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



          3                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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

          7             Plaintiff,

          8   vs.

              and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,

         14   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
                                  Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
              DATE:               May 3, 2002, morning session.
              PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
         17                       St. Petersburg, Florida.

         18   BEFORE:             Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
                                  Circuit Judge.
              REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
         20                       Notary Public,
                                  State of Florida at large.





2 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 12 MS. HELENA KOBRIN MOXON & KOBRIN 13 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 14 Attorney for David Houghton. 15 MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and 16 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 17 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service 18 Organization. 19 MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor 20 New York, New York 10003 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 21 Organization. 22 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 23 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 24 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 25
3 1 2 ALSO PRESENT: 3 Ms. Donna West Ms. Dell Liebreich 4 Mr. Rick Spector Mr. Allan Cartwright 5 Ms. Lara Cartwright Ms. Sarah Heller 6 Mr. Ben Shaw Ms. Joyce Earl 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5 1 THE COURT: I forgot to tell you, I think they 2 have 400 jurors summoned for a -- 3 MR. WIENBERG: We're all going to be 4 contributing to the city of Clearwater. 5 THE COURT: Exactly. 6 And remind me, if this case goes forward, to 7 discuss with you jury matters, kind of. We will, 8 ahead of time -- as I understand it, civil jurors 9 are selected south and north of Ulmerton Road, which 10 is the way it's always been done. Criminal jurors 11 are selected countywide. If there's going to be a 12 problem with the civil jurors that way, then we may 13 want to, as much as I would dislike the drive, go to 14 the criminal complex, pick the jury where they're 15 summonsed every day. We could go day-to-day, 16 day-to-day, until we had a jury, and then bring them 17 down here. 18 So I don't know if that's going to be an issue. 19 I could do the same thing down here. But they're 20 going to be different sides of the dividing line. 21 And if that's going to be an issue, I want it 22 raised, I want it heard, so that -- so that the jury 23 coordinator can figure out what we want to do there. 24 As is my custom, I'll tell you what I've had a 25 chance to get through last night. And it wasn't
6 1 everything. I did the best I could, but I just 2 couldn't read any more law about 1:00. 3 But for once I took your cases first. I took 4 the defense cases and read all of them. Maybe 5 because it was a smaller packet. 6 I did have a chance to read the original 7 affidavit of Jesse Prince. And I see now that -- 8 why there's going to be a motion for summary 9 judgment, and I see now what the complaint is really 10 about. I frankly went back and reread it. I think 11 that we -- that the allegations are clearly a -- 12 either intentional act or -- or culpable negligence 13 manslaughter. And I -- I even brought some of the 14 criminal law in here and the standard jury 15 instructions, went back and reviewed what 16 manslaughter is. 17 Manslaughter can be by intentional act or by 18 culpable negligence. Which we all know what that 19 is. If you don't, read the jury instructions and 20 you'll find it. 21 I think, as I read the complaint, that that is 22 the path that the plaintiff has alleged. And I 23 think Mr. Dandar confirmed that yesterday. I think 24 that I probably misspoke. And a lot of that was 25 just due to the fact that I guess I thought the
7 1 case -- you know how it is when you just don't read 2 a complaint; I really hadn't read that complaint 3 very carefully. As I read it, I probably have 4 erred. The mere fact that somebody isn't a party or 5 is dismissed as a party doesn't mean that the person 6 can't be mentioned in the proof. So summary 7 judgment's going to be -- Mr. Fugate had indicated 8 there would be two summary judgments forthcoming at 9 some point in time. You'll file it, we'll hear it. 10 If there's -- if there's an issue of fact, then 11 obviously it'll go to the jury. And that's the 12 tack -- I was wrong yesterday. So we'll work that 13 out at a later proceeding as to exactly what -- what 14 parts of the complaint can go forward, and if some 15 can't, what those are. That really isn't for this 16 hearing. And I -- 17 Except for the fact that I do think that what 18 was stated as to whatever Mr. Prince's involvement 19 was to get the case in the present posture may have 20 some -- some bearing. 21 Maybe that's why judges are passivists, so they 22 just sit back and don't say too much, and then they 23 don't have to renege on what they said. 24 In any event, I read the -- as I said, all of 25 the law. I read the original affidavit of
8 1 Mr. Prince. 2 I did not read your notice of filing excerpts 3 of Mr. Minton's depositions because I had really 4 kind of read them throughout. I assume that you'll 5 be referring to what you want to refer to in this 6 hearing, so I didn't take the time to read all of 7 that once I realized that it's the four different 8 depositions, and I assume you're going to refer to 9 what you think is important. 10 I did read notice of filing affidavit in 11 opposition that was filed as an affidavit by 12 Mr. Prince, in its entirety. I did read as many of 13 the defense cases -- I'm sorry -- yeah. I said 14 defense. I get the parties all confused. 15 I read the plaintiff's cases, all of the 16 plaintiff's cases. I read the defendant's cases 17 real quick. I just kind of glanced through them. I 18 noticed that you all refer to some of the same 19 cases. I probably got -- 20 Well, I see, at page -- at tab 12, I'm 21 underlining, and I see that on 14 I made some 22 comments. So I haven't finished that. I'll take it 23 home again this weekend and try to read through the 24 rest of the law. 25 I read enough of the law to be -- to be
9 1 persuaded that I must do two things here. And that 2 is, on any disqualification motion, it appears there 3 needs to be an evidentiary hearing and there needs 4 to be findings of fact. I assume therefore that 5 means whether the court grants disqualification or 6 doesn't grant disqualification, there needs to be a 7 full evidentiary hearing and finding of fact that 8 can be reviewed. So we're going to go forward today 9 with the evidentiary hearing. 10 I also read a case, I believe, provided by the 11 defendant, that talked about allegations of fraud. 12 Says, "The court should adhere to due process, 13 adversarial practice and evidentiary rule in 14 conducting an inquiry into charges that fraud have 15 been perpetrated on the court." I believe that was 16 a dismissal of the charge. I think it was one of 17 our local judges, actually. When I -- I read that 18 and I also saw another case that seems to say that 19 before the court should consider dismissing the 20 case, there should be an evidentiary hearing. 21 Putting all of that together, I think that it 22 would behoove us to go on ahead and have the 23 evidentiary hearing, and we shall do that. 24 I'm still fairly comfortable with the reading 25 of the transcripts. However, I'm assuming that both
10 1 Mr. Dandar will be testifying before me, so that I 2 can observe him, and Mr. Minton will be as well. If 3 that doesn't happen, then this court is going to 4 have to judge credibility. And in all probability, 5 I need -- I need that. I mean, I think as long as 6 there's some testimony where I can observe the 7 witness and see the demeanor of the witness while 8 testifying, the types of things I would normally do. 9 Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes 10 you have to look to the words that are spoken and 11 how it makes sense. But sometimes it does. So if 12 I'm going to be judging credibility, I'm going to 13 have to see both of those persons live, at least in 14 part. 15 So I know Mr. Dandar's going to testify this 16 morning, so that would be an opportunity for me to 17 observe him. And I assume Mr. Minton is coming in 18 on Monday, and that would be an opportunity to 19 observe him. 20 MR. FUGATE: That's correct, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: So as long as I'm able to observe 22 these people in -- in some fashion in testimony 23 before me, I'm still comfortable taking the rest of 24 it and introducing it as part of this hearing in 25 their testimony, because I think I'll have an
11 1 adequate opportunity to observe them. 2 If that's going to be an issue, in fairness -- 3 I could understand it; I could understand why you'd 4 want me to say, "You've got to see it all," and I'll 5 do that. But I think if we're still in agreement 6 that as long as I see both of the -- what I would 7 call principal witnesses, as to some of the issues, 8 that I can -- I can judge their credibility by 9 seeing them in part, that's fine. 10 So if you all are still comfortable with that, 11 that's fine. If you decide you're not, let me know. 12 Let's see. 13 So we're going to have an evidentiary hearing. 14 I read a case, kind of a brief case, that kind 15 of implied that an attorney's misdeeds could cause a 16 case to be dismissed and allow the person to have an 17 action against the attorney, or at least they said 18 the judge didn't abuse her discretion, even though 19 the appellate court wouldn't have done that. So you 20 know, I've read enough now where I feel comfortable 21 that I have an understanding of the issues much 22 better than I did before. 23 Thank goodness the perjury cases I read said 24 what I thought they would say. I did forget this. 25 But materiality is an issue for the court alone. So
12 1 that's a matter of law. So I'm going to have to 2 make that determination as a matter of law. 3 And there's another element in there that we 4 tend to forget about, and it can be critical in this 5 case, particularly as it may pertain to all of the 6 witnesses, and that is that they not only give false 7 testimony, but that they know that it's false. In 8 other words, that they know when they're making it 9 that it's false testimony. 10 Materiality, as I said, is an issue of law. 11 So having had a chance -- 12 I was thinking that we presented that to the 13 jury, to be quite candid. But apparently not. 14 So I learned something last night, got myself 15 refreshed. You know, I hate to tell you all this, 16 but fortunately, I don't have to deal with these 17 issues every day. So it was good that I had this 18 law to look at to see where we're going. I think I 19 have enough direction now that I -- from the cases 20 provided, that I know what I need to be listening 21 to, and will do so, and will complete the reading of 22 the cases provided to me by the church this weekend. 23 I don't imagine we're going to finish today. 24 So by the time Monday rolls around, hopefully I'll 25 have had a chance to read everybody's cases. Okay?
13 1 So that's where we are. 2 So with that in mind, we might as well begin to 3 complete the evidentiary hearing begun by Judge 4 Baird. And I assume that at some point in time, 5 since this testimony will not be a part of this 6 proceeding, that we had better -- and I have copies, 7 but I'd sure like to keep my copies -- we had better 8 introduce into evidence in this proceeding the total 9 transcript, copy of the total transcript of the 10 hearing before Judge Baird. And I'm talking now 11 about the evidentiary hearing where there was cross 12 examination and that type of thing, the two days of 13 testimony. 14 MR. WIENBERG: Why don't we just call that 15 Court Exhibit 1? 16 THE COURT: That would be fine. Court 17 Exhibit 1, agreed to by both sides. That would be 18 testimony the court would consider as if it was 19 given live in front of her. 20 MR. LIROT: Agreed to. 21 THE COURT: Agreed. 22 (Court's Exhibit Number 1 marked.) 23 MR. WIENBERG: And just as in that hearing, we 24 would invoke the rule as it relates to witnesses. 25 THE COURT: Okay. The -- Madam Clerk, I can't
14 1 give that to you yet, but somebody will provide a 2 copy of this to the clerk as the court's exhibit at 3 some point. I don't -- I can't give her mine 4 because I need it. If I give her mine, I don't have 5 one. 6 MR. FUGATE: We'll -- we'll -- we'll get a copy 7 and make sure that Mr. Lirot -- oh -- 8 THE COURT: You know what I'm talking about? I 9 don't need the day where Mr. Minton testified in his 10 contempt hearing before Judge Baird. That's not 11 what I perceive we're supposed to be doing; the full 12 evidentiary hearing with the due process, 13 adversarial practice. And so that wasn't it. 14 That's a different proceeding. 15 MR. WIENBERG: Well, we'll get it together and 16 by Monday we'll -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. Right. 18 MR. WIENBERG: -- we'll -- 19 MR. DANDAR: All right. So I believe where the 20 case left off in front of Judge Baird was the -- the 21 church, who was plaintiff there, had concluded with 22 Mr. Dandar, on calling him again, or recall or 23 finishing up or whatever it was, and Mr. Lirot, you 24 had not at all cross examined. Is that where we 25 were?
15 1 MR. LIROT: That's correct, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: So Mr. Dandar, if you want to 3 resume the stand? 4 MR. LIROT: If I may, Judge -- 5 THE COURT: You may. 6 MR. LIROT: -- we have a witness, Mr. Leipold 7 in California -- 8 THE COURT: Yes. 9 MR. LIROT: If we could call him out of 10 order -- we had talked yesterday about introducing 11 his letter and having him authenticate that letter. 12 I'd like to try to get him on the phone first. I 13 understand he has travel plans. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. LIROT: So if that's acceptable to the 16 court -- 17 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, may I address that? 18 THE COURT: You may. 19 MR. HERTZBERG: I want to bring to the court's 20 attention the fact that Mr. Leipold is an attorney 21 in California who has represented both Robert Minton 22 and Stacy Brooks within the past -- well, last 23 April -- at a deposition in a matter that's pending 24 in the Middle District in Tampa before Judge 25 Whittemore, and Mr. Leipold's firm represented
16 1 Mr. Minton as well at a deposition in this very 2 litigation several years ago. 3 And we're all aware that Mr. Minton's attorney 4 is not in -- present today. And it just raised a 5 question in my mind -- we don't have the standing to 6 raise it, but I was wondering to myself, and now I'm 7 wondering out loud, whether there may be some 8 privilege issues that are implicated by this 9 gentleman rendering any testimony with respect to 10 conversations he's had with Mr. Minton, or 11 Ms. Brooks, for that matter. 12 THE COURT: Could be. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: And it -- perhaps -- 14 THE COURT: I don't know that that's what he 15 was going to do. I thought he was going to 16 authenticate a document. 17 MR. LIROT: That's correct, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: So with that -- 19 MR. HERTZBERG: Is the document -- may I -- may 20 I ask whether -- whether that document is a document 21 that has to do at all, Mr. Lirot, with conversations 22 between -- purported conversations between 23 Mr. Minton and -- and his attorney, Mr. Leipold? 24 THE COURT: That's another issue. 25 The issue is whether this witness can
17 1 authenticate a document. Whether the document's 2 admissible can raise any issue that Mr. Minton's 3 lawyer wants to raise. And if I think that it looks 4 like it's privileged, we'll wait till we see what 5 Mr. Minton's attorney wants to say. I don't know 6 what the document says. 7 But if this witness is available to 8 authenticate a document, saying, "I wrote this 9 document," then I think he can testify to that, 10 regardless of any privilege. Whether it comes in or 11 not is a different matter. 12 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, may we see a copy 13 of the letter? 14 THE COURT: Sure. 15 MR. HERTZBERG: I asked for that earlier. 16 THE COURT: Can I see it? 17 MR. LIROT: Yes, Judge. If I may approach? 18 THE COURT: You may. 19 Well, of course, any objection that maybe 20 wanted to be made can be made. But once you publish 21 something -- of course, I don't know. Mr. Minton, I 22 suppose, could still raise an objection. 23 Who is Mr. Wollersheim? I see his name pop up 24 from time to time. 25 MR. DANDAR: He's a former Scientologist who's
18 1 been in litigation with the church since, I think, 2 '82. 3 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, he's -- 4 THE COURT: In a what kind of suit? 5 MR. DANDAR: Emotional distress; intentional 6 infliction of emotional distress. 7 THE COURT: He's a plaintiff against the 8 church. 9 MR. DANDAR: And he has a judgment. 10 MR. HERTZBERG: He's represented by Mr. Leipold 11 using the same witnesses that essentially have been 12 used here and -- 13 THE COURT: I don't need to know that right 14 now. What I need to know is, Mr. Leipold is a 15 plaintiff who's suing the church? Is that it? 16 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 17 MR. LIROT: Mr. Leipold's counsel for the 18 plaintiff. 19 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Mr. Wollersheim is -- 20 MR. LIROT: That's correct, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: -- a plaintiff suing the church in 22 California. 23 MR. LIROT: Correct. 24 THE COURT: And Mr. Leipold is his lawyer? 25 MR. LIROT: That's correct.
