Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 979 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 2 3 4 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 5 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 6 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. VOLUME 8 9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 11 Defendants. 12 _______________________________________/ 13 14 15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 16 DATE: May 14, 2002. Morning Session. 17 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building 18 St. Petersburg, Florida. 19 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 20 REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR. 21 Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. 22 23 24 25
980 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 MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and 13 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 14 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service 15 Organization. 16 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 17 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 18 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 19 Organization. 20 MR. BRUCE HOWIE 21 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. 22 Counsel for Robert Minton. 23 24 25
981 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN 3 MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 4 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. 5 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 Ms. Donna West Mr. Rick Spector 8 Mr. Allan Cartwright Ms. Lara Cartwright 9 Ms. Sarah Heller Mr. Ben Shaw 10 Ms. Joyce Earl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
982 1 THE COURT: Okay, let's take up a few of these 2 matters from yesterday. 3 First off, Mr. Howie, apparently this 4 material -- the materials from the Hague Convention, 5 whatever this is, you have seen this now. 6 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, I have. 7 THE COURT: Is this in compliance with the 8 order I signed or whatever it was done by me to get 9 in? 10 MR. HOWIE: I have reason to believe there was 11 a request sent by this court. I recall seeing. I 12 went through all of my pleadings last night. I did 13 not find that specific order. To say it is in 14 compliance -- I have no objection to its use in 15 evidence. Whether it is in full compliance with the 16 court's order -- 17 THE COURT: Does anybody have that order? Did 18 you give that to me yesterday. 19 MR. MOXON: I gave it to you yesterday, your 20 Honor. I think I have another copy. I'll see if I 21 can find it. 22 THE COURT: I may just have it sitting right up 23 here. I think maybe this is probably it. 24 MR. MOXON: This was before Judge Beach. 25 Mr. Dandar --
983 1 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, do you recall this, 2 that I requested this? 3 MR. LIROT: You -- 4 MR. DANDAR: You requested it since -- 5 THE COURT: They are both Judge Beach 6 apparently. 7 MR. DANDAR: Defendants requested it and an 8 order was signed. 9 THE COURT: By Judge Beach. 10 MR. DANDAR: I believe so. 11 THE COURT: Those are the copies of two orders. 12 And this, whatever this is, this complies with the 13 request? 14 MR. DANDAR: As soon as we can get it 15 interpreted, we believe it does. 16 THE COURT: All right. Okay. Now, do you have 17 a copy, Mr. Howie? 18 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I have a copy of the 19 letter from Norway, including the letters from 20 Andreas Heldal-Lund that are attached there. 21 THE COURT: So this complies with that order? 22 MR. HOWIE: It -- presuming that is the entire 23 document and examination production of Andreas 24 Heldal-Lund in Operation Clambake, it would appear 25 to comply.
984 1 MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff does not have a copy of 2 it. 3 THE COURT: Nobody has a copy except Mr. Howie. 4 I have got it right here. 5 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 6 THE COURT: We just decided he should have the 7 opportunity to look to see if it comports with the 8 request. But I don't know how anybody would know if 9 you can't read -- 10 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, it appears to be a 11 series -- from what little I can make it, it appears 12 to be a series of letters from Andreas Heldal-Lund, 13 but beyond that it is hard to make out, making 14 criminal allegations. 15 THE COURT: Against who? 16 MR. HOWIE: Against the Church of Scientology, 17 presumably. But between limited knowledge of German 18 and very limited knowledge of Swedish, that is what 19 I can make out. 20 THE COURT: Well, is that what was requested? 21 I thought what was requested -- 22 MR. MOXON: No -- 23 THE COURT: -- was financial records. 24 MR. MOXON: Judge, I haven't seen the letter so 25 I don't know what you have there.
