Friday.

5 MR. FUGATE: It is Friday. Thank goodness.

6 BY MR. FUGATE:

7 Q How about Mr. Ward? Did you arrange for him to

8 come here and, if you did, what did he do?

9 MR. DANDAR: Same objection, outside of the

10 scope of all their motions.

11 THE COURT: I mean, maybe you can help to tell

12 me what this has to do with. It's lost on me.

13 MR. FUGATE: All right. Let me try it this

14 way.

15 BY MR. FUGATE:

16 Q Were there any discussions with Mr. Dandar about

17 the formation of the LMT? I know I'm jumping ahead here,

18 but -- and purposes that you both discussed of utilizing the

19 LMT for?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And could you tell us what you recall of those

22 discussions?

23 A Well, the LMT was going to be, you know, sort of

24 the leading anti-Scientology group. And it was going to be

25 based here in Florida, in Clearwater.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

177

1 Q Why did it have to be based in Clearwater?

2 A Well, it would be more in Scientology's face that

3 way. That, you know, this -- this is where their spiritual

4 headquarters is located. And if you were within the same --

5 you know, Clearwater being a very small town, you would

6 obviously have lots of interactions with Scientology.

7 Q In-your-face interactions?

8 A Yes. And this would generate lots of media, you

9 know. It would also -- you know, the organization was also

10 very clearly set up to help people who, you know, had

11 problems of some sort with Scientology --

12 Q Was --

13 A -- you know.

14 Q Was there any discussion about causing media

15 attention?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And can you tell us about that?

18 THE COURT: All I care about is any discussions

19 he had with Mr. Dandar.

20 MR. FUGATE: I should --

21 A Yes.

22 THE COURT: This idea of being in Scientology's

23 face, putting the group here, was your idea, wasn't

24 it?

25 THE WITNESS: It was something that was

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

178

1 discussed with Mr. Dandar, too.

2 BY MR. FUGATE:

3 Q Well, let me ask you --

4 A It was my -- it was my idea to set up this group,

5 you know, this discussing this matter, you know, going back

6 even to the summer of --

7 MR. FUGATE: I think the Judge is asking you to

8 confine discussions to you and Mr. Dandar.

9 A That is what I was going to do here.

10 BY MR. FUGATE:

11 Q I'm sorry?

12 A I'm sorry. Even going back to the summer of 1999,

13 this was discussed. You know, this was -- you know, the

14 whole concept of putting this organization or creating this

15 organization was an idea that -- that the three sisters were

16 talking about.

17 Q When you say the three sisters --

18 A I mean Dell Liebreich, Ann Carlson and Lee

19 Skelton. And so even back in the summer of '99, we were

20 discussing -- I mean, Mr. Dandar and I were discussing the

21 creation of this group.

22 You know, there was -- there was -- Stacy Brooks

23 was somebody who was saying that she would prefer to see the

24 thing located in -- located in Washington. And Mr. Dandar

25 and I were both anxious to have it in Florida.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

179

1 Q And were there discussions about why you wanted to

2 have it in Florida, between you and Mr. Dandar?

3 A Yes. You know --

4 Q And can you tell us what was discussed as to why

5 it needed to be in Florida?

6 A Well, this was -- this was where the action was.

7 This was where this case was. You know, this organization

8 was going to be named after the lady who this case was all

9 about.

10 Q Lisa McPherson?

11 A Lisa McPherson. Yes.

12 Q Whose idea was it to use her name for this

13 organization?

14 A Mr. Dandar's.

15 Q Did you have to get authorization -- did you, sir,

16 have to get authorization to use Lisa McPherson's name?

17 A Well, I said to him, you know, "I think we should

18 have some authorization to use this name."

19 Q Did you get authorization to use the name?

20 A He said that he talked to Dell, and Dell said it

21 was perfectly acceptable to her.

22 Q And did you ever have a conversation with Dell

23 Liebreich yourself where she authorized that use to you?

24 A I don't believe I did.

25 Q Did she ever acknowledge that she had authorized

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

180

1 it, to you?

2 A Mmm, I don't think so.

3 Q I see her name on the board of directors. How did

4 she get on the board of directors?

5 A Mr. Dandar thought it would be a good idea for her

6 to be on the board, as well as one of the other family

7 members. I remember it was another -- a younger generation

8 family member that Mr. Dandar thought would be appropriate,

9 so there would be a continuity from the family's

10 perspective, because the three -- the three sisters are

11 fairly elderly, you know, when they passed away, that there

12 would still be a younger generation relative of Lisa

13 McPherson connected with the organization.

14 THE COURT: Who might that be? I just don't

15 know.

16 THE WITNESS: Her name is Kim Krenek.

17 BY MR. FUGATE:

18 Q Is she listed on the exhibit, one name up from

19 Dell Liebreich?

20 A Yes, she is.

21 THE COURT: Thanks.

22 BY MR. FUGATE:

23 Q Now, could you -- let me ask you this. Were there

24 discussions about picketing that took place between you and

25 Mr. Dandar?

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

181

1 A Mmm, yes.

2 Q And can you tell us about those discussions?

3 A Well, he --

4 THE COURT: Are we going to go into picketing

5 now, a different area?

6 MR. FUGATE: Yes.

7 THE COURT: Why don't we stop. It is 25 after,

8 I think.

9 MR. FUGATE: Fine with me, Judge.

10 THE COURT: Right there. We'll pick it up on

11 picketing.

12 MR. FUGATE: Pick up at picketing.

13 THE COURT: We'll be in recess until Tuesday.

14 Monday I have to be in Tallahassee. So I'll see you

15 all nine o'clock on Tuesday.

16 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, your Honor.

17 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida

Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

182

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2

3 STATE OF FLORIDA )

4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter,
certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically
6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is

a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

7

I further certify that I am not a relative,

8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor

am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'

9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I

financially interested in the action.

10

11 DATED this 19th day of May, 2002.

12

13

14 ______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500