19 1 MR. HERTZBERG: Not suing this church, your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 4 MR. HERTZBERG: He's not suing this church. 5 THE COURT: Okay. The Flag. 6 MR. HERTZBERG: Yes. He's not suing the Flag 7 Service Organization. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let's call him the 9 man. I guess all you want him to do is say he has a 10 copy of this letter in front of him and it's an 11 authentic document? 12 MR. LIROT: Correct, Judge. We had some just 13 very brief fill-in inquiry of him. 14 MR. HERTZBERG: See, that's what I object to. 15 If they simply want to ask him did he write this 16 letter, which the copy I have is unsigned -- if they 17 want to ask him if he sent this May 1st, 2000 letter 18 to Mr. Dandar, I suppose that would authenticate it 19 and I probably won't have any questions at that 20 point. 21 But this is testimony, this letter. And if 22 they're going to go into it, I'm going to object. 23 Because first of all, I -- if -- if they go into 24 substance, it's going to implicate the area that 25 I've identified, where I think Mr. Howie's input is
20 1 required. And moreover, we're -- I'm going to want 2 to show him documents and -- and cross examine him 3 with documents. And we can't do that by telephone. 4 So I would reserve the -- you know -- 5 THE COURT: What -- 6 MR. HERTZBERG: If -- 7 THE COURT: What are you -- 8 MR. LIROT: Judge -- 9 THE COURT: What are you wanting to fill in? 10 MR. LIROT: -- only foundational material, 11 explaining to the court what the Wollersheim case 12 is, and I think to establish just a brief 13 description of the cause of action. Probably no 14 different than what Mr. Dandar did. Nothing that 15 would require extensive cross examination. And all 16 we want to do is be able to establish that whatever 17 conversations took place between he and Ms. Brooks 18 have nothing to do with this case, so there's no 19 privilege that would attach to something that 20 happened in the Wollersheim case. That's it. 21 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, I have two 22 responses. 23 First of all, I think Mr. Howie has -- who's 24 now representing, in this case, at this hearing, 25 these witnesses who have been represented by
21 1 Mr. Leipold, will have to be apprised and have any 2 input on whether privileges are implicated or not. 3 Mr. Lirot's representation that they are not is 4 sufficient. 5 THE COURT: Nothing he just told me has a thing 6 to do with any privilege. 7 MR. HERTZBERG: Well, the other point I would 8 like to make, to raise an issue, is a relevancy 9 objection. I don't know why in the world this court 10 needs to be filled in by this witness in California 11 about a case that's pending in Los Angeles. I -- I 12 don't see what the purpose is. So I guess I'm 13 baffled as to why we're undertaking this enterprise 14 at all. 15 MR. LIROT: Judge, the only reason that we want 16 to ask Mr. Leipold anything has nothing to do with 17 any confidential or privileged information. Has to 18 do with money, his dealing with Mr. Minton as far as 19 money. 20 I don't care what they said about anything. 21 All I want to do is show that Mr. Minton has a 22 custom and practice of funding these types of cases, 23 that -- if they involved the Church of Scientology 24 for any reason. And that quite honestly, a number 25 of issues that have been critical to us made by
22 1 opposing counsel are something that Mr. Minton has a 2 standard of doing, to show that he's in the habit of 3 giving away a lot of money, never gets an agreement 4 in writing. None of that's privileged. 5 And there's no order such as what we have with 6 the Second DCA. I don't believe there's any 7 companion order in the Wollersheim case. So we can 8 ask about money in that case. 9 THE COURT: I think that's relevant. 10 MR. HERTZBERG: Why would that have any 11 relevancy, your Honor? 12 THE COURT: Doesn't matter -- 13 MR. HERTZBERG: Why would Mr. -- 14 THE COURT: -- what you think. I said I think 15 it's relevant. That's the end of that. 16 All right. Let's go ahead. 17 MR. LIROT: Judge -- 18 MR. HERTZBERG: Before we get him on the phone, 19 your Honor, how am I going to cross examine him with 20 documents if -- 21 THE COURT: See what you need and we'll see if 22 we can do it. If we can't, why, we'll have to 23 strike his testimony. 24 MR. LIROT: Candidly, Judge, I don't think he's 25 going to exceed the scope of any question, so I
23 1 don't know what documents he's going to have. But 2 we'll get to that when we get to that. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 MR. LIROT: Shall I dial the number, Judge? 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 (Phone call being made.) 7 THE COURT: You're absolutely going to get into 8 no conversations between him and anyone he's ever 9 represented, particularly Mr. Minton, whose lawyer's 10 not here. 11 MR. LIROT: I'll be cautious, your Honor. 12 MR. FUGATE: May I be excused a moment, your 13 Honor? I'm not going to be -- 14 THE COURT: You may. 15 MR. LIEPOLD: Hello? 16 MR. LIROT: Mr. Leipold? 17 MR. LIEPOLD: Yeah. 18 MR. LIROT: Good morning. This is Luke Lirot. 19 I'm before Judge Schaeffer. We're in court right 20 now. There is a court reporter taking down your 21 statements this morning. 22 Could you please state your name and spell -- 23 THE COURT: Wait -- wait just a minute. 24 MR. LIROT: I'm sorry, Judge. 25 THE COURT: Hi. Mr. Leipold?
24 1 MR. LIEPOLD: Good morning. 2 THE COURT: Good morning. My name is Judge 3 Schaeffer. How are you? 4 MR. LIEPOLD: I'm fine. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Leipold, if I were to ask you 6 to raise your right hand and receive an oath, would 7 you understand that, while you're here in front of 8 this court on the phone, that I would perceive and 9 consider that oath to be binding, and therefore 10 whatever oaths mean in Cal- -- in Florida, I'm sure 11 they mean in California? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: And would you do that for me? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I will. 15 THE COURT: Would you raise your right hand? 16 ___________________________________ 17 DANIEL LEIPOLD, 18 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 19 and testified as follows: 20 THE COURT: You may lower your hand. And thank 21 you. 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. LIROT: 24 Q Could you please state your name and spell your 25 last name for the record?
25 1 A My name is Daniel Leipold, L-e-i-p-o-l-d. 2 Q And Mr. Leipold, how are you employed? 3 A I'm an attorney. 4 Q And are you a member of the California bar in good 5 standing? 6 A Yes, I am. 7 Q Have you had an opportunity to litigate a cause of 8 action with a gentleman by the name of Larry Wollersheim and 9 I guess what I'll call an affiliate of the Church of 10 Scientology? 11 A I am Mr. Wollersheim's attorney in an action 12 against the Church of Scientology in California that also 13 includes the Church of Scientology International and 14 Religious Technology Center. 15 Q All right. Could you briefly describe the nature 16 of that cause of action to the court? 17 MR. HERTZBERG: Objection, your Honor. 18 Relevance. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. 20 A As to -- 21 THE COURT: You may -- you may be right, but I 22 want to hear it. And I may just throw it out. But 23 I don't know because I don't know what it is, so -- 24 A This is a case that was tried to judgment in 1986. 25 And there is -- it is currently -- the judgment is currently
26 1 worth approximately $8.6 million, and I am in post-trial 2 proceedings to apply the judgment against Religious 3 Technology Center and Church of Scientology International as 4 the alter-egos of Church of Scientology of California, in 5 order to collect the judgment. 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q All right. And have you had an opportunity to use 8 expert witnesses and consultants in that cause of action? 9 A Yes, I have. 10 Q Can you tell this court who those individuals 11 would be? 12 A I've used a number of them. One would be Robert 13 Vaughn Young, another would be Stacy Young, and another 14 would be Jesse Prince. 15 Q All right. And in that litigation, have you had 16 an opportunity to file a declaration? And I guess what 17 I'll -- I'll ask, are you aware that a declaration is the 18 equivalent of what we call in Florida an affidavit? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And can you tell the court what the significance 21 of a declaration is under the California Rules of Civil 22 Procedure? 23 A It is -- 24 MR. HERTZBERG: Objection, your Honor. 25 A It is --
27 1 THE COURT: Overruled. 2 A -- essentially the same thing as an affidavit, 3 only in California you don't have to have a notary republic 4 (sic) sign for the witness. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q All right. And did you have an opportunity to 7 receive such a declaration from Stacy Brooks? 8 A In the Wollersheim case? Yes -- 9 Q That's correct. 10 A -- I did. 11 Q Were there any developments regarding Ms. Brooks 12 and the tender of that declaration to the court in your 13 case? 14 A I filed the declaration originally, I believe, 15 sometime in mid-1997, and I received a telephone call from 16 Ms. Brooks on April 8th, I believe, 2002, in which she told 17 me that she and Robert Minton were attempting to settle 18 legal actions against them or settle with the Church of 19 Scientology, and she wished me to withdraw that declaration 20 from the -- from the court. And then later that day, Bob 21 Minton -- 22 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor -- 23 A -- he asked me to dismiss that action on behalf of 24 my client. 25 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, we now have him
28 1 discussing the substance of conversations with 2 Ms. Brooks, who he has represented as an attorney. 3 This is exactly what I feared would happen and why I 4 felt it was necessary for Mr. Howie to address this 5 issue before we went -- 6 THE COURT: Mr. Howie -- 7 MR. HERTZBERG: -- down this -- 8 THE COURT: -- doesn't represent Ms. Brooks. 9 Is Mr. -- 10 MR. HERTZBERG: Mr. McGowan. He's not present. 11 But I don't know how this lawyer, who has 12 represented both of those witnesses, can testify 13 about conversations with either of them. 14 THE COURT: Counsel, did you ever represent 15 Stacy Brooks? 16 THE WITNESS: I have represented her at 17 deposition. 18 THE COURT: Well, I guess that's 19 representation. 20 So that testimony will be stricken from the 21 record until such time as we can see whether or not 22 there's an objection to it by her lawyer. 23 THE WITNESS: All right. 24 BY MR. LIROT: 25 Q Mr. Leipold, did you have an opportunity to author
29 1 a letter dated May 1st, 2002, sent via facsimile to Ken 2 Dandar of the firm Dandar and Dandar? 3 A Yes. 4 MR. LIROT: And Judge -- 5 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object 6 to any questions about this letter. This -- the 7 letter is entirely, in terms of substance, about 8 conversations he purportedly had with Stacy Brooks 9 and Robert Minton. 10 THE COURT: All I heard him ask is whether he 11 authored this letter. 12 MR. HERTZBERG: Well, I'm anticipating. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, with all caution, if 15 we could do an offer of proof, I could read the 16 letter into the record and ask him to authenticate 17 the text of the letter. 18 THE COURT: I think that all you need to do, if 19 we're trying to authenticate the letter, is ask him 20 if he wrote it. Let's just get enough information 21 from him to make sure that this is the same letter 22 we're talking about. 23 MR. LIROT: All right. 24 THE COURT: Such as it's dated May 1st, dated 25 (sic) to Ken Dandar of Dandar and Dandar. It has a
30 1 telephone number or fax number, (813)287-0895, Re 2 conversations with Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks. 3 It's a one-, two-, three-page letter. 4 I mean, if you want, I'll read the whole letter 5 here to get it authenticated. 6 MR. LIROT: I would like that, Judge. 7 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q Mr. Leipold, I'm going to read this letter. I'm 10 going to ask you to correct anything that you think's 11 incorrect. And I'll ask you to authenticate simply the 12 contents of the letter. 13 And it says -- 14 MR. HERTZBERG: Well, wait. Wait. The 15 contents, as I understand, is the substance of it. 16 I think -- 17 THE COURT: Do you agree that the letter is 18 authentic and he would testify that this is the same 19 letter? And then we'll argue about the contents or 20 I'm going to have him read it. 21 Do you agree that this is the letter or not? 22 MR. WIENBERG: Yes. 23 THE COURT: And if you don't -- 24 MR. HERTZBERG: We do. 25 THE COURT: -- I'll have him read it.
31 1 MR. HERTZBERG: We do. There's no -- 2 MR. WIENBERG: If he says it is, that's the 3 letter, that's fine. 4 MR. HERTZBERG: That's all. 5 But he can't testify as to the substance now. 6 That's our position. 7 THE COURT: So the letter's authenticated. 8 MR. LIROT: Fair enough. I won't have to read 9 it. 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY THE COURT: 12 Q Mr. Leipold, the letter that I have in front of 13 me, which I believe is trying to be authenticated, is not 14 signed. 15 A Yes. There's a reason for that, your Honor. 16 Q Let's hear that. 17 A I asked my -- I sent a copy to Mr. Dandar that was 18 signed via fax. He apparently did not get the third page of 19 it. And I simply asked my secretary to send him the copy 20 again, and she simply took the copy off the computer that 21 was not signed. 22 Q So there is a signed copy to be forthcoming 23 somewhere? 24 A I had thought -- I had thought I had sent it to 25 him. But yes, there is a signed copy in my office.
32 1 Q Okay. So -- so the copy that I have that is 2 unsigned, you're confident, is the letter that you're -- 3 that you're now authenticating. I don't want you to 4 authenticate something -- 5 A I only -- I only wrote one letter to Mr. Dandar on 6 May 1st, and I feel confident it's that. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 9 BY MR. LIROT: 10 Q Mr. Leipold, have you become acquainted with an 11 individual by the name of Robert Minton? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And can you tell the court -- I don't want any 14 privileged conversation. Just tell the court how you became 15 acquainted with Mr. Minton. 16 A Mr. Minton contacted me sometime around 1997 and 17 he told me that he was, for want of a better word -- 18 essentially he explained to me that he was a -- 19 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor -- 20 A -- very concerned about -- 21 MR. HERTZBERG: -- this is conversations -- 22 A -- problems with Scientology -- 23 MR. HERTZBERG: He's now -- he's now -- 24 THE COURT: This is long before, I take it, 25 that he ever represented him.