985 1 THE COURT: Here, I'm going to give each of you 2 all a copy so you know what I'm talking about. 3 Mr. Dandar, I'm going to give you this original. If 4 one -- there is one page in there you'll have to 5 copy for everyone, because my copier did not pick it 6 up very well. 7 MR. DANDAR: You want me to copy it? 8 THE COURT: I don't care. I think it was their 9 request so I gave it to them, but there is one page 10 in there, you'll see it is very light in the 11 original. And our copy machine, I -- it came out 12 even lighter. So Mr. Moxon said they would use a 13 copy machine to see if they could get a better copy, 14 but if you get a good copy, you'll see on that 15 original it is very light. 16 MR. MOXON: Yes. 17 MR. DANDAR: It says on Page 3 of this document 18 amends J -- I'm just kidding. Sorry. 19 THE COURT: For now we're off the record 20 because we are going to make fun of this. 21 (A discussion was held off the record.) 22 MR. MOXON: The financial records is what were 23 requested. There seems to be correspondence from 24 Mr. Lund, too. I don't know if it is financial 25 information or what it is. Because I don't have a
986 1 clue what he's saying here. 2 THE COURT: It seems to suggest -- I guess we 3 can be on the record here. It seems to suggest by 4 the cover letter that it's a request of mine 5 dated -- I have to assume this is 11/16/01. And so 6 I have given up my copies of the order now. But I 7 don't know what I requested. That appears to be two 8 things of Judge Beach. And specifically it is 9 addressed to me. So I don't remember anything about 10 this. But -- 11 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I can explain that. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. MOXON: When we sent the order signed by 14 Judge Beach over to our counsel in Norway pursuant 15 to the Hague Convention and asked him to relay it to 16 the Norwegian authorities, and he did. And they 17 contacted him and told him that, "This is fine. 18 We'll go ahead and ask Mr. Lund for the materials." 19 And they got the materials and said, "However, we 20 need to send it back to the Court." 21 So I gave our attorney in Norway your name and 22 address. 23 THE COURT: Okay. That is fine. Now, whatever 24 this other stuff is besides the financial documents, 25 it appears that a lot of it comes from this
987 1 ZENU.Net, which I assume this is some site 2 somewhere. 3 MR. MOXON: It says Operation Clambake at the 4 top. 5 THE COURT: Right. 6 MR. DANDAR: That is ZENU.Net. 7 THE COURT: I have to assume this higher 8 executive office from the Royal Ministry of Justice 9 & Police looked at this order and sent this. It's 10 just very difficult for me because I have absolutely 11 no idea what it says. So I guess what I'll do is 12 I'm going to hand it out and suggest that when you 13 all have it interpreted, if it looks like there is 14 something improper, well, just bring it to my 15 attention. 16 MR. MOXON: Okay, I'll have the original so 17 I'll make clean copies for everybody. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Well, if everybody has good 19 copies of everything except this one page, and I'll 20 show you -- boy, you should be able to see it. It's 21 a very light page in the originals. 22 MR. DANDAR: Judge, the purpose of this was to 23 find out where the $300,000 came from to the LMT 24 that Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton testified came from 25 Operation Clambake. And this bank statement shows
988 1 almost, you know, $85 short of $300,000 going to the 2 Bank of New York, then the Bank of America in 3 Clearwater. What I don't know, if the Norwegian 4 letters explain where the $300,000 came from to go 5 to Operation Clambake. That is what we don't know. 6 MR. MOXON: None of us know. 7 THE COURT: Well, here is the deal. They sent 8 it. Apparently Judge Beach entered an order. This 9 is what they sent. As I said, you all have it 10 transcribed. If it looks like from either party 11 that there is something here or -- you know, 12 certainly we can have it transcribed for Mr. Minton. 13 You have it transcribed for the church. You have it 14 transcribed for the plaintiff. If there is anything 15 here that shouldn't be there, somebody needs to 16 bring it to my attention and I'll expect it to be 17 returned. But I don't know what to do. I got it. 18 It's in a foreign language, and I don't think there 19 is any need to file this in the court file. 20 MR. MOXON: I don't think so, no. 21 THE COURT: Because this is a request to 22 produce type thing. So I have a copy of it. I'll 23 keep it. 24 MR. MOXON: Good. Thank you, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: I have got two extra copies. Do
989 1 you want a copy? 2 MR. McGOWAN: Okay. 3 THE COURT: It does apparently have to do with 4 funds that went to LMT. Mr. Howie, you have one? 5 MR. HOWIE: Yes. 6 THE COURT: I have an extra. I made five 7 copies. One for me. Somebody doesn't have one. I 8 gave you one. 9 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 10 MR. MOXON: You gave me the original, your 11 Honor. 12 THE COURT: Oh, that is it. Thank you. 13 Okay. All right. Now, we're going to take 14 up -- well, first of all, let me see what I didn't 15 tell you all yesterday. I think I told you all most 16 of this stuff. 17 As a matter of -- just for my own information, 18 I read a little blip in the St. Petersburg Times 19 about Mr. Wollersheim recovering a verdict. Is that 20 accurate information? 21 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Not a verdict; it was a 22 payment of the outstanding judgment. 23 THE COURT: These two items we're going to take 24 up as being the Brooks and Minton tax returns and 25 LMT's tax returns. That is a matter for me.