33 1 MR. HERTZBERG: Well, but we don't know -- 2 THE COURT: Is this before you ever represented 3 him? 4 THE WITNESS: Oh, long before I represented 5 him. 6 THE COURT: Overruled. 7 THE WITNESS: And it had nothing to do with the 8 representation. I guarantee that what I just told 9 the court was not attorney-client privilege in 10 California. 11 THE COURT: Was he coming to you in any 12 capacity at that time to ask you to represent him? 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 THE COURT: All right. Overruled. 15 MR. LIROT: Very good. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q Mr. Leipold, if you could continue with your 18 description of your acquaintance with Mr. Minton. 19 A Mr. Minton told me that he was -- that he knew my 20 client, Lawrence Wollersheim, and that he knew of an 21 organization that he was running called FACTNet, and that he 22 was interested in helping FACTNet out. He asked me some 23 questions about the Wollersheim action. With the permission 24 of my client, I told him about what the status of the 25 Wollersheim action was. And that was the status of the
34 1 initial conversations I had with him. 2 Q All right. 3 A And I probably didn't talk to him again for 4 another five, six months. 5 Q Can you tell the court what FACTNet is, to the 6 best of your knowledge? 7 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, objection on 8 relevancy grounds. We're going very far afield. 9 THE COURT: Well, I don't know where we're 10 going to go, so if it's not relevant, I'll throw it 11 out. 12 A FACTNet stands -- let's see if I can remember. I 13 think it stands for something -- Fact stands for Fight 14 Against Coercive Tactics, something like that. It's a 15 anticult group. And it was an organization that my client, 16 Lawrence Wollersheim, was very heavily involved in. 17 BY MR. LIROT: 18 Q All right. 19 (A discussion was held off the record.) 20 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, may I make -- 21 THE COURT: You can't hear it when we say 22 something here, can you? 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 THE COURT: In other words, if we're trying to 25 cut you off because an objection is made, that's
35 1 part of the problem with the telephone. 2 THE WITNESS: That's fine. I'll -- 3 THE COURT: So -- 4 THE WITNESS: -- wait patiently. 5 THE COURT: So if you'll listen real carefully, 6 if you hear something in the background that sounds 7 like objection, if you'll stop, that would be 8 appreciated. 9 THE WITNESS: All right. 10 (A discussion was held off the record.) 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q Mr. Leipold, not asking any privileged 13 information. 14 Did Mr. Minton make any unsolicited offers of 15 donations of funds or tender of funds for use in the 16 litigation involving you and Mr. Wollersheim? 17 A At the time of these conversations? 18 Q At any time. 19 A Well, I -- I don't know if they were unsolicited. 20 You're talking about in the litigation that I was handling? 21 Q Yes, sir. 22 A No. I don't -- 23 Well, no. Huh-uh. 24 Q Did Mr. Minton provide any money to you for that 25 case?
36 1 A No. 2 Q All right. Has he provided any money for 3 litigation involving the Church of Scientology or any of its 4 affiliates, to your knowledge? 5 A No. 6 Q I'm talking about Mr. Minton providing any money. 7 A Mr. Minton has never given me any money to 8 litigate any case involving the Church of Scientology other 9 than Mr. Minton did become a director of FACTNet. I did 10 defend FACTNet. And I was paid for defending FACTNet. 11 Q All right. Do you know of cases involving 12 Mr. Minton and the Church of Scientology -- again, not 13 asking any privileged information -- but are you aware of 14 cases where Mr. Minton has been named as a party by the 15 Church of Scientology in other litigation? 16 THE COURT: Why do we have to ask this witness 17 that? Is there not some witness to come into court 18 live, where I don't have to worry with -- with cross 19 examination over a telephone? 20 MR. LIROT: Yes. That's -- 21 THE COURT: Then don't ask him that question. 22 MR. LIROT: Very good. 23 THE COURT: He really should be asked about 24 this letter and then we just ought to move on to 25 something else where we have witnesses here in the
37 1 courtroom. 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q All right. Are you aware of Mr. Minton ever 4 creating any documents for -- for any funds he may have 5 provided in any case involving the Church of Scientology 6 regarding a loan or in any way being paid back or working 7 out some particulars regarding the supply of funds in cases 8 involving the Church of Scientology? 9 A I'm going to have to ask you to ask that question 10 over. I missed the first part of it. 11 Q Do you know that Mr. Minton has prepared any 12 documents regarding any funds he may have provided in cases 13 involving the Church of Scientology? 14 A Yeah. I've seen a second affidavit that was filed 15 in, I believe, the McPherson case. 16 Q All right. In any other cases, has he prepared 17 any documents or agreements or any contractual type of -- 18 I'll just say paperwork involving funds he's provided. 19 A No, not that I can think of. 20 Q Does Mr. Minton look to be highly formalistic in 21 the way he provides funds regarding cases involving the 22 Church of Scientology? 23 MR. HERTZBERG: Objection, your Honor. 24 A I'm sorry. 25 THE COURT: Wait.
38 1 A I don't know. I'm not sure what that means. 2 MR. HERTZBERG: That was my objection. 3 A I -- I'm not sure what it means. I apologize. 4 (Simultaneous speakers.) 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY THE COURT: 7 Q Has he ever given you a note? 8 A Pardon? 9 Q Have you seen or do you know of any -- I mean, I 10 don't know whether you know of any instances, so if you 11 don't, this question should not even be asked of you. 12 THE COURT: He obviously said it didn't happen 13 in his case. 14 BY THE COURT: 15 Q So are you aware of any other case where 16 Mr. Minton provided funds, other than this case, to 17 litigate, for lack of a better word, against Scientology as 18 a big worldwide organization? 19 A Big worldwide organization? 20 Q Well, that's -- 21 A I know he did find -- he did supply funds 22 specifically to fund the defense of the FactNet case. I do 23 know that. 24 Q Any others? 25 A And -- and I have -- I have heard --
39 1 Do you want personal knowledge? 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q Please. 5 A I've heard that he's -- that he's -- he's provided 6 funds in the McPherson case. 7 MR. HERTZBERG: Objection. 8 A But that's not personal knowledge. 9 MR. HERTZBERG: Hearsay. 10 THE COURT: Don't need to object. We know 11 that. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q Has -- has he loaned money to you or your firm? 14 A Yes, he has. 15 Q And can you tell us how much money he has loaned 16 to you or your firm? 17 A I couldn't tell you exactly, but I believe the -- 18 the total amount that he's loaned us is somewhere in the 19 area of around $350,000. 20 Q All right. And what type of documentation would 21 reflect any agreement or payback regarding that loan? 22 A There is a loan agreement. 23 Q All right. And -- 24 A I don't know if the loan agreement covers the 25 entire amount, but there is a loan agreement.
40 1 Q All right. Is it a standard loan agreement? 2 A You know, I -- I can't quite say what a standard 3 loan agreement is, but there is a loan agreement. 4 Q All right. 5 A I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary. 6 Q All right. Does it require you to pay back the 7 full amount or does it leave some discretion to paying back 8 Mr. Minton? 9 A Discretion. No. I don't think there's any 10 discretion. 11 Q All right. 12 A I haven't seen -- I haven't looked at the loan 13 agreement in probably four years, but I -- I certainly don't 14 believe there's any discretion to pay it back. 15 THE COURT: I don't want any guessing here, 16 so -- 17 THE WITNESS: I'm -- I'm not guessing, your 18 Honor. I haven't seen the loan agreement in four 19 years. But I feel confident that there is -- I have 20 no recollection of there being any discretion 21 involved. 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q All right. I'm going to ask one question 24 cautiously. Have -- have any of the conversations that 25 you've had with Ms. Brooks or Ms. Minton -- Mr. Minton --
41 1 been related to your representation of them in any 2 litigation? 3 A Well, obviously, some of the conversations I have 4 had -- many of the conversations I have had over the years 5 are privileged. However, I think if you're asking about the 6 recent conversations, no. 7 Q And are they parties in the Wollershiem case? 8 A No. 9 Q What was your reaction to their request that it be 10 dismissed? 11 MR. HERTZBERG: Objection, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Overruled. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: This goes into -- 14 A They're not parties to the case. 15 MR. HERTZBERG: This goes into the substance. 16 A I can't have somebody come in and tell me to 17 dismiss the case -- 18 MR. HERTZBERG: This -- 19 A -- for a client. 20 MR. HERTZBERG: -- goes into the substance of 21 this letter, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: The question was, what was his 23 reaction? 24 THE WITNESS: My reaction was no, I can't do 25 that. It's unethical.
42 1 BY MR. LIROT: 2 Q All right. Would they have any standing to 3 require you to dismiss that case? 4 A Absolutely not. 5 Q All right. And just one question about the loan. 6 Is there any -- is there an interest payment on the loan 7 from Mr. Minton? 8 A Yes, there is. 9 MR. LIROT: All right. Very good. 10 I have no further questions. 11 THE COURT: You may inquire. 12 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, I'm not going to -- 13 I want to withhold going into any examination on the 14 substance of the events recited in the letter 15 because I don't want to waive any privilege -- 16 THE COURT: All right. 17 MR. HERTZBERG: -- that might be asserted by 18 counsel for Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton. 19 THE COURT: All right. Counselor, can you hear 20 me? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: If we have a -- we may get back 23 with you regarding the substance of the conversation 24 between me and Ms. Brooks -- you and Ms. Brooks. 25 The problem we have here is Ms. Brooks is not here;
43 1 her lawyer is not here. While you have said it is 2 not privileged, they may think differently. If they 3 do, I really need to hear them before we ask you 4 what the substance was. 5 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 6 THE COURT: If I rule that it's not privileged, 7 we'll be calling you back so that you can tell us. 8 If I rule that it is privileged and they wish to 9 uphold the privilege, then we won't be calling you 10 back, most likely. 11 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 12 Your Honor, I am currently in my house, because 13 it's 7:00 on the west coast. 14 THE COURT: We appreciate -- 15 THE WITNESS: I will be in my office later on 16 today. 17 THE COURT: Right. Thank you. 18 THE WITNESS: And Mr. Dandar has my number. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Wait. We have some questions from 22 counsel. 23 And if you'll introduce yourself and tell 24 him -- 25 MR. HERTZBERG: Yes.
44 1 THE COURT: -- who you represent. 2 CROSS EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 4 Q Mr. Leipold, my name is Michael Hertzberg. 5 A I know you well, Mr. Hertzberg. 6 Q You testified about a loan that you received from 7 Mr. Minton. And I believe that was a loan that was given to 8 you or your law firm in May of 1998, correct? 9 A That sounds about right. 10 Q Right. 11 Now, the purpose of the loan was to enable you to 12 form a new law firm at that time, correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And that law firm is Leipold, Donohue and Shipe. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is that right? That's where you currently 17 practice. 18 A No. 19 Q Does that firm not exist anymore? 20 A I -- under that name it does not exist anymore. 21 Q Well, what is your -- what is your current firm? 22 A Leipold and Shipe. 23 Q All right. And prior to the formation of the firm 24 of Leipold, Donohue and Shipe, you practiced at a firm named 25 Carpenter and Murphy, is that correct?
45 1 A No. 2 Q What is the name of the firm that you were at? 3 A Hagenbaugh and Murphy. 4 Q I'm sorry. Hagenbaugh. And Murphy? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Now the purpose of the loan from Mr. Minton was to 7 enable you to form a new practice that could concentrate on 8 litigation in opposition to Scientology, isn't that right? 9 A No. 10 Q I -- I have a letter in my hand dated May 28th, 11 1998 on the Higgenbow (phonetic) and Murphy stationery -- 12 A That's Hagenbaugh and Murphy. 13 Q Hagenbaugh. 14 -- with your signature, Daniel A. Leipold, and 15 your signature at the end. And I'm going to read to you 16 from the first paragraph: "Dear Bob, this is re loan to law 17 firm of Leipold, Donohue and Shipe. I appreciate your 18 commitment to me and my partners and your generosity in 19 allowing us to continue our work in opposition to 20 Scientology." 21 Your words. Does that refresh your recollection 22 that -- 23 A Well, it -- 24 Q -- the purpose -- 25 A -- refreshes my recollection, but it isn't the
46 1 reason we -- we got the loan. Certainly, this allowed us to 2 continue to -- to do litigation, but the purpose of the firm 3 was to do general litigation, including litigation against 4 the Church of Scientology. And it was not solely to fund 5 the firm to do litigation against the Church of Scientology. 6 Q All right. I -- my question, as I recall, was not 7 whether that was the sole purpose. 8 But the purpose -- you will agree with me then 9 that the purpose of the loan -- which was for $180,000, 10 correct? You remember that? 11 A Well, okay. Can you re-ask the question in a more 12 intelligible manner? 13 Q All right. 14 THE COURT: I don't need that, Counselor. 15 THE WITNESS: I apologize. But I don't 16 understand the question. 17 THE COURT: Well, I understand that. I do 18 understand -- 19 THE WITNESS: Rephrase it; I'll answer the 20 question. 21 THE COURT: I do understand that, and I 22 appreciate your appearing by phone, but I'm frankly 23 quite tired of lawyers calling other lawyers names 24 and what have you. 25 THE WITNESS: I didn't call him a name.
47 1 THE COURT: You said he didn't ask a very 2 intelligent question. 3 THE WITNESS: I -- no, I said unintelligible. 4 THE COURT: I apologize. I thought you said 5 "unintelligent." 6 THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. Unintelligible. 7 THE COURT: Intelligible. All right. 8 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 9 Q At the time you wrote this letter to Mr. Minton 10 thanking him for his agreement to loan the money, you were 11 entering into an agreement to receive $180,000 from 12 Mr. Minton, correct? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And it was to be an initial payment of 80,000, 15 correct? 16 A I'm not sure. 17 Q All right. And in this letter, you went on to 18 discuss with Mr. Minton the fact that it was appreciated 19 that this loan was coming at that particular time, because 20 there was some tension in your -- in your present firm, that 21 Higgenbaugh and Murphy firm, about the direction that you 22 and your new partners were going to take with respect to the 23 focus of your practice, isn't that right? 24 THE COURT: How's come -- 25 I got a question.
48 1 A Well, gee -- 2 THE COURT: Wait a second, sir. Wait a second. 3 How's come it is that you're asking questions 4 here about conversations between him and Mr. Minton? 5 You just went bananas about a privilege. I don't 6 want you asking questions about that either. 7 Is this a letter between him and Mr. Minton? 8 MR. HERTZBERG: Well, this is in the time 9 period, your Honor -- 10 THE COURT: Is this a communication? 11 MR. HERTZBERG: It is -- it is a letter -- it 12 is. But your Honor allowed -- allowed him to talk 13 about the fact that he got this loan. And I -- if 14 that came in -- I mean, I made an objection 15 generally to this line. But if that came in, I have 16 to be able to ask him about it, it seems to me. 17 THE COURT: All right. Were you representing 18 Mr. Minton at this time? 19 THE WITNESS: At what time? 20 THE COURT: At the time of the letter. 21 Read the date of the letter. 22 MR. HERTZBERG: May 28th, 1998. 23 THE COURT: May 28th. 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 THE COURT: 1998.
49 1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 3 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 4 Q Isn't it a fact, sir, that your partners at the 5 Higgenbow and Murphy firm -- 6 A Hagenbaugh and Murphy. 7 Q Hagenbow - Hagenbaum (phonetic) -- 8 A Hagenbaugh. 9 Q Well -- 10 THE COURT: Hagenbaugh. 11 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 12 Q -- isn't it a fact, sir, that your partners at the 13 Hagenbow and Murphy firm were concerned that you and several 14 of your other partners were focusing too much on Scientology 15 litigation? 16 A I wouldn't phrase it that way. I think that there 17 was some concern at my firm that Scientology overlitigates 18 cases and uses abusive litigation tactics. 19 MR. HERTZBERG: Your Honor, I move to strike as 20 nonresponsive. 21 A And the concern -- 22 THE COURT: You asked the question. 23 A -- was that this would affect the overall 24 performance of the firm. 25
50 1 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 2 Q All right. 3 A These abusive tactics. 4 Q All right. Well, you nonetheless, then, entered 5 into a new partnership with -- with other partners, and you 6 used the funds that Mr. Minton provided you to begin that 7 firm, correct? 8 A Could you repeat the question? 9 Q You nonetheless entered into your new partnership 10 and used the funds provided by Mr. Minton in that loan to 11 conduct the work of the partnership, correct? 12 A Certainly. 13 Q All right. And the work of the partnership 14 involved, in the ensuing years, several matters in court 15 where either Scientology entities or individual 16 Scientologists were parties, correct? 17 A It included that, yes. 18 Q And in fact, you then later got a significant 19 further amount of money from Mr. Minton, didn't you? 20 A Yes. 21 Q In excess of $450,000, sir? 22 A No. 23 Q All right. How much more money would you estimate 24 that you got from Mr. Minton? 25 A Well, it depends on what you mean by got. Do you
51 1 mean loaned or do you mean received? 2 Q I will ask both parts. 3 First of all, how much further money did 4 Mr. Minton loan you beyond the initial $180,000? 5 A I think probably roughly the total amount, 6 including that $180,000, would be around 360. 7 Q Okay. And beyond the loans, did he not furnish 8 you with further funds? 9 A Well, he paid me for work done. 10 Q Right. And he paid you for work done in those 11 cases involving Scientology entities and individuals, 12 correct? 13 A Well, as far as I knew, those were the only people 14 that were harassing him legally -- 15 Q You know -- 16 A -- but yes. 17 Q -- that question just asked for a yes or no 18 answer. 19 A Well, no, it didn't, but that's okay. 20 Q And you have testified that in those cases -- 21 By the way, have you paid back any portion of the 22 money that was loaned to you by Mr. Minton up to now? 23 A Yes. 24 Q A very inconsequential portion of that amount. 25 THE COURT: Really, Counselor. I'm just not
52 1 going to let you go there. We're here today to do a 2 very limited thing. They put this guy on to see 3 whether or not he was loaned any money. He said he 4 was. If you dispute that, get into it. If you 5 don't dispute that, what all this is about, I have 6 no idea, but I want it ended pretty quick. 7 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 8 Q Now, in those cases we just alluded to -- 9 A I'm sorry. You're going have to talk more 10 directly into the phone. 11 Q In the cases you just alluded to -- 12 A I didn't allude to any cases. 13 Q We're talking generally about Scientology cases. 14 A All right. 15 Q You knew Stacy Brooks, Vaughn Young and Jesse 16 Prince as affiants, correct? 17 A I didn't understand the last part of what you 18 said. 19 Q You used those witnesses' affidavits -- 20 THE COURT: He already said he did. 21 MR. DANDAR: Judge, he needs to get closer and 22 not move around too much. 23 THE COURT: We don't need to hear questions 24 that were already asked and agreed to. He said 25 that.
53 1 BY MR. HERTZBERG: 2 Q Now, Mr. Minton also lent a large amount of money 3 to Mr. Wollersheim, did he not? 4 A Mr. Minton did what? 5 Q He lent a rather significant amount of money to 6 Larry Wollersheim, did he not? 7 A I think he lent some money to FACTNet. 8 Q Didn't he also lend a large amount of money to 9 Mr. Larry Wollersheim, your client in the California action? 10 A I'm not sure that he did. 11 Q Are you aware of the fact, sir, that Mr. Minton 12 has made a UCC filing with a lien against any proceeds that 13 would be recovered by Mr. Wollersheim, your client in the 14 Los Angeles case? 15 A Yes. But I'm not sure that that's the secure loan 16 to Wollersheim. 17 Q But you are aware that there is such a lien. 18 A Oh, yes. 19 Q And you had an involvement -- you've had 20 involvement in the case here in Florida, have you not, in 21 various capacities? 22 THE COURT: What -- we're going to have to 23 stop. What is it you're trying to accomplish by -- 24 A What cases? 25 THE COURT: Excuse me. Stop, if you will.
54 1 What is it you're trying to accomplish? They 2 put this man on -- I don't know what's in the letter 3 because I haven't had a chance to read it -- to say 4 that Mr. Minton loaned them some money. I think he 5 was trying to establish that he loaned him some 6 money without documents. That failed. So we're 7 down to, he loaned them some money. 8 Now, do you dispute that? And if you dispute 9 they loaned him some money -- 10 MR. HERTZBERG: No, I don't. 11 THE COURT: -- get into that. 12 MR. HERTZBERG: No. 13 THE COURT: But otherwise, you are gone well 14 beyond the purpose of this hearing. And I can't 15 wait for people to object, because this hearing is 16 before me, and we're not going there. I don't care 17 about all this. 18 MR. HERTZBERG: What I want to show now -- I 19 want to -- 20 THE COURT: What is it you're trying to show? 21 That he's lying about giving money? 22 MR. HERTZBERG: No. No. I'm in a new area 23 now, Judge Schaeffer. 24 THE COURT: Well, what about? 25 MR. HERTZBERG: I want to show --
55 1 THE COURT: Then you call him in your case. 2 You're well beyond the scope. It's just that 3 simple. We're not going to have it. This is not 4 going to be an hour and a half on a witness that has 5 testified he got some money from Mr. Minton. 6 MR. HERTZBERG: I -- let me just make a 7 proffer. 8 THE COURT: No. We're not going to make a 9 proffer. You're going to call him in your case. 10 It's just that simple. You're well beyond the 11 scope. I can't wait around for counsel to object. 12 You're taking a lot of my time. I've got four days 13 to do this and I plan to get it done. 14 MR. HERTZBERG: All right, Judge Schaeffer. I 15 will reserve the right. 16 THE COURT: To call him in your case. 17 MR. HERTZBERG: In my case. And also to 18 further -- after the privilege issue is sorted out, 19 I have some very specific questions to ask him, if 20 he's allowed to -- 21 THE COURT: I don't need to hear this and he 22 doesn't need to hear it. Do you have any more 23 questions about the loan? 24 MR. HERTZBERG: No, I don't. 25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
56 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. I 2 appreciate it. 3 THE COURT: Now you may call your next witness. 4 This letter, I presume, is authenticated. 5 We'll deal with it later. 6 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge. 7 Judge, I'd like to call Kennan Dandar. 8 THE COURT: And Counselor, maybe you don't care 9 how long this takes, but I do. There's no jury 10 here. There is no jury here. There's no reason for 11 you not to object to things that are beyond the 12 scope, repetitive, asked and answered and on and on. 13 MR. HERTZBERG: Judge, I -- 14 THE COURT: You're not going to offend me by 15 your objections. 16 I can't, quite frankly, imagine that we're 17 going to go on and on and on and on and on, like 18 what happened up in Clearwater, because I'm not 19 going to have it, and I'm going to expect you to do 20 some objecting here, unless you just curiously like 21 to hear the same thing four or five times. 22 MR. HERTZBERG: No, Judge. Please -- please 23 don't let my politeness be perceived as any failure 24 to object. 25 THE COURT: Well, it is, and I saw it over and
57 1 over and over in Clearwater, and I thought perhaps 2 you were being polite. You don't need to be polite 3 to me. I'm not going to be polite to you, beyond 4 what's required. 5 I want this chase to proceed. I want us to get 6 done with these witnesses. 7 MR. HERTZBERG: Very good, your Honor. 8 _______________________________________ 9 KENNAN DANDAR, 10 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 11 and testified as follows: 12 THE COURT: You may proceed. 13 BY MR. LIROT: 14 Q Please state your name, and spell your last name 15 for the record, sir. 16 A Kennan, K-e-n-n-a-n, Dandar, D-a-n-d-a-r. 17 Q And can you -- 18 THE COURT: Let me -- let me ask you this. You 19 have, still, cross examination of what they had put 20 him on for in their case. You want to put him on 21 and not only cross examine him about that but 22 actually go ahead, since they don't have their next 23 witness here until the afternoon, I take it? 24 MR. FUGATE: Judge, as I understand what 25 Mr. McGowan said, he would have her here in the
58 1 afternoon. 2 THE COURT: So the answer to my question is 3 that's right -- 4 MR. FUGATE: That's right. 5 THE COURT: -- you have no witness -- 6 Thank you. 7 Then if you would like to put him on out of 8 order, since we have -- it's 10:30. I have no 9 objection, if they don't have any objection, to them 10 calling him as if, when you rested, they would call 11 him. 12 Is that okay? 13 MR. LIROT: I think that's an efficient way to 14 get it done, Judge. 15 THE COURT: If you want to. 16 MR. WIENBERG: That's fine with us. 17 THE COURT: Does that make sense? 18 MR. WIENBERG: It makes sense. 19 THE COURT: I mean, if you're ready to do that. 20 MR. LIROT: I'm ready, Judge. 21 THE COURT: Let's just go ahead and assume that 22 part of this is cross examination and part of this 23 is your case and you call him as your witness. 24 MR. LIROT: Very good, Judge. And I'll move 25 expeditiously.
59 1 THE COURT: Well, I suppose this is a very 2 important part of your case. But you -- you are 3 either going to be confined to the cross or you're 4 not. And I think now what we realize is you can go 5 ahead beyond the scope of that redirect and -- as if 6 you were putting him on for whatever purpose you 7 wanted to put him on related to this proceeding. 8 MR. LIROT: Excellent. Thank you, Judge. 9 BY MR. LIROT: 10 Q Mr. Dandar, you came at some point to represent 11 the estate of Lisa McPherson, did you not? 12 A Yes, I did. 13 Q And can you tell the court how that evolved? 14 A That evolved when I received a phone call from 15 the -- Ann Carlson, to call her. And I did. And she told 16 me about the Lisa McPherson death; and if I would come to 17 Dallas, Texas and meet with her and her sisters to talk 18 about it. And I said, "Sure. I'm on my way --" I happened 19 to be on my way to California the following week -- I think 20 it was the following week to take a deposition in San Diego 21 with a -- a layover in Dallas. 22 I got there, I met Dell Liebreich, I met Ann 23 Carlson. I extended my layover. I drove over and met Fanny 24 McPherson. I stayed at her house for three or four hours, 25 talking with her, while she was on oxygen, and had her sign
60 1 a retainer agreement. And Dell Liebreich signed the 2 retainer agreement. And then I went on to San Diego. 3 Q Was your discussion with Fanny McPherson relative 4 to your representation of the estate in this matter? 5 A Yes, it was. We talked -- 6 THE COURT: The estate? Maybe she knew she was 7 dying. Is that -- 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 THE WITNESS: She was on Hospice care and she 11 in fact died five days later. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q And after that, did you file a complaint in this 14 action? 15 A Yes. When I got back, we prepared the estate 16 papers for Lisa McPherson and Federal Expressed them over 17 and they came back signed. And the ones that needed to be 18 notarized were notarized; the ones that just had a signature 19 page of Fanny McPherson and Dell Liebreich were properly 20 filled out. 21 We filed it with the probate court, got letters of 22 administration, and then in February, we filed the wrongful 23 death suit. 24 Q Okay. Now, at the time you filed the original 25 complaint in this action, had you done any extensive
61 1 discovery or presuit investigation about the Church of 2 Scientology or any of the other issues that later arose in 3 the case? 4 A No. I didn't know anything about the Church of 5 Scientology. You know, I knew they were located in the 6 Ft. Harrison Hotel in downtown Clearwater; I knew they had 7 naval -- blue naval uniforms; they walked between the 8 buildings, up and down the street, and that's it. And they 9 had a sprinkle of some Hollywood stars. 10 Q All right. Did -- not to ask any privileged 11 questions, but did Fanny McPherson or anybody that you spoke 12 to in that presuit discussion -- did they know anything 13 about the Church of Scientology? 14 A Oh, they did. Fanny McPherson called them a cult. 15 Fanny McPherson was extremely upset that they had killed her 16 daughter. Her surviving child. And she wanted me and made 17 me promise to pursue them and expose them for what they did 18 to Lisa McPherson and to bring all responsible parties into 19 court. 20 Q All right. Did they know anything, actually, 21 about the inner workings of the church? 22 A No. 23 Q All right. And at that point in time, did you 24 know Robert Minton? 25 A No. Not at all.
62 1 Q So you filed the original complaint, and then 2 after that, you engaged in discovery. 3 A Well, I filed the original complaint, and I got 4 bombarded with -- people called me up, wanted -- they found 5 out about it -- and people claiming to be former 6 Scientologists and people being critics of Scientology. And 7 then I just conducted discovery. 8 Q All right. And did those telephone calls guide 9 you in any way in any of the questions or the way you framed 10 your discovery requests? 11 A Well, those -- well, it did help with discovery, 12 but it also led me to meet Vaughn Young and his wife at that 13 time, Stacy Young, who is now Stacy Brooks. And I flew to 14 Seattle and met with them to discuss what this was all 15 about, Scientology. 16 Q Can you tell the court who Vaughn Young and Stacy 17 Brooks were, to your knowledge, at that point in time? 18 A Well, when I met them, I got a history on both of 19 them. Both Vaughn and Stacy worked for OSA. At the time it 20 was called the guardian's office. It was the legal/dirty 21 tricks, undercover work -- 22 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Sustained. 24 THE WITNESS: I'm just saying what they told 25 me.