990 1 We talked about the sealed depositions. 2 Did I tell you all I needed a copy of the 3 transcript of the severe sanctions if I couldn't 4 find it? 5 MR. DANDAR: You did say that. 6 MR. FUGATE: Oh. 7 THE COURT: It's on your list. Okay. 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, here is the Alain 9 Kartuzinski -- 10 THE COURT: Thank you. 11 MR. FUGATE: I didn't think of the other one. 12 THE COURT: Thanks. I was -- I'll put that 13 over here. 14 MR. DANDAR: It must be a condensed version. 15 THE COURT: I looked again for this deposition 16 last night and I just couldn't put my hands on it. 17 But as I said, I get frustrated about halfway 18 through this stuff. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I think there was a notebook we 20 gave you with those depositions in it. 21 THE COURT: Do you know how many I have? 22 MR. WEINBERG: I guess the notebook is not a 23 good clue. 24 THE COURT: It's not a good clue. No. 25 I have the third affidavit. That third
991 1 affidavit, as I read it last night, isn't a 2 recanting affidavit. It's just simply an affidavit 3 of fact. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 5 THE COURT: All right. I had an additional 6 memorandum to support the omnibus motion for 7 terminating sanctions and other relief. It appears 8 to deal, to some extent, with the issue that I 9 raised yesterday about the allegations in the 10 complaint and whether or not you had anyone to 11 produce in that. I did advise you of that so 12 obviously they are making this part of an issue of 13 law, so -- 14 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Oh, one thing you-all could help me 16 with. As requested -- or I don't know if it was 17 requested or not, but I was handed the depositions 18 of Mr. Minton, and I did read them, and I was handed 19 the depositions of Ms. Liebreich. I did read them. 20 Do you know, one of her sets of depositions is 21 so hard to read that I honestly just -- I mean, I 22 just started glancing and looked for key words. But 23 there is one set of her depositions that is just a 24 terrible -- it's unlike anything in the rest of 25 them. I don't want -- I don't want it unless you
992 1 all think there is something in there I absolutely 2 need, either side. But I'm going to tell you-all 3 which one it was. 4 MR. WEINBERG: You mean it was a bad copy? 5 THE COURT: No. It was -- I'm going to show it 6 to you-all. Well, in truth, I guess I did read it. 7 It was this one dated January -- it would have been 8 the one dated January 10th. 9 It just was an unusual copy. If you'll look at 10 the copy, the lines -- trying to figure out what 11 line anything was on, were very blurred. But I see 12 now that I struggled through it. Apparently I put 13 it down one night and picked it up the next day. So 14 this was unusual. 15 When you are reading a compressed transcript -- 16 well, I'm sure you all realize this better than 17 anybody. The ones that are the easiest ones, at 18 least cut in quarters, you can see defined lines. 19 This one doesn't have defined lines. So everything 20 just -- but I don't want another one. I mean, it 21 looks like I went through and struggled with it. 22 MR. WEINBERG: I'm looking at another copy and 23 the pages don't come out on it, so -- 24 THE COURT: For whatever reason, the ones that 25 had the lines seem to be much easier to deal with.
993 1 But as I said, I struggled through it. 2 One of the things that I -- anyway, so I read 3 those and I made notes and I made notes for how much 4 and what have you. 5 But one of the things I really wasn't sure that 6 I really had when I was all done, and my notes 7 didn't help me much, was exactly where the false 8 statements that Mr. Minton says he made about the 9 exclusion of the $500,000 are. I also noticed that 10 in various filings you all have said that he said a 11 million-fifty, and I saw that and a million-three. 12 And I heard that figure because I wonder remembering 13 if a million-three meant @ one million three three 14 three. You know, in my crazy mind I remember 15 thinking that. 16 I couldn't find it. So if somebody could just 17 show me exactly where -- if somebody could give me a 18 little sheet that says where these false statements 19 are. I could only find them -- I could only find 20 this million-five -- I'm sorry, $1,050,000 in one 21 deposition. 22 MR. DANDAR: May 2000. 23 THE COURT: May of 2000. So -- because after 24 that it appeared to me that in the deposition in 25 this case Mr. Minton claimed the Fifth.
994 1 MR. DANDAR: Right. 2 THE COURT: I got tired of reading that. I 3 must admit, it may be in there where he blurted 4 something out and I just missed it. You know how it 5 is when you read page after page. 6 MR. MOXON: You are exactly right. 7 THE COURT: Am I? 8 MR. MOXON: Yes, in May he said a 9 million-fifty. 10 THE COURT: Where is there million-three I see 11 from time to time? 12 MR. MOXON: There was a -- a million-three was 13 a term that was mentioned in another deposition as 14 to how much he put into the Lisa McPherson Trust. 15 That is in the record. 16 But there was a million-three, if you count 17 another $250,000 which he acknowledged. But that 18 was -- that wasn't in May of 2000; that was in May 19 of 2001. So in May of 2001 there was $1,300,000 20 that was acknowledged. In May of 2000 there was 21 $1,050,000 acknowledged on the record. That is all. 22 So it is in the record. 23 THE COURT: So May of 2000 deposition is the 24 one we're speaking of? 25 MR. MOXON: That is correct.