63 1 THE COURT: Well, that is not what they called 2 it, so -- OSA is not called "dirty tricks," I don't 3 suppose. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, he told me what they -- 5 what they did. 6 THE COURT: Well, that's -- 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 MR. WIENBERG: Well, then also objection to 9 hear- -- at some point -- I know that this isn't a 10 trial, but at some point I'm objecting to hearsay 11 too. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 BY MR. LIROT: 14 Q Just -- who did you understand Vaughn Young and 15 Stacy Brooks to be at that point in time? 16 A Well, Vaughn Young was the public relations person 17 for the mother church, as far as I can remember now. 18 EXAMINATION 19 BY THE COURT: 20 Q At the time you -- 21 I'm sorry, Mr. Dandar -- 22 A No. 23 Q At the time you talked to him, he was that? 24 A No. He had been out of -- as a member of the 25 Church of Scientology for quite some time. And I couldn't
64 1 possibly tell you when that was. Stacy Brooks, his wife, 2 was also out of the Church of Scientology at that time. 3 And they just started to educate me immediately 4 about the Church of Scientology. They started to tell me 5 the structure of the hierarchy, who controls it, who has the 6 power to do things. And also, they had known somehow about 7 the death of Lisa McPherson, so they started to tell me 8 about what possibly she had -- may have been going through 9 that led to her death. Because Stacy Brooks had personal 10 knowledge of what is known as the introspection rundown. 11 She has been involved with people who were psychotic and she 12 was there taking care of them, to the extent possible, as 13 part of the introspection rundown. 14 Q She was explaining that procedure to you at that 15 time? 16 A She was -- yeah. You know, this is like all new 17 to me. And so I just -- 18 But the interesting part about it is that Stacy 19 Brooks really didn't want to be involved at all in the case. 20 She said she was burned out on being involved in litigation. 21 But Vaughn Young, who is a very intelligent individual, 22 highly educated -- I'm going to say he has a PhD, but right 23 now I can't remember. I think when he joined the Church of 24 Scientology he was going for his PhD -- and he just had a 25 wealth of information.
65 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q All right. You state that it -- you believed 4 Stacy Young to be burned out -- Stacy Brooks, I'm sorry -- 5 to be burned out. Were you aware of her participation in 6 other litigation involving the Church of Scientology? 7 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I know you all are 8 going to just hate me, but I'm trying to learn as 9 much about what's happening here so I can better 10 understand things. 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q You said Vaughn Young -- did it used to be Stacy 14 Young because they were married? 15 A Yes. 16 Q They divorced? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And so she's taken back her maiden name? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. So Stacy Young and Stacy Brooks are really 21 one and the same people. 22 A Yes. 23 Q Good. 24 A Yes. 25 THE COURT: All right. I'm learning something.
66 1 A So -- I believe that was sometime in -- I'm going 2 to guess -- March of '97; about two months after I filed the 3 suit or thereabouts, give or take. And then I met them 4 again in the summer of '97. This is all before I ever heard 5 the name of Robert Minton. 6 But it turns out, when I finally -- 7 Well, I'm just rambling on. I'll stop. 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 9 BY MR. LIROT: 10 Q Well, okay. In December of '97, you met with them 11 again. And can you tell the court how that impacted the 12 progress of this action? 13 A Well, what had -- what had been going on is that I 14 had my original complaint that I filed, which I filed like a 15 normal wrongful death complaint because all I knew is what I 16 read in the papers and what I saw on Joan Wood's interview 17 on TV, and I didn't know anything about the Church of 18 Scientology whatsoever. 19 And over those months that I first contacted 20 Vaughn Young and Stacy, they -- Vaughn Young was 21 continuously giving me information, trying to educate me on 22 the practices of the Church of Scientology, their history, 23 their criminal history in breaking into the FBI building and 24 the state department -- 25 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, your Honor.
67 1 A -- which he was intimately -- 2 THE COURT: Sustained. 3 A -- involved with -- 4 MR. WIENBERG: Your Honor, my real objection is 5 this isn't really a question and answer; it's just 6 a -- 7 THE COURT: I agree with you. 8 MR. LIROT: I'll tighten it up, Judge. 9 THE COURT: You need to answer, and then you 10 need to explain if you need to. And you may do 11 that. But you, I'm going to tell the same thing as 12 I mentioned to previous counsel. This is a hearing 13 to determine whether or not there is a reason to 14 dismiss the complaint; this is a reason to determine 15 whether or not there has been a fraud on the court 16 therefore; and whether or not this lawyer committed 17 acts of perjury, fraud and what have you that would 18 allow me or require me or have me exercise my 19 discretion in such a fashion to dismiss him from the 20 case regarding the wrongful death. That's what this 21 is about. 22 MR. LIROT: Understood. 23 THE COURT: This is not about the whole history 24 of the case; this is not why the lawsuit was filed 25 the way it is. That has nothing to do with it.
68 1 There are issues here -- seems like there were 2 three. They identified the three yesterday. I 3 think they're right. I think those are the issues. 4 The question is, what about those issues; what do we 5 need to know about those issues? 6 And obviously, if you have to go somewhere else 7 to have me understand some of this, I do understand 8 that and that's permissible. 9 Now we're saying, well, he filed the first 10 complaint and how it went on -- you know, that's not 11 important or relevant, and I'm not -- you know, as I 12 said, my time's limited. 13 MR. LIROT: I understand your time is limited, 14 Judge. And if I could just seek some guidance from 15 the court, it was my understanding that opposing 16 counsel made accusations to the effect that the 17 complaint was amended to try to bring down the 18 church or something along those lines, and I -- 19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I see where 20 you're -- what you're saying. Yes, that was, and 21 yes, I said that could be important, so -- 22 MR. WIENBERG: But that wasn't -- the main 23 complaint was in 1999, but -- 24 THE COURT: Well, I think what he's suggesting 25 is he needs to get there, so --
69 1 MR. WIENBERG: Go ahead. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. WIENBERG: I just ask for questions and 4 answers. 5 THE WITNESS: Judge, if you want, just let me 6 tell you what happened and -- 7 THE COURT: Yeah. Maybe we could tell us how 8 we got up to the fifth complaint -- I mean, some of 9 it, I know. 10 MR. LIROT: Could we expedite it with a 11 narrative? 12 THE COURT: Yes. 13 MR. LIROT: It's -- 14 THE WITNESS: I'll be quick. 15 THE COURT: I'm going to let him expedite this 16 with a narrative as to how we got to the present 17 complaint without going into the legalistics of it. 18 A Okay. So Vaughn Young was helping me draft the 19 allegations of the complaint that concerned not the legal 20 requirements of a complaint, but the factual basis of the 21 complaint. Stacy Brooks, or Stacy Young at the time -- she 22 was, you know, just there. She would talk to me once in a 23 great while. But she would consult and -- if I asked her a 24 question. But she really -- again, it was Vaughn Young that 25 spent most of the time.
70 1 So when I got his drafts in the summer of '97, I 2 went back up there, got educated some more on Scientology 3 hierarchy, Scientology introspection rundown. 4 And the big question in my mind was, why would 5 this woman die like this? And he started to fill me in. 6 And I don't want to say what he said, because that's 7 privileged. 8 So -- and again, at this time, I had never met or 9 heard of Robert Minton. And the only defendant at that 10 time, in the summer of '97, was the corporate defendant. I 11 had no knowledge -- well, I may have started acquiring 12 knowledge of the individuals through discovery -- 13 THE COURT: I'm looking at your first 14 complaint. It does have defendant, Church of 15 Scientology d/b/a Church of Scientology Flag Service 16 Organization, Inc. 17 THE WITNESS: Right. That's as much as I knew. 18 I mean, I didn't know -- 19 A So anyway, in reference to Robert Minton, I 20 received an interrogatory from the Church of Scientology and 21 said, "Has Robert Minton given you any money? If so, how 22 much?" And this is while we were over in Tampa. 23 And so I went on the Internet. And I was a novice 24 at the Internet. And I said, "Who in the world is Robert 25 Minton and why do they think --" and I think they even had
71 1 in the interrogatory a hundred thousand dollars. I think. 2 I'm not sure. The record will speak for itself. I said, 3 "Who's Robert Minton? Why does the Church of Scientology 4 think they -- he has given me any money?" Because up until 5 that time, I heard accusations from the church that the 6 Clearwater Police Department gave you money; the German 7 government gave you money -- 8 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 MR. WIENBERG: Well, I don't know what the 11 question is. 12 MR. LIROT: It's a narrative to expedite the 13 creation of the fifth amended complaint. 14 A So I got on the Internet, said, "Who's Robert 15 Minton?" And the next thing, within a few days, Robert 16 Minton -- a person calls me up and says, "I'm Robert 17 Minton." I said, "Well, you know, why do they think you 18 gave me money?" And he told me Elliott Abelson, the general 19 counsel for the Church of Scientology in California, 20 their -- you know, their main general counsel, Elliott 21 Abelson, had a telephone call with Robert Minton either in 22 September or August of '97, accusing him of funding. And I 23 have -- I even have a letter from Elliott Abelson to Robert 24 Minton somewhere -- accusing him of funding people who want 25 to sue the Church of Scientology, and warning him that the
72 1 Church of Scientology would sue him for this and demand 2 great damages. 3 And he laughed that off, and he said, "I'd like to 4 send you some money. Since they think it's such a terrible 5 idea, it must be a good idea. So I'll send you some money." 6 And I said, "Well, you know, I don't know who you are." He 7 said, "Well, you met me before. Not really, but I was in a 8 room in Clearwater at a motel during a picket or a 9 demonstration in March of '97, and you were sitting in the 10 room. I brought over bagels and coffee for Larry 11 Wollersheim." 'Cause I met him for the first time, and I 12 thought he was a wealth of information as well. And he was 13 the first person I contacted that was a wealth of 14 information. 15 And he -- Robert Minton told me, "I was sitting in 16 the motel room. I'm the guy that didn't say a word." And I 17 remember that. There was a guy in there that just sat there 18 and didn't say anything. Everyone else was talking to me 19 about the Church of Scientology. 20 So I said. "Fine. Before you send me any money, 21 let me call up the Florida Bar." Because no one -- in '97, 22 I'd been practicing law now since '79; no one's ever offered 23 to send me money on a case. Except my clients. 24 So I called up the Florida Bar. I said, "I have a 25 third party that wants to send me money. He's not my
73 1 client. What do I do?" 2 THE COURT: Who did you call? Was it -- was it 3 the hot line? 4 THE WITNESS: The hot line. The hot line. 5 A And they said, "As long as your client consents; 6 as long as there's no confidential information divulged 7 without your client's consent; and as long as he doesn't 8 control the litigation, you can do whatever you want to, if 9 he wants to send you money." 10 So I put that in the letter to Robert Minton later 11 on. 12 First he sent me the money. It was a hundred 13 thousand dollars. And he sent me a note, which is in the 14 exhibits filed with Judge Baird, and said, you know, "Here's 15 the money." 16 THE COURT: I think your letter -- I don't know 17 if your letter's in, but I know I saw some 18 documentation that was in before Judge Baird, and I 19 assume it's included. 20 THE WITNESS: I always called that letter a -- 21 ripped off in a Kleenex box, and that was -- 22 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. 23 THE WITNESS: -- incorrect. 24 THE COURT: I had that question. What is that? 25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
74 1 THE COURT: -- that? I didn't see any Kleenex 2 box on the -- 3 THE WITNESS: What it is -- 4 THE COURT: -- box. 5 THE WITNESS: -- is the -- 6 Did we bring the original? No. 7 What it is is, it's a -- it's a card that has 8 printed on the top of it, "Robert Minton." And he 9 tore it. So it was torn. And I don't know why it 10 was torn. But it's all hand -- handwriting of his 11 on the front and then on the back. So it comes out 12 in the exhibit as two pages. 13 THE COURT: Okay. So when you speak of the 14 Kleenex box, that copy is what you're referring to. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: That's what was written on the 17 Kleenex box or on a -- a piece of cardboard. 18 THE WITNESS: It's a card. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: Some kind of card or stationery 21 of some type. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 A So he said, "I'm going to send you a check for a 24 hundred thousand dollars, just to let you know that I'm for 25 real." And I thought I was being set up right then and
75 1 there. I thought, "No one sends a check out for a hundred 2 thousand dollars." 3 So he sends the check. I deposit the check, I 4 wait, and it clears. And I said, "Well, this man's for 5 real." 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q I guess I'll ask one question. Did you deposit 8 the check? 9 A Because I -- first time I ever heard of this and 10 heard of him, I deposited the check in my trust account. 11 And I went on litigating the case. By that time, 12 I had a great amount of money of my own already invested in 13 the case, 'cause I -- I was paying Vaughn Young; I was 14 hiring physicians to look at the case, to see why Lisa 15 McPherson died. 16 Did I answer all that? What was the question? 17 THE COURT: Why did you -- 18 BY MR. LIROT: 19 Q Why did you deposit it in your trust account? 20 A Oh. 21 That's why I deposited it in my trust account. 22 Because I didn't know who this guy was and I wanted to make 23 sure that was the right place to put it. It was made 24 payable to Dandar and Dandar, and my trust account is the 25 only account that we use to keep track of costs for cases on
76 1 each case. So it goes into the trust account. There's a 2 ledger. From the ledger, it goes into the computer billing 3 program. 4 Q So if the money was shady, you could send him back 5 a trust check. 6 A Shady? 7 Q Or if you had any concerns about the money. 8 A Well, if I had any concerns -- 9 Q Or the manner in which it was tendered. 10 A Yeah. I could send it back if something strange 11 happened. 12 Q So Mr. Minton provided that money and you called 13 the Florida Bar. Please continue for the court. 14 A All right. So after I called the Florida Bar, 15 after I had his money, I decided to send him a letter 16 outlining the rules that the Florida Bar quoted to me over 17 the ethics hot line, telling him the specifics; tell him I 18 had already called my client, who said she thought that was 19 wonderful that somebody was going to send me money. Because 20 it -- our arrangement was that I had to advance all the 21 money and not to look at them in the event I lost. All the 22 money was my responsibility. 23 THE COURT: Where is that letter? Did that 24 ever get into evidence -- 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
77 1 THE COURT: -- up in Clearwater? 2 MR. LIROT: That was introduced -- 3 THE COURT: Was that part of the exhibits -- 4 MR. LIROT: It was introduced before Judge 5 Baird. 6 THE COURT: Okay. I thought it had, but I'm 7 not sure. 8 THE WITNESS: It's an October 6th, '97 letter, 9 I believe. 10 THE COURT: Do you remember what number it was? 11 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm trying to find it right 12 now. 13 MR. WIENBERG: This is the letter to 14 Ms. Liebreich. Is that what you're -- 15 THE COURT: Basically stating he'll advance the 16 costs? 17 THE WITNESS: That's another letter. This is 18 the letter to Robert Minton -- 19 MR. WIENBERG: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: -- October, '97. 21 THE COURT: Oh. 22 THE WITNESS: There's a letter to Ms. Liebreich 23 that has nothing to do with Robert Minton; that just 24 confirms my first meeting with Dell Liebreich and 25 Fanny McPherson, where I -- I had them sign a form
78 1 contingency fee agreement, which says, "You're going 2 to pay the costs, win or lose --" 3 THE COURT: Did you try to get that in at the 4 hearing and you didn't get it in? 5 THE WITNESS: I defer to Mr. Lirot. I think 6 you might be right about that. 7 MR. FUGATE: Exhibit 9 is the letter you asked 8 about, Judge -- 9 THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. 10 MR. FUGATE: -- that went to Mr. Minton. 11 THE COURT: I seem to have -- 12 MR. DANDAR: Judge, you want me to look for it? 13 THE COURT: No. I see. I've got -- I've got 14 two books. So let me go to 9 here. 15 Okay. I've got it. And I do remember seeing 16 it. Thanks. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. That's the letter to 18 Mr. Minton. 19 THE COURT: Right. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. And that spells out the 21 particular Florida Bar rules that I was quoted and 22 instructed on how to handle this. 23 BY MR. LIROT: 24 Q Did the Florida Bar tell you you had to write that 25 type of letter every time that you received money?
79 1 A No. No. They just told me that it would be 2 better to put it in writing to make sure he understood that 3 he had no control and he wasn't getting any confidential 4 information unless my client agreed he could have 5 confidential information. 6 Q All right. Putting Mr. Minton aside for a moment, 7 could you continue your narrative to the court about your 8 progress of the complaint, and how we got to the fifth 9 amended complaint? 10 A All right. So as the -- more discovery took 11 place, I discovered that there were individuals who were 12 highly involved in the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson, 13 people who were in their medical liaison office, including 14 Janis Johnson and Mr. Houghton. Mr. Houghton, at that time, 15 was an unlicensed dentist. Well, at the time of Lisa 16 McPherson's stay at the hotel. 17 And then I found out about Alain Karduzinski. And 18 the file will reflect this, not my brain, but I can't 19 remember when I tried to take depositions. 20 But I also found out about Lisa McPherson's 21 employer, Bennetta Slaughter, causing her great emotional 22 distress during 1995. And I knew Lisa McPherson was 23 psychotic; she took her clothes off in the middle of the 24 street. So I also added her on. 25 And I added -- as a defendant.
80 1 And I added Karduzinski, Janis Johnson and David 2 Houghton as defendants, and I also added Bennetta 3 Slaughter's company, AMC Publishing Company, where Lisa 4 McPherson worked. And this was because of all the 5 information I was gathering. 6 And if I had taken some depositions up to that 7 point in time, I really can't tell you that. 8 Q Did you know Bennetta Slaughter to have an 9 affiliation with the Church of Scientology in some way? 10 A Well, I knew that she and her husband were, like 11 Lisa McPherson, public members of the Church of Scientology. 12 I knew that the business was operated under Scientology 13 technology, known -- and it was also a member of the World 14 Institute of Scientology Enterprises with the acronym of 15 WISE. And I gathered all this information from January of 16 '97 until I filed the first amended complaint. 17 And the file will reflect when I filed the first 18 amended complaint. I can't remember. 19 THE COURT: The -- I'm looking at it myself, so 20 I have it. I'll make the record clear. It doesn't 21 have a date of filing, but it does have a date of 22 service of 4th of December, 1997, being delivered to 23 Morris Weinberg -- 24 THE WITNESS: Okay. 25 THE COURT: -- and Laura Vaughn. Laura Vaughn?
81 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. Laura Vaughn. 2 MR. FUGATE: That's right. 3 THE COURT: Okay. And that is styled First 4 Amended Complaint, Demand for Trial by Jury. And at 5 this time, the defendants -- apparently the 6 plaintiffs stayed the same -- are Church of 7 Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., Benetta 8 Slaughter, semicolon, Produx -- Prodex, Inc., a 9 Florida corporation, doing business as AMC 10 Publishing Company; Janis Johnson, MD; David 11 Minkoff, MD; Alain Karduzinski and David Houghton, 12 DDS. That's the style. And that's the date that it 13 was served. 14 THE WITNESS: Right. 15 THE COURT: That's the first amended complaint. 16 THE WITNESS: I forgot about David Minkoff, MD. 17 That's right. Okay. 18 A None of this had to do with Robert Minton. This 19 had to do with my own investigation. All my own 20 information-gathering, speaking with Vaughn Young -- 21 THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- 22 A -- putting this all together. 23 THE COURT: Let me -- if you will, let me read 24 this, because I've only ever read the fifth amended 25 complaint. And this could be important. And I know
82 1 this is a, you know, problem for you guys, that -- 2 but I can't keep up with this. I've got to do it 3 slow. So let me read this. 4 Plus, it seems like a good time for a break. 5 MR. LIROT: I was going to say, I've had a lot 6 of coffee. If you'd like to read it during a 7 break -- 8 THE COURT: All right. Let's do it. Let's 9 take a 20-minute break -- or -- no, 15 to 20. Watch 10 for me. I'll wait for you to come back. I'm going 11 to try to read all of these complaints. 12 MR. FUGATE: And I've got copies of the two 13 transcripts, which I'll give to Mr. Lirot to look 14 at. 15 THE COURT: Wonderful. 16 (A recess was taken.) 17 THE COURT: Okay. I didn't have a chance -- I 18 had a couple calls come in. I read most of what -- 19 the first amended complaint. Is that the one we're 20 on? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: I did not have a chance to read the 23 other, so -- 24 I forgot. I -- please remind me I've got a 25 conference call at noon on a committee that I chair.
83 1 So I've got to be on the call. So we're going to 2 have to take a break at noon. 3 MR. LIROT: Very good. 4 THE COURT: Okay. And then what we're going to 5 do is interrupt, and let's take Ms. Brooks, so 6 that -- she probably is needing to tend to her 7 business, so -- 8 MR. LIROT: As you wish, Judge. 9 THE COURT: All right. 10 BY MR. LIROT: 11 Q Mr. Dandar, before the break we were talking about 12 the progression and metamorphosis of what ultimately became 13 the fifth amended complaint in this action. I think we were 14 up to the first amended complaint. And do you recall about 15 what date you filed that? 16 THE COURT: I think I just told you that it was 17 dated the 4th of December of 1997. 18 MR. LIROT: Very good. Thank you. 19 THE COURT: That's the date of service. So I 20 can only presume it was filed around the same time. 21 THE WITNESS: Right. And that was just before 22 the wrongful death statute of limitations of two 23 years. So prior to that, I was worried about, if I 24 needed to add on anyone else, I needed to do it at 25 that time, because the two-year statute was
84 1 approaching. 2 EXAMINATION 3 BY THE COURT: 4 Q Had you ever sat down and discussed anything with 5 Mr. Minton before you filed that? 6 A Not about this case, no. 7 Q No, I mean, had you had any conversations with 8 Mr. Minton where you sat down in a room and discussed this 9 case with him -- 10 A No. 11 Q -- before this date. 12 A No. No. 13 Q Okay. 14 A No. 15 Q You had obviously written a letter, I think, that 16 came before it; he sent you the hundred thousand -- 17 A I wrote that letter, that's right. 18 Q And did you have any face-to-face sit-down with 19 him before that? 20 A No, no. 21 Q Okay. 22 A In fact, that's leading up to this now. 23 That happens to be also the time that 24 Mr. Minton -- I believe he came -- well, I'm not sure he was 25 there. Let me think.
85 1 I can't be sure. 2 Q All right. 3 A But there was a vigil on December 4th or 5th of 4 '97, for Lisa McPherson. And -- there had been several 5 vigils on December 5th of 19 -- December 5th of each year 6 except this last, 2001. I can't testify with certainty when 7 the first one was. 8 My contact for the vigil, though, was not Minton 9 or Stacy Brooks or anybody else except Jeff Jacobsen. Jeff 10 Jacobsen was a critic on the Internet for the Church of 11 Scientology. He was never a Scientologist, as far as I 12 know. And I received a lot of information from him, I 13 think, by telephone on -- and he was trying to help me. I 14 never hired him or anything. 15 But I had all this information; I had all this 16 discovery; I had these people that, if I needed to add on -- 17 And so the first amended complaint, I did add on 18 people. 19 And thereafter, you know, we had motion after 20 motion after motion to dismiss, dismiss, dismiss; technical 21 little things that were not quite right. And one that 22 stands out in my mind is that I didn't have an allegation in 23 there that Dell Liebreich had the consent of Fanny McPherson 24 to become the personal representative of the estate of Lisa 25 McPherson. So I said, "Sure." I put that in and -- I went
86 1 back and put that in. And of course, now the -- that's -- 2 that's been changed into a allegation of forgery of her 3 signature. 4 We eventually went to the fifth amended complaint. 5 I dropped Bennetta Slaughter; I dropped AMC Publishing. I 6 had wrongful -- I had nursing home counts in there that I 7 dropped because I had, in good faith, believed that they 8 were operating as a nursing home or assisted care facility. 9 They were unlicensed. They were practicing medicine without 10 a license. We went through all these different counts. I 11 even had a common law wrongful death count in, rather than a 12 statutory wrongful death count, because I had done my 13 research and the research that I found led me to the 14 good-faith belief that there was a common law cause of 15 action as well as a statutory, and the common law gave you 16 more damages than the statute did. 17 So we went through many amended complaints, many 18 motions. We finally ended up -- 19 Let's go now, I guess, to the summer of 1999. And 20 I'm going to try and see if my memory will help me out here. 21 I'm not sure of the first date I met Jesse Prince, 22 but I met Jesse Prince -- 23 MR. WIENBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Is there 24 a question at this point or is it just going to 25 be --
87 1 THE COURT: I'll just kind of let him have a 2 narrative. 3 MR. WIENBERG: Okay. 4 THE COURT: In other words -- I don't really 5 know how to do this without a lot of questions, 6 but -- 7 MR. WIENBERG: That's why I haven't objected, 8 but -- but I'm not sure if we still -- 9 THE COURT: There's a certain allegation that 10 seems to be permeating that one of the things that 11 goes to the crux of the lawsuit is that Mr. Minton 12 came in, gave money and then the complaint was 13 changed, and all of the intentional, murderous, 14 whatever allegations came along. So he is now 15 trying to explain how he got to the fifth complaint, 16 and I've kind of let him just do it by a narrative. 17 MR. LIROT: It would save us a lot of time, 18 Judge. 19 THE COURT: I think it would. And rather than 20 him just periodically saying, "What happened 21 next --" 22 MR. WIENBERG: Okay. 23 THE COURT: -- I mean, I think we'll just allow 24 him to go on ahead. 25 MR. WIENBERG: All right.
88 1 THE COURT: But that's what I'm -- that's -- 2 I'm not interested in other suits that were brought 3 against whatever. I just want to know how and 4 whether or not Mr. Minton -- obviously, the 5 allegation is that Mr. Minton caused, by his 6 donation, this complaint to evolve to where it is. 7 So naturally that is what I'm trying to find out, 8 whether there's any truth to that and, you know, if 9 so, what is it? 10 A Well, let me answer that, 'cause I -- hit the -- 11 the nail on the head, as they say. 12 The allegations of why Lisa McPherson died; did it 13 have anything to do with any of the tech or technology or 14 writings of the Church of Scientology -- all of that 15 information was derived from Robert Vaughn Young. Mr. Young 16 has spent 25 years in Scientology. He was the expert on 17 Scientology that had -- that I had met early on in the case, 18 I believe, March of '97. Then I met Larry Wollersheim and 19 then I met others. But he is the one that told me about the 20 introspection rundown. He's the one that told me, without 21 waiving any privilege here -- 22 BY THE COURT: 23 Q He's a representative -- 24 A Pardon me? 25 No. He was my expert.