995 1 THE COURT: All right. Well, is a 2 million-three another error? I mean, is that 3 another -- 4 MR. WEINBERG: It would be an error, too. They 5 would be short 500. 6 THE COURT: So, in other words, instead of a 7 million-three it should have been a million-eight? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 9 THE COURT: Could you please, somebody, if you 10 have those tabbed, just put deposition -- Minton 11 deposition date, page and line so I can readily find 12 that when I refer to it. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 14 THE COURT: I also noticed then at the 15 deposition taken in the breach of contract he, 16 likewise, took the Fifth. So I presumed in both of 17 those depositions they were not repeats; they were 18 simply the Fifth Amendment. So I'm glad to see I 19 didn't miss that. 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: I will check on this because I 23 don't want to -- I don't have it in front of me -- 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- but I'm just looking at my
996 1 notes on this issue of the million-fifty. The 2 instances in which this was either misstated or not 3 provided include not only what you just indicated, 4 but I believe there was a deposition of Mr. Minton 5 dated September 18, 2001 at Pages 29 and 30 in which 6 the $1,050,000 figure was referred to. 7 THE COURT: Would you do me a favor -- 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'll check on that. 9 THE COURT: -- give me a piece of paper -- it 10 doesn't have to be a filing -- where you say on such 11 and such a deposition, that seems to be quite an 12 issue here. 13 MR. MOXON: I'm sorry, one other point of 14 clarification. There was a later statement by 15 Mr. Dandar on the record, too, that is part of this, 16 of course, that he said he received -- 17 THE COURT: I saw where that was alleged, so if 18 you want to, you can put that in there, too, just 19 where this misstatement -- alleged misstatement of 20 money is. All right? 21 MR. MOXON: Yes. 22 THE COURT: And, Mr. Dandar, you can either 23 verify what they put down or give me your own or 24 whatever. 25 MR. DANDAR: It is on Page 212 of the May 24 --
997 1 THE COURT: See, I don't want you all to -- 2 MR. DANDAR: All right. 3 THE COURT: I don't want to write notes. I 4 want it on a piece of paper. 5 MR. DANDAR: All right. 6 THE COURT: In Mr. Minton's first affidavit, he 7 makes a statement -- maybe I'll hear about this, 8 maybe I'm just premature -- that he has reason to 9 believe another $100,000 was not discovered. I 10 don't know what exactly that means. Not discovered. 11 But I don't know whether he's going to refer to 12 this in his testimony. I don't know whether it is 13 not an issue. I don't know whether they are saying 14 there is some lie about that or whether that is 15 just -- I don't know what that means, but I made 16 myself a note, when, what date, what does this mean, 17 it's not discovered. So I made a note about that. 18 In several of your submissions, the Church's 19 submissions, they refer to two cases. And it always 20 says -- and this is maybe in some orders, maybe that 21 is where I saw it, in some of Judge Quesada's orders 22 perhaps. He refers to Golden Door Jewelry -- two 23 federal cases. 24 MR. DANDAR: Rentclub and Golden Door. 25 THE COURT: Golden Door and Rentclub. And
998 1 it -- they refer to, like even to. @AUDIO I know 2 like anybody reading them know what those cases are. 3 Obviously I can go read them, that is what I have, 4 "Read these two cases." I don't know what he's 5 referring to. Does anybody know off the top of 6 their head? 7 MR. DANDAR: Yes, I do. 8 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, why don't you 9 tell us. 10 MR. DANDAR: Those are two cases that the 11 Church of Scientology insists on putting in the 12 orders to -- they talk about this qualification of 13 attorney. One of them dealt with the attorney 14 hiring the current legal consultant or the corporate 15 vice-president during the trial and having that 16 vice-president tell the attorney all of the work 17 product of the other side, much @ lease Ms. Brooks 18 handed over my letter of May of '97 to these 19 attorneys about my work product. And that was an 20 instant disqualification of the attorneys who looked 21 at that work product. 22 THE COURT: Well, are these disqualification 23 cases? 24 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Because it seems like I don't know
999 1 why Judge Quesada would be dealing with these. 2 MR. DANDAR: Well, he put it in their proposed 3 order. He was going to leave it in there. I said, 4 "You know, it makes it look like you are looking at 5 me like I did something wrong." 6 He said, "Oh, no --" it is on the record, by 7 the way. He said, "They put it in. It is @}in 8 the cycle. It doesn't matter." 9 THE COURT: I can see nobody will agree. I 10 better just read the case. 11 MR. FUGATE: I was going to say you should read 12 them because they deal with expert witnesses that 13 are paid. 14 MR. DANDAR: But I'll also tell you that 15 Rentclub case they cite over and over again has been 16 superseded by the Supreme Court of Florida decision 17 called HCA Management, which I will give you a copy 18 of. 19 THE COURT: Okay. But they are -- they are 20 something about attorneys and bad faith or 21 something? 22 MR. FUGATE: And they deal with expert 23 witnesses who are paid and have an interest in the 24 litigation, as I recall. But you can read it, 25 Judge, and --