89 1 Q Oh. 2 A And he's testified about this in his deposition. 3 Q Okay. 4 A And he is the one who told me that someone 5 psychotic like Lisa McPherson would be immediately reported 6 up the lines to David Miscavige at the very top of the 7 hierarchy of the Church of Scientology, and he is the one 8 that told me that Scientology will and has permitted people 9 to die rather -- for one purpose only, and that is to 10 protect the public relations image of the Church of 11 Scientology. 12 And I'm sitting there, how does that help them if 13 someone dies? And -- but -- and he showed me some 14 information. 15 And that's how these allegations evolved into the 16 first amended complaint, and it continued on throughout 17 until the fifth amended complaint. 18 Jesse Prince -- I believe it was the summer of 19 '99. And I will say absolutely, positively, I never met 20 with Robert Minton to discuss anything that had to do with 21 pleadings, parties, adding on parties, anything like that. 22 Robert Minton was out there on the Internet and he was out 23 there in Clearwater later on -- not even up until this time. 24 He didn't come to Clearwater till the -- December, I 25 believe, of '99, late fall, December of '99. All of this is
90 1 me acting as the lawyer, gathering up information. 2 I tried to gather information from the defendants. 3 They were all pleading the Fifth Amendment on advice of 4 counsel because the criminal charges were still there, and I 5 was going through all these amendments based upon what my 6 experts and consultants were telling me, and never had any 7 input from Mr. Minton whatsoever. Never. Not even till 8 today. Not even up till today. Never. 9 Q Okay. 10 A So Jesse Prince arrives on the scene. He tells me 11 his credentials of his experience in the Church of 12 Scientology. 13 Q About when was that, as best you can recall? 14 A I believe it was the summer of '99. I remember -- 15 somebody could correct me -- yeah. I remember flying to Key 16 West, having a meeting with Brian Haney, a former 17 Scientologist; Jesse Prince -- and I think that's when I met 18 him; Dan Leipold, an attorney in California, who has vast 19 years of experience of litigating against the Church of 20 Scientology; and Ford Greene, another attorney from northern 21 California, also with experience in suing religious 22 organizations. 23 That's where I met Jesse Prince, I believe. And 24 that's where we talked and talked and talked. And he flew 25 back with me to my office, and we just started talking. And
91 1 I retained him sometime, I believe, thereafter as a expert, 2 as a consultant. And that's when he came up and told me 3 about -- based upon -- he was number two worldwide in the 4 Scientology hierarchy of executives. He was the -- an 5 executive officer -- and I'm forgetting which officer, what 6 position -- of the Religious Technologies Center, which is 7 the corporation -- 8 Q Remember, I -- I read that affidavit that he 9 filed. 10 A There you go. Okay. Then you have it all. 11 Q So -- and I recall that he indicates all of the 12 various things that he did and was involved in in the 13 church. 14 A Okay. So that affidavit culminated from him being 15 in my office, having access to the Scientology literature 16 that I had, reading over the files that I had -- 17 Q Did you have the preclear files at that time? 18 A I can't tell you. I don't know. I just don't 19 remember. 20 See, if I had my pleadings, I could tell you 21 what -- when everything happened. 22 But -- and it's in the record of -- I mean, 23 there's boxes, I'm sure, of pleadings in this case, so I can 24 find that out if and when you want me to find that out. 25 So he came up with this affidavit. I read over
92 1 the affidavit. It didn't shock me as much -- had he come in 2 '97, it would have shocked me more than reading -- than what 3 I knew by then, in '99. It didn't shock me at all. 4 So that's when I -- I made a decision to contact 5 my client, Dell Liebreich. And I said, "Look, I have Jesse 6 Prince here," and I told him all about -- told her all about 7 Jesse Prince. I said, "I -- I promised Fanny McPherson, 8 just days before she died, that I would pursue everybody 9 that was responsible, and here I have a guy who could 10 connect every -- all the dots all the way up to the very top 11 of the Church of Scientology. He's seen people die because 12 they were given orders to, quote, end cycle. One of them 13 was one of his very close friends. And this person was in 14 charge of litigation previously years ago for the Church of 15 Scientology. He went around the world hiring law firms; he 16 went around telling them how to conduct their litigation --" 17 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, your Honor. Is what 18 is being described is what Mr. Dandar told 19 Ms. Liebreich that Mr. Prince told him? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MR. WIENBERG: Okay. 22 A And I said, "You know, we have --" 23 THE COURT: Did you withdraw your objection? I 24 mean, I think -- 25 MR. WIENBERG: It's all hearsay.
93 1 THE COURT: I know. But I think for this 2 hearing and for what's being alleged here, that I'm 3 going to -- I think it just almost has to come in. 4 MR. WIENBERG: I understand. I just wanted to 5 see if this was him saying -- 6 THE COURT: That's what I am assuming, that he 7 is saying Jesse Prince told him this; at this point 8 in time he called his client, and he was revealing 9 what he had learned to his client. 10 THE WITNESS: Right. 11 MR. WIENBERG: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: Right, right. 13 A So as a result of discussing all this with my 14 client and what I had learned from Jesse Prince -- and I do 15 have a jury trial consultant, Dr. Michael Garko -- Jesse 16 Prince, Michael Garko and I were talking -- 17 BY THE COURT: 18 Q Who is Michael Garko? 19 A He's a jury trial consultant, PhD -- 20 Q Who is this gentleman that always comes to court? 21 A Oh, that's Rick Spector. He's a -- 22 Q Spector. Okay. 23 A -- videographer. 24 Q Have I ever met Dr. Garko? 25 A Yes. During the trial that ended in a hung jury a
94 1 month ago -- 2 Q Oh, okay. 3 A -- he was in there. 4 And the decision came that we need to go 5 forward -- we have the information, we have an expert 6 witness -- add on these other corporations and other 7 individuals to the lawsuit. So I prepared a motion to amend 8 the complaint. 9 I got a letter from Lee Fugate, when I filed it, 10 saying, you know -- reminding me that there was an agreement 11 that was signed back in December -- November, December of 12 '97, agreeing not to add on parties -- 13 Q This is the fifth amended complaint you're talking 14 about? 15 A This is the last one. 16 Well, no, no, no. This is the -- there's many 17 fifth amended complaints. This was the first one. 18 Q Okay. Maybe I don't even have the right one. 19 THE COURT: I presume, Lee, when you gave me 20 this, you gave me the one that is in existence. 21 MR. FUGATE: The one that is operative now. 22 What he's saying is there were a number of 23 iterations before you got to that. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. WIENBERG: There was a motion to amend,
95 1 which you may or may not be looking at -- 2 THE COURT: I'm not. What Mr. Fugate provided 3 me was the fifth, fourth, third, second and first. 4 So the fifth is the ultimate fifth that we're 5 dealing with. 6 MR. WIENBERG: It's got January of 2000 on it? 7 THE COURT: It says -- no. It says that this 8 is furnished this 21st day of December 1999 -- 9 MR. WIENBERG: Yeah. That's right. 10 THE WITNESS: That's the one. That's the last 11 one. The operative one. 12 BY THE COURT: 13 Q And that's the one where, in addition to -- 14 Now, some of these people came off. Bennetta 15 Slaughter came off. 16 A Oh, yeah. Right. 17 Minkoff, Dr. Minkoff. 18 Q And her corporation. Was that by court order or 19 was that by your -- 20 A Settled -- we just dropped them. We settled with 21 Dr. Minkoff. We dropped Bennetta Slaughter. We dropped -- 22 we decided not to pursue them. 23 Q So at the time the fifth amended complaint was 24 filed, you had left: The Church of Scientology Flag Service 25 Organization, Inc., Janis Johnson, Alain Karduzinski, and
96 1 David Houghton, and you added to that David Miscavige. 2 A Well, that's the last complaint, yeah. 3 Q Right. 4 A But we're not there yet. We're almost there. 5 Q Okay. 6 A So when Lee Fugate reminded me of this agreement, 7 in 1997, not to add on additional parties, and in exchange 8 for that, the trial would not be delayed, we would hurry up 9 and get to a trial date, and they would not fraudulently 10 convey their property, as they did in the Wollersheim 11 case -- 12 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, your Honor. 13 BY THE COURT: 14 Q Don't need it, Mr. Dandar. 15 A I'm sorry. 16 Q All right. 17 A But I'm -- I'm telling you the truth. 18 Q It doesn't matter. I just don't need it in this 19 hearing. 20 A All right, all right, all right. 21 Q That -- that would be something that Judge Baird 22 might be interested in, but here -- 23 A Okay. 24 Q -- I'm not. 25 A Very well.
97 1 So I filed a motion to set aside this stipulation. 2 And it went before Judge Moody in October of '99. And Judge 3 Moody ruled the stipulation is valid. I said, "There's no 4 consideration." He said, "No. The stipulation is valid." 5 It was like a short hearing. He said, "But you want to go 6 forward and breach it, you suffer the consequences." 7 And we decided -- and I said it on the record -- 8 we don't intend to breach a valid stipulation. So we backed 9 off and we did not pursue it, and we went back. 10 Q What does that mean, went back? 11 A Well, we went back to redraft the complaint and 12 take these -- 13 Q Okay. 14 A -- proposed defendants off because -- 15 Q All right. 16 A -- we had no intention of breaching the agreement. 17 And he so ruled that we did not breach that 18 agreement. 19 So the Church of Scientology then was -- 20 THE COURT: Excuse me. 21 You know, I -- it isn't a laughing matter, 22 folks. I don't need it, and I don't need the 23 laughter and -- I just don't need it. And I was 24 watching Mr. Dandar and heard it. Therefore, it was 25 loud enough for other people to hear. We have
98 1 members of the public that are here. I don't want 2 anybody to think that anything going on here which 3 alleges the types of things that are alleged here 4 are laughing matters. So therefore, when this 5 witness is testifying, you're not to laugh. 6 BY THE COURT: 7 Q Continue. 8 A Thank you. 9 So I went back, conferred with my experts, my 10 consultants, my jury trial consultant. 11 Q And again -- 12 A Never -- 13 Q And again, you're -- make sure I understand who 14 you're saying. You're saying Jesse Prince, Vaughn Young -- 15 A Vaughn Young, Jesse Prince, Stacy -- I think she 16 was Stacy Brooks at that time -- Vaughn Young; his ex-wife 17 now, Stacy Brooks; Jesse Prince. Vaughn Young by phone; 18 Jesse Prince in person; Stacy in person; Dr. Michael Garko, 19 my trial consultant -- 20 Q This is a discussion to determine how you're 21 finally going to file this last -- 22 A Yeah. 23 Q -- complaint? 24 A If I'm going to do anything with this -- 25 Q Okay.
99 1 A -- if I'm just going to let it go. 2 And the only one that was a proponent of this was 3 Stacy Brooks. So I mean, she's -- she just said, "He's the 4 one. He's the one. He's in charge." I said, "I know 5 that," I said, "But you know -- and I know my promise to 6 Fanny McPherson." I said, "Okay, but --" 7 MR. WIENBERG: Will you just identify -- are 8 you talking about Mr. Miscavige? 9 THE WITNESS: Adding on David Miscavige. 10 A Because everyone else are just -- they just -- 11 they do whatever he says to do. He's -- 12 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, excuse me. I think 13 Ms. Brooks came in, and Mr. Minton. And if the rule 14 was invoked, I should tell them that? 15 THE COURT: Yes, you should. Ask them if 16 they'd -- 17 Well, let's see. Mr. Minton is a party. 18 THE WITNESS: Not to this case. 19 THE COURT: Not to this case. So he'll have to 20 step out. 21 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 22 THE COURT: Has he been added to the 23 counterclaim? 24 MR. WIENBERG: Yes. He's in the counterclaim. 25 I think.
100 1 MR. FUGATE: He is in the counterclaim. 2 THE COURT: I think he is. 3 THE WITNESS: I haven't seen an amended 4 counterclaim. 5 MR. MOXON: Judge, you ordered it, but the -- 6 THE COURT: If he hasn't been added as a party 7 yet, he's not a party, so he'll have to step 8 outside. I'm sorry. 9 MR. MOXON: But you -- you ordered that he was 10 added. 11 THE COURT: But he's not been. I mean, that's 12 a decision for you to make, and he hasn't been. 13 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I apologize. I had my back 14 to you. Does that -- who am I instructing to leave? 15 THE COURT: Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. 16 MR. FUGATE: Okay. I'll explain that. 17 THE WITNESS: I will add this though, Judge: 18 They are parties before Judge Baird. And if this is 19 a continuation of -- 20 THE COURT: I don't care, frankly, if all the 21 people stay in. I mean, I can't believe for a 22 minute that everybody's not reading what's public 23 record. 24 MR. WIENBERG: Well, the point that Mr. Dandar 25 made is a good one. All the other witnesses were
101 1 excluded, but since they were parties in front of 2 Judge Baird, Mr. Minton -- 3 THE COURT: Why don't we just let the people 4 in? What's the harm here? 5 MR. LIROT: Briefly, Judge, I'm going to show 6 this to counsel -- 7 THE COURT: This is sort of a pretrial issue. 8 Obviously a very important issue. But we're not 9 going to be talking about any of the matters that 10 we're going to do at trial if we ever get to a 11 trial. 12 MR. LIROT: I don't have another copy of that. 13 Judge, if I could approach Mr. Dandar? 14 THE COURT: You may. 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q Mr. Dandar, I'm going to hand you a copy -- 18 THE COURT: I need to make sure -- we asked 19 that the rule be invoked, and now are we just going 20 to allow the witnesses to observe, if they're here? 21 MR. WIENBERG: I would object to anybody other 22 than Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, because they were 23 there during all of Mr. Dandar's testimony in the 24 breach case, but all the other witnesses were 25 excluded.
102 1 THE COURT: Then I'm excluding them as well. 2 Ask them to step out. 3 MR. WIENBERG: All right. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Fugate, ask them to step out. 5 Okay. Continue. 6 BY MR. LIROT: 7 Q Mr. Dandar, I'm going to hand you what's entitled 8 Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Add Party and File Fifth 9 Amended Complaint, and if you could describe that document 10 and explain that to the court. 11 A Yes. 12 So anyway, after meeting with them, looking at 13 more evidence on the structure of Scientology, at this time 14 I obtained some new information. One of them, I believe, 15 was called RTC news. It's a newsletter put out by the 16 Religious Technology Center, which is a senior corporation 17 to Flag, because Flag sends all of their net profits up to 18 RTC. 19 And it said on the back cover -- and this was 20 introduced before Judge Moody -- 21 MR. WIENBERG: Your Honor, I'm -- 22 A -- that if someone -- 23 MR. WIENBERG: -- going to object to this 24 testimony -- 25 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
103 1 MR. WIENBERG: -- that RTC does this and that. 2 If he could just confine himself to what he did as 3 opposed to -- 4 THE COURT: Well, he's confining himself to why 5 it is he did what he did, and so therefore I think 6 he can say it. Whether it's true or not really is 7 sort of irrelevant. This is why -- he's explaining 8 to us why he did what he did. I mean, you would 9 challenge what Jesse Prince told him as not being 10 true, but he's basing what he did as to filing his 11 fifth amended complaint -- 12 MR. WIENBERG: I understand. 13 THE COURT: -- on what -- 14 MR. WIENBERG: And this is our last comment: 15 He throws in the, "because this is what RTC does, A, 16 B and C," or whatever -- 17 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Overruled. 18 I'm not suggesting that it's true or not true. 19 I'm just suggesting he's testifying as to how he got 20 to the complaint that we're on, because this was 21 raised as a critical part of the lawsuit which would 22 have some bearing on the motion to dismiss. 23 MR. LIROT: His understanding. 24 THE COURT: His understanding. Exactly. 25 A So I had this newsletter -- I had an original, not
104 1 some -- what someone said on the Internet -- I had an 2 original newsletter from RTC. And on the back it says, "You 3 must immediately report PTS Type 3, potential trouble source 4 Type 3, slash, psychotic, immediately up the lines to RTC." 5 And David Miscavige sits up at the top, controls 6 everything, because he is the only captain of the Sea 7 Organization which is the -- 8 MR. WIENBERG: Objection, again. The 9 newsletters didn't say that. It just said what he 10 said. He didn't say David Miscavige is in control 11 of everything and he's the captain of the Sea Org 12 and all that. This is my objection. 13 THE COURT: I believe Jesse Prince or somebody 14 else told him that. 15 MR. WIENBERG: Well, he's testifying about this 16 newsletter. 17 THE COURT: No. He's testifying about -- as a 18 conglomerate of everything he read, what it is he 19 believed and why he filed the fifth amended 20 complaint. 21 Proceed. 22 Overruled. 23 A So -- 24 BY MR. LIROT: 25 Q Can you explain the term to the court?
105 1 THE COURT: What term? 2 A The Sea Organization? 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q PTS Type 3. 5 A Oh -- 6 THE COURT: I don't need that. Good lord, I 7 can tell you I know more than I ever wanted to know 8 about PTS3. 9 A So I had this information. I had Jesse Prince. I 10 had Stacy Brooks. Again, Stacy Brooks was the most vocal 11 about her knowledge within the Office of Special Affairs. 12 Her knowledge about David Miscavige. Jesse Prince had 13 similar knowledge and had more executive experience because 14 he was with RTC. And I had heard from Vaughn Young. 15 And Michael Garko was there with me. And we 16 were -- I was just kind of weary of all this, but again, I 17 had my promise to Fanny McPherson. And I said, "If he's the 18 one that's responsible, then I'm going to go and pursue and 19 add him on as the captain of the Sea Org. Because the Sea 20 Org -- S-e-a, O-r-g, Sea Organization, which are the staff 21 members who run all the corporations of Scientology -- no 22 matter what corporate entity it is, he is the guy that's in 23 charge of all of them. 24 And I saw the newspaper where he went in at some 25 mission-holder conference in San Francisco, as a Sea Org
106 1 member, and ousted the president or the officers of this 2 other Scientology, separate on paper, corporation. 3 EXAMINATION 4 BY THE COURT: 5 Q Who did that? 6 A David Miscavige. 7 I said, "Well, then, this guy's pretty powerful." 8 So we filed a motion to file amended -- fifth 9 amended complaint, which is dated December of 1999. Names 10 David Miscavige individually. And we went to a hearing on 11 December 14th, 1999 before Judge Moody. We presented this 12 evidence that I had acquired, plus some of the old evidence 13 I had, and we added him on individually as a defendant, 14 based upon everything I knew at that time. And Judge Moody 15 granted the motion to add on dated January 6th, 2000. 16 And the only reason we proceeded after that is 17 because we had a court order permitting us to add him on. 18 Because as I just told you, back in October, we could not 19 add him on as the chairman of the board of RTC, 'cause RTC 20 was part of this agreement, so we backed off and we didn't 21 pursue it that way. 22 Q So you pursued him -- in other words, on the fifth 23 amended complaint he is listed as a defendant -- 24 A In his individual -- 25 Q -- in his individual capacity, and you had a court
107 1 order that allowed you to. 2 A And it's right here. 3 MR. LIROT: I'll hand it to you, Judge. 4 THE COURT: Are you introducing -- this is 5 probably part of this record, but lord only -- 6 MR. LIROT: It's probably -- 7 THE COURT: -- knows where it is. 8 MR. LIROT: I think it's appropriate for 9 judicial notice. It's certainly a document most 10 likely a part of this record. 11 THE WITNESS: It's certainly in the court file. 12 I don't think it's an exhibit before Judge Baird. 13 THE COURT: Okay. The -- this can be made a 14 Defendant's Exhibit? 15 MR. LIROT: I'd like to. 16 MR. WIENBERG: Plaintiff's exhibit. 17 MR. LIROT: We're Plaintiff here. 18 THE COURT: Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. 19 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 marked for identification.) 20 THE COURT: If this is your only copy that you 21 have right now, you can substitute a copy after 22 lunch. Or if you have another one of these, we'll 23 just go right ahead and -- 24 THE WITNESS: I'm sure we have another one. 25 No, that's our original. Great.
108 1 THE COURT: All right. 2 MR. LIROT: I'll -- I'll leave it with the 3 court reporter and then I'll -- I'll retrieve it and 4 make copies, Judge. 5 THE WITNESS: Let's just make a copy later. 6 THE COURT: This is going to -- 7 MR. LIROT: I'll get it from you at the break. 8 THE COURT: All right. This is going to be -- 9 a copy -- made a part of the hearing. It'll be 10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. And I'm going to leave it 11 right here to be removed, make a copy, and then 12 given to my clerk, and she'll identify it and mark 13 it at that time. 14 MR. LIROT: Thank you, Judge. 15 A Now, what I can tell you without question is that 16 Robert Minton had no input whatsoever in any of these 17 additional parties; in any of the allegations of the 18 complaint; in any of the different counts of the complaint. 19 All those different counts of the complaint came out of my 20 mind based upon what information I had gathered from my 21 consultants and my reading of things and my depositions that 22 I took and my -- depositions that they took. He had 23 absolutely no input whatsoever; I would not permit it. And 24 in fact, he was -- at times I heard he was quite upset about 25 that.
109 1 Now, in -- 2 BY THE COURT: 3 Q His testimony -- I believe he testified, and I 4 could be wrong -- but I believe he testified that -- there 5 was some allegation somewhere that I read that he was upset 6 and indicated he didn't want to finance just a wrongful 7 death; he wanted something that more or less attacked 8 Scientology, and therefore, this new affidavit of Jesse 9 Prince or the affidavit of Jesse Prince and the new 10 complaint was filed. Is that accurate? 11 A It's -- it's basically accurate. What my 12 understanding is, is that Stacy Brooks and Mr. Minton were 13 not pleased at all with me. And quite frankly, I didn't 14 care -- 15 Q Wait -- 16 A -- because I was -- 17 Q Wait a second. 18 You just told us in court that it was not accurate 19 that he had anything to do with the complaint. 20 A Yeah. But I'm just saying what I heard. He never 21 told me that. 22 Q Okay. 23 A I just heard that. 24 Q So you're saying that after you heard what 25 Mr. Minton wanted done, you filed the complaint?
110 1 A No. I said -- I don't -- you know -- 2 Q Listen to the question. 3 A No. The answer is no. 4 MR. LIROT: Ask -- you can ask the question 5 again, Judge. 6 A Unless I didn't understand your question. 7 BY THE COURT: 8 Q The question was -- is, I believe, I read 9 somewhere that Mr. Minton was upset because he didn't want 10 to pay money to fund a, quote, what I would think of as a 11 wrongful death; that being a negligent -- some negligence 12 which causes death and there are damages. And because he 13 was upset, the -- the complaint that added David Miscavige 14 and the allegations of intentional murder by the church or 15 intentional whatever it is by the church was filed. Is that 16 accurate? 17 A No. No. 18 Q All right. 19 A No. 20 Q So are you saying that if Mr. Minton says that, 21 that is not true? 22 A That is not true. 23 Q Okay. 24 A No. Again, Mr. Minton had absolutely no 25 involvement in the way I pled, who I sued, anything about
111 1 the litigation. 2 Q So when you answered yes just previously, was that 3 because you didn't listen to my question carefully? 4 A You're absolutely right. 5 Q Well, be very careful about that. Because as I 6 said, both sides seem to sometimes take a word or a sentence 7 or a phrase and file it and use it. And it can be very 8 damaging and it can be very true and exactly what it says. 9 So you must listen to every question -- and I'm 10 going to tell every witness that testifies, you must listen 11 to the whole question that's asked and make sure -- I do 12 this all the time. You know, I do this all the time as a 13 judge. I'll read -- I'll read where my answer, I'm 14 thinking, is a yes to what's been asked, but the truth of 15 the matter is it's really a no the way that the question is 16 asked. 17 You have to -- all witnesses have to be very 18 careful when you're trying to make a record -- and this is 19 really a record that we're trying to make here, whatever 20 this court does -- that's accurate. So you listen before 21 you answer a question. 22 A Okay. 23 So we sent out an interrogatory to Flag, Church of 24 Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., the defendant, 25 and said, "Give us the residential address and the business
112 1 address of David Miscavige." They objected. We had a 2 hearing before Judge Moody. He compelled the answer. 3 They -- they filed an answer, giving us a Hollywood 4 Boulevard address in Los Angeles for both his residence and 5 his business address. Quite unusual for someone to live 6 where you work -- 7 Q Don't need that. Just -- 8 A All right. 9 MR. LIROT: All right. 10 A So we could never serve him. We could never find 11 him. 12 They filed a motion to dismiss, Mr. Rosen filed on 13 behalf of Miscavige. He was dismissed because we could 14 never get service of process on him. 15 BY THE COURT: 16 Q No, he was not dismissed because of the agreement. 17 A No. 18 Q He was dismissed because he was never served. 19 A Correct. 20 Q Oh. 21 See, I always thought he was dismissed because 22 there was an agreement that he shouldn't be sued. 23 MR. WIENBERG: Originally he was dismissed, as 24 was RTC and the other church organizations, because 25 of the agreement. Then Mr. Dandar refiled under
113 1 this theory of the Sea Org, and -- and Judge Moody, 2 whose order in front of you, allowed Mr. Miscavige, 3 not as the representative of RTC as he was sued 4 before, but as the -- as the Sea Org thing. 5 THE COURT: And the reason why he's out of this 6 litigation, then, as an individual, is because 7 service of process was never had on him. 8 THE WITNESS: Right. 9 THE COURT: Oh, okay. I was -- again, I was 10 confused. I thought that he had been dismissed by a 11 court as an inappropriate party because of the 12 agreement or the contract or whatever. 13 MR. WIENBERG: Well, again, he originally was. 14 THE COURT: I understand. 15 MR. LIROT: I'll ask this question, then -- 16 THE COURT: But he wasn't now. In the fifth 17 complaint, the complaint we're trying, he was 18 dismissed because he wasn't correct. 19 MR. LIROT: That's correct. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q Was Mr. Miscavige added in his capacity identified 24 in Judge Moody's order as a different capacity than that 25 that was the subject of this stipulation?
114 1 A Yes. Yes. And it was after a hearing, 2 presentation of some evidence, Jesse Prince's affidavit, and 3 Judge Moody said he's not covered by this agreement 4 whatsoever, and permitted us to add him on as a defendant. 5 Q Very good. 6 A So I'm trying to figure out what the issues are, 7 because I don't want to talk about five years of litigation. 8 Trying to figure out where we're heading here. 9 Q We're -- 10 THE COURT: Well, I think that completes the 11 complaint. In other words, his testimony is, as I 12 understand it, that Mr. Minton had nothing to do 13 with the filing of his complaint. 14 MR. LIROT: Correct. 15 THE COURT: And that certainly Mr. Minton's 16 money had nothing to do with the filing of his 17 complaint. 18 MR. LIROT: Correct. 19 THE COURT: Based on his work, his work 20 product, his dealing with experts, affidavits, 21 whatever. And that Mr. Minton's money had nothing 22 to do with it. That's the sum and substance of that 23 testimony. 24 MR. LIROT: Correct. 25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
115 1 THE COURT: Now you need to move on to point 2. 2 MR. LIROT: Well, I -- I would like to -- I'll 3 ask these questions for the record, Judge. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 BY MR. LIROT: 6 Q Were any allegations in the fifth amended 7 complaint, which were included, false, to your knowledge, or 8 included with knowledge of their falsity? 9 A No. Never. 10 Q All right. Were they -- were any allegations made 11 to, quote, create scandalous publicity against the church? 12 A No. 13 Q Did Mr. Minton ever ask you to add any allegations 14 to create scandalous publicity against the church? 15 A Never. 16 Q Were any of the allegations in the fifth amended 17 complaint included to create a negative reaction against the 18 church among the public, the press and among local, state 19 and national government authorities? 20 A Never. 21 Q Were any of the allegations in the fifth amended 22 complaint included to infect the jury pool? 23 A Never. 24 Q Were any allegations in the fifth amended 25 complaint added to increase the cost and expense of
116 1 defending this litigation and coerce a highly inflated 2 settlement of the case? 3 A Never. 4 Q All right. Were those allegations included as a 5 result of your due diligence and research and your judgment 6 as an attorney in this case? 7 A Absolutely. 8 And the fact is, the allegations are based upon 9 the written documents of the Church of Scientology. 10 Q Now, when you consulted with Ms. Brooks and 11 Mr. Prince, were they actually working for you as 12 consultants in this case? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And -- 15 A And Jesse Prince was a trial expert as well. 16 Q All right. And Ms. Brooks, not named as an 17 expert, was a consultant. 18 A She was a consultant; never a testifying witness. 19 Q All right. Did she ever execute a confidentiality 20 agreement with you pursuant to her services of consultant in 21 this case? 22 A Yes. I believe she did. I think I had everybody 23 that was working on this execute a confidentiality 24 agreement. 25 Q Based on your research, did you have any reason to
117 1 doubt the veracity or validity of any of the information 2 given to you by Jesse Prince or Ms. Brooks that led to the 3 allegations in the fifth amended complaint? 4 A No. Because all of their statements were backed 5 up by the written documents of the Church of Scientology. I 6 just -- it was just too much for me to read -- anyone to 7 read, tens of thousands -- 8 THE COURT: You know, I don't know that that -- 9 I mean, we're going to have to litigate what -- what 10 a jury's going to litigate here in this hearing. We 11 don't have the time for it. They've already 12 scheduled that for between two and four months in 13 front of a jury. 14 But what I need to know, as I understand it, is 15 whether or not that Miscavige (sic), in the giving 16 of this money, had anything to do with the 17 allegations that were filed. 18 THE WITNESS: No. 19 MR. WIENBERG: You mean Minton, right? 20 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Pardon me. Minton. 21 THE WITNESS: No. I have never -- I have never 22 received a dime from Robert Minton that had anything 23 to do with how the case was handled. The only time 24 I received a dime from Mr. Minton was when he asked 25 me if I needed money, or I asked him. That's it.
118 1 THE COURT: Okay. Seems like this would be a 2 good place to stop for lunch. I'm sorry. It's my 3 problem. 4 MR. LIROT: That's all right. That's why I set 5 my alarm. 6 THE COURT: Number 1 -- 7 MR. LIROT: I think we're finished with 8 number 1, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: All right. Then we'll come back 10 and let him step down and proceed with Ms. Brooks 11 this afternoon, or the rest of your case, whatever 12 it might be. Then we'll put Mr. Dandar back on the 13 stand. 14 MR. FUGATE: What time do you want to resume? 15 THE COURT: How about 1:00? And I hope I'm 16 done. I'm going to take my lunch hour and eat in 17 and tend to my business. 18 Okay. We'll see you at 1. And if I have any 19 extra time, I'll try to read these complaints. 20 And you give this to my clerk, okay? 21 MR. LIROT: Immediately, Judge. 22 (A recess was taken.) 23 24 25
119 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 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of May, 2002. 13 14 ______________________________ DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index