1000 1 THE COURT: Yes, as I said, I just saw it and I 2 made a note to myself. I thought -- 3 MR. MOXON: Just to clarify, the other issue, 4 Rentclub in particular, your Honor, is payment of 5 money to fact witnesses. 6 MR. FUGATE: Right. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. MOXON: Which will -- 9 THE COURT: All right. I have already told you 10 I wanted -- didn't I -- or did I say I wanted a copy 11 of all affidavits provided by Stacy Brooks? Did I 12 say that to you-all yesterday? 13 MR. MOXON: Yes. 14 THE COURT: I said I did not have except the 15 two recanting affidavits. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 17 THE COURT: So if you-all -- if you-all could 18 get those for me. And yes, I did tell you, I 19 said -- 20 MR. WEINBERG: You told us your -- it was your 21 number 13 or something on your list. 22 THE COURT: It was my number 23. 23 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I eliminated 10. We'll 24 try to bring them tomorrow. 25 THE COURT: @AUDIO I told you-all one was
1001 1 affidavit not position filed 2/98 and there were 2 apparently filed 10/99 to support plaintiff's motion 3 to amend, then yesterday you-all told me they were 4 affidavits given in another -- other cases, but they 5 had a cover sheet submitting them in this case in 6 some fashion. 7 MR. FUGATE: Those were submitted by plaintiff. 8 I think we had given you all of the -- of the ones 9 that have generated since then. 10 THE COURT: So this is for you, Mr. Dandar. 11 Mr. Dandar? That is for you to give me. Okay? 12 MR. DANDAR: Stacy Brooks? 13 THE COURT: The three affidavits the plaintiff 14 submitted. 15 MR. DANDAR: All right. 16 THE COURT: Did you-all write this down 17 yesterday? 18 MR. DANDAR: No, we made copies of those, 19 actually. We have those. 20 MR. FUGATE: Because the other affidavit that 21 was produced yesterday was the declaration of Stacy 22 Brooks regarding records retention and destruction 23 from LMT. That was in the package we turned over, 24 so that is all of the ones that we have that I'm 25 aware of.
1002 1 THE COURT: Okay. So you-all get those 2 together, give them to me. I talked to you a little 3 bit about the 2d DCA. I would just have to keep you 4 all -- tell me if there is any change in that DCA 5 opinion as you-all did yesterday, told me another 6 one. 7 MR. DANDAR: Yes. Here is the Stacy Brooks 8 affidavit that was filed on February 3, 1998, which 9 included her affidavit or declaration from @ 10 Dickerson versus Sally Jesse Rafael. A Michigan 11 case. And then here is a Stacy Young affidavit that 12 we filed with the motion to add on parties in 13 October; October 7, '99. This one is dated 14 March 13, 1997 from another case. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I show there are 16 three. Maybe not. 17 MR. DANDAR: Well, there are -- 18 THE COURT: There must be something, if you 19 filed this. It wasn't on the front of it. 20 MR. DANDAR: Motion to add parties. 21 THE COURT: And it was attached to it? 22 MR. DANDAR: It was attached as one of the 23 exhibits. 24 THE COURT: Well, I -- 25 MR. DANDAR: Would you like to have the whole
1003 1 thing? 2 THE COURT: Yes, I really would. I need to 3 know what this has to do with. 4 MR. DANDAR: In your hand is two affidavits. 5 One saying I attached my prior affidavit and it is 6 true and correct. 7 THE COURT: Okay. That would be the third one. 8 So you get whatever goes with that. And give it to 9 me. 10 MR. DANDAR: All right. 11 THE COURT: In your good time. 12 But I would like to have it before Ms. Brooks 13 is done because I may have some question about it. 14 MR. DANDAR: Okay. We'll call the office. 15 THE COURT: Well, get me the affidavit, then 16 you can give me what it goes to. 17 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 18 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, could I get a copy 19 from Mr. Dandar of what he's submitting? 20 THE COURT: You all should have it because it's 21 been filed. These are filed affidavits. Yes, you 22 can make a copy. Take mine, I guess, make a copy. 23 But I want it -- I mean, he doesn't have extras. 24 I'm lucky to have these. 25 MR. McGOWAN: Okay.
1004 1 MR. DANDAR: You would be surprised. I might 2 have some extras. 3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Dandar. 4 MR. DANDAR: Are these extras? 5 THE COURT: Then I already covered this with 6 you-all about some of the exhibits that were 7 introduced in front of Judge Baird that I thought 8 perhaps ought not be considered in this case. And I 9 also discussed this. The LMT payments to witnesses 10 taped statements haven't been produced yet, but 11 we're going to get to that issue. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 13 THE COURT: That is really all I have. So I 14 covered a -- a lot of the stuff was notes to me, do 15 this, do that. 16 Okay. Let's deal with the request to produce 17 the two things that were objected to. One was LMT's 18 tax return which you say only exists for 2000. 19 MR. McGOWAN: Yes, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: And I guess Ms. Brooks' return -- 21 personal return was requested for five years. Was 22 that it? 23 MR. McGOWAN: Yes. 24 THE COURT: And you objected. 25 MR. McGOWAN: Yes.
1005 1 THE COURT: So I will hear you. Let's take 2 them one at a time. LMT existed really for what, a 3 year and a half? 4 MR. McGOWAN: A year and a half. 5 THE COURT: Came into existence in January of 6 2000, maybe November? 7 MR. McGOWAN: Yes. 8 THE COURT: Of '99? 9 MR. McGOWAN: Right. But -- 10 THE COURT: But for all intents and purposes, 11 it's major year of operation was 2000. 12 MR. McGOWAN: 2000, then it shut down in 2001. 13 I have the 2000 tax return here. An appropriate 14 number of copies. The 2001 return hasn't been filed 15 so it doesn't exist. 16 THE COURT: An extension has been asked for? 17 MR. McGOWAN: No, the paperwork -- I just 18 received the paperwork and forwarded it to a CPA who 19 I assume will file an extension. 20 THE COURT: Okay. So it has not been filed, no 21 extension has been requested. 22 MR. McGOWAN: No. Simply the raw financial 23 materials. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Now tell me why it shouldn't 25 be produced.
1006 1 MR. McGOWAN: Well, your Honor, in the first -- 2 in the first place, I would point out to the Court 3 that the similar request has been made in this case 4 to produce Mr. Dandar's tax returns. They have 5 objected on the grounds that the production of tax 6 returns is privileged. 7 THE COURT: I'm sorry, that what? 8 MR. McGOWAN: That the production of tax 9 returns is privileged. That is their position with 10 respect to Mr. Dandar's tax returns. They are 11 obviously inconsistent in asking for the LMT and 12 Brooks tax returns. 13 I can tell you, your Honor, that my research 14 indicates that the production of tax returns is not 15 privileged. But that the Court can scrutinize why 16 tax returns are being sought. We have objected on 17 the grounds of -- on the grounds of burdensome, 18 irrelevant and oppressive. And as we enter Day 6 of 19 this witness's testimony, I can tell you there are 20 depreciation schedules on here that could give a new 21 meaning to oppressive if we have to give them over. 22 THE COURT: I'm sorry, to give what? 23 MR. McGOWAN: A new meaning to oppressive if we 24 have to give them over and go over depreciation 25 schedules of these tax returns.
1007 1 If I can approach, the -- and I apologize for 2 the format of this case -- 3 THE COURT: That is all right. 4 MR. McGOWAN: My West Law citings got messed 5 up. This is Cabanas versus Ford, Armenteros and 6 Manucy. 727 So.2d, 1100. 7 And in that case, if you go to the Page 4, 8 notes 3 and 4, the Court does an analysis of when 9 tax return production is appropriate. And in that 10 case the party seeking the tax returns had to make a 11 proffer of why the production of the returns would 12 be relevant. Because the test at the end of the day 13 is a relevancy test that the Court has to look at. 14 I would ask at this time that we get such a 15 proffer from the plaintiffs to see what it is 16 they're looking for. Certainly they're not looking 17 for medical deductions or charitable contributions, 18 things like that, as to Ms. Young -- or Ms. Brooks. 19 But -- and I don't know what they're looking 20 for in the LMT. There has been a good deal of 21 testimony about how it was funded, who funded it. 22 And, you know, if they are looking at depreciation 23 of typewriters or what have you, I don't know what 24 relevancy that has. 25 So I would ask the Court allow them to proffer
1008 1 what it is that is relevant about these tax returns 2 so that we can make some kind of an argument about 3 the relevancy issue. 4 THE COURT: All right. I think that is 5 probably appropriate. 6 MR. LIROT: Judge, I'm reading the authority 7 provided the Court by Mr. McGowan. And I think it 8 actually supports our position. "Copies of tax 9 returns are not privileged and may be used in state 10 court proceedings where they are relevant." 11 THE COURT: That is all we are asking, Counsel, 12 for you to tell us why they are relevant. 13 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think one of the primary 14 theories we have advanced in the case are there are 15 other explanations why Mr. Minton has changed his 16 position. One of the primary reasons, we think, is 17 that he's afraid of some type of tax evasion charge 18 or some issue involving something that might have 19 been related to taxation. 20 The only way for us to evaluate whether or not 21 that is true is to balance out what moneys were 22 testified to, what the character of those moneys are 23 in testimony, compare those to what they have been 24 represented as in these tax returns to make sure 25 there is consistency there.
1009 1 We don't know and we'll have no way of knowing 2 unless we get a chance to look at these tax returns 3 and see if what was declared as income was properly 4 reported, to see if there is an issue about whether 5 or not, you know, moneys that were gifted were 6 properly reported. 7 So without the tax returns, we don't know. And 8 it goes directly to the relevance of the issue where 9 we are trying to say there is more here than just 10 the explanations given. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. LIROT: So that is basically it. 13 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, I believe the Court 14 has already ruled on Mr. Minton's tax returns or 15 his -- the need for him not to -- that he's not 16 going to give them up under his Fifth Amendment 17 privilege. Ms. Brooks and LMT is not asserting the 18 Fifth Amendment privilege. 19 However, if they are interested in some -- 20 THE COURT: I don't know that I have actually 21 ruled on the tax returns. I think I have ruled that 22 when he was required -- when I ruled that he had 23 waived the Fifth Amendment privilege by his Internet 24 postings or various and sundry things where I ruled 25 he waived it, I said he had not waived the right to
1010 1 claim the Fifth Amendment regarding income tax 2 issues is my recollection. I don't know, maybe I'm 3 wrong. I don't think I dealt with the tax return. 4 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, because 5 I'm joining in these objections based on request for 6 production directed to Mr. Minton, on this point 7 I'm -- 8 THE COURT: Fine, go ahead and you can be heard 9 then right now, too. 10 MR. HOWIE: On that point I'm raising this 11 particular issue. On September 21, 2001 in 12 deposition Mr. Minton took the Fifth Amendment 13 privilege against some 90 questions. A vast 14 majority of those questions dealt with payments made 15 to Mr. Dandar. 16 The Court ruled that Mr. Minton had waived his 17 Fifth Amendment privilege because he had -- 18 THE COURT: Posted these. 19 MR. HOWIE: He posted to these, testified to 20 them under oath. However, he raised Fifth Amendment 21 privilege as to questions concerning his income, the 22 source of the funds, and his tax returns. 23 The Court, by its order, I believe in October 24 of last year, said that he was allowed to continue 25 to raise the privilege. Admittedly there is no
1011 1 symmetry here in our arguments on that particular 2 point. Mr. Minton, we feel, is still allowed to 3 raise the Fifth Amendment privilege. The Court has 4 ruled that his Fifth Amendment privilege on that 5 point is intact. And that would be -- 6 THE COURT: Of course, that LMT, Inc., I @ gee 7 guess is what it is -- is it Inc.? 8 MR. HOWIE: Yes. 9 THE COURT: -- is hardly Mr. Minton's 10 privilege. I mean, that is a corporation, totally 11 separate person under the eyes of the law. 12 MR. HOWIE: That is correct. Mr. Minton does 13 not have standing to raise privilege on behalf of 14 LMT. But on this point where they are requesting 15 Mr. Minton's personal tax returns, apart from any 16 other arguments that we would join in from 17 Mr. McGowan, we also raised the issue that he is 18 maintaining his Fifth Amendment privilege. 19 THE COURT: Does he plan to continue to assert 20 that, if asked? In other words, is that something 21 he's going to waive or he's going to continue to 22 assert? 23 MR. HOWIE: He's going to continue to assert 24 his Fifth Amendment privilege as to the income, the 25 source of any moneys, and reporting of the same on
1012 1 his tax returns. 2 THE COURT: And so -- so he doesn't want to 3 turn over his tax returns because that can be part 4 of his Fifth Amendment privilege? 5 MR. HOWIE: Precisely. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. HOWIE: In addition to any other objections 8 and grounds raised by Mr. McGowan that would pertain 9 to Mr. Minton. I don't need to repeat those. 10 THE COURT: I think that is the problem. I 11 don't know what benefit, frankly, the LMT tax return 12 will be to counsel. But I don't think it -- you 13 can't claim a privilege on the part of a 14 corporation. 15 MR. McGOWAN: No, you can't. 16 THE COURT: I understand what they believe to 17 be relevant here. Obviously it is their contention, 18 and it is as clear as it can be from the notice to 19 produce and now anybody here floundering in the 20 dark, that they suggest there are other bases for 21 these lies -- these allegations of lies, I guess I 22 should say; that being I believe they said bribery, 23 extortion. I don't know, there may have been other 24 words. That extortion pertained to allegations of 25 criminal activity on Mr. Minton's part.
1013 1 I have searched through all of the depositions, 2 and I found what I would consider three areas that 3 have come up from time to time. And I'm not 4 necessarily even saying by the lawyers here, but I'm 5 saying he has been deposed by other lawyers. There 6 are three areas, one, whatever his business was in 7 Nigeria. It keeps getting raised either by Internet 8 or questions or what have you that there is some 9 thought of I'll say fraud -- I don't know if it is 10 fraud, money laundering is really what it is -- due 11 to his Nigerian activity. 12 Number two, that Mr. Rosen, in particular, from 13 time to time, apparently has suggested in court and 14 otherwise that there is some racketeering enterprise 15 of Mr. Minton being the hub of it. 16 And, three, that Mr. Minton isn't paying his 17 taxes. 18 So I think all three of those things are going 19 to be explored by the plaintiff to the extent that 20 I'll allow it as their view that there is this 21 motive behind this basis of coming forward and 22 suggesting that Mr. Dandar lied, and he said he 23 didn't. Therefore -- he said he didn't. Therefore, 24 Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks are lying and that is 25 another reason. Therefore, I don't think they can
1014 1 claim the privilege. 2 I feel different about Mr. Minton's returns. I 3 think he does have the privilege. I think his 4 lawyer has stated he's going to assert the 5 privilege. I think he's allowed to assert the 6 privilege. 7 I think that, as with any privilege assertion, 8 an adverse interest can be drawn, perhaps and 9 perhaps not. We'll deal with that at the 10 appropriate time. 11 But I think he has the right, I have allowed 12 him to assert the privilege. I don't think he's 13 waived that, in other words. And that has been my 14 ruling and I will consistently rule that unless he 15 waives it. 16 So -- 17 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, I was also 18 speaking ahead of my written submission. I have a 19 courtesy copy and the original. Should the Court 20 get the original? 21 THE COURT: Oh, yes. 22 MR. HOWIE: That is your copy, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: The clerk needs to know, this is 24 not -- this is not for here, that is a filing. That 25 needs to be filed in the court file.
1015 1 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I would also point out, 2 just to keep the record clear, as to Item 6 in the 3 request for production of documents -- 4 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let me just deal 5 with this return. Let's get that -- are you done 6 with the LMT? 7 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, at this point I 8 am. There is more to be said on privilege, however. 9 THE COURT: So as to the LMT return -- 10 MR. McGOWAN: The LMT is a separate entity. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 MR. McGOWAN: This is some sort of guilt by 13 association argument, I assume, by the plaintiffs. 14 If they are looking at Mr. Minton for these things, 15 why in the world do they need the LMT -- 16 THE COURT: Allegations have been made that 17 Ms. Brooks is kind of a figurehead; that Mr. Minton 18 was head of LMT; that -- matter of fact, it has been 19 cited by defendant on numerous occasions that LMT -- 20 as stated by a judge in this case, that LMT and 21 Minton are so intertwined that they're one in the 22 same. And also indicated that this lawsuit is. 23 Therefore, that the decision I presume would have 24 been made by Mr. Minton as to what amount of income 25 to put on the tax returns.
1016 1 So, you know, if you want some time to take up 2 the issue, you may have that time. But my ruling is 3 going to be it has relevance as to whether or not 4 the income -- purely that amount of income that I 5 know Mr. Minton himself has provided to LMT, 6 reported by them on the tax return. If not, perhaps 7 they'll inquire -- 8 MR. McGOWAN: As to Stacy Brooks then, your 9 Honor, I think that is a whole different issue. 10 THE COURT: As to her personal returns? 11 MR. McGOWAN: Her personal returns. 12 THE COURT: So we're done with LMT? 13 MR. McGOWAN: Yes. I'll turn that over. I 14 have it right here. 15 THE COURT: Let's talk about Ms. Brooks' tax 16 returns and especially five years of tax returns. 17 MR. McGOWAN: Yes, five years -- 18 THE COURT: Let's go -- we need to see if they 19 can establish relevancy. So let's just put it right 20 back to them and see what they say and we'll deal 21 with it. Why do you need Ms. Brooks' tax returns? 22 MR. LIROT: Judge, it is our position again 23 that significant amounts of money changed hands 24 between Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Our concern is 25 basically that was not reported. I think she
1017 1 testified Mr. Minton was her sole source of income. 2 We don't know how much was given to her as a gift, 3 we don't know how much was given to her through the 4 LMT and we need to make sure that everything that 5 she's done has been reported properly so that that 6 couldn't be used as a point of leverage against her. 7 Same issue on relevance, Judge. I mean, it's an 8 important theory to us. 9 THE COURT: Why do you need five years? How 10 about 2000? If you are going to do some tracing 11 here, it would seem to me if you had LMT and hers 12 for 2000, that is about all you need. 13 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I think that we would 14 like to see them from the point in time where she 15 started to participate in, I guess, preparing these 16 declarations in the other cases. Clearly there has 17 been certainly at least some testimony that she 18 certainly has been under some sort of surveillance 19 or, shall we say, investigation. 20 So I'm curious, I think it goes -- 21 THE COURT: I'll tell you, Counselor, I don't 22 know that because I have not seen her depositions. 23 I have seen Mr. Minton's depositions now. And 24 I made some notes, as I went through them, to see if 25 there were some sort of subtle mentionings of
1018 1 perhaps other criminal activity, and there clearly 2 was. I don't know which case it was in, but I 3 certainly know Mr. Rosen raised it upon occasion. 4 So that was my basis. 5 Where do they suggest that Ms. Brooks committed 6 some criminal activity? 7 MR. LIROT: Judge, I think that in asking her 8 to recant all these declarations, basically it 9 accuses her of having made things up for several 10 years. So there is one. 11 THE COURT: Hasn't she already testified that 12 her motive here is not only to -- to -- naturally 13 her motive, she says, is to rid herself of all this 14 anxiety of the harassment that she received and the 15 harassment Mr. Minton has received. 16 But her motive was to -- and I'm not saying 17 this is an ill motive. Her motive in coming forward 18 was for her and Mr. Minton to be out from under what 19 she perceived to be oppression and not only -- I 20 believe it is kind of dual fold, but not only 21 harassment by the Church, but also the harassment 22 was the legal problems she found herself in because 23 she had perjured herself, Mr. Minton perjured 24 himself, and the discovery that the Court ordered 25 was closing in. And she needed to purge herself of
1019 1 that to get rid -- rid of the thought of going to 2 jail for perjury. 3 So she really expressed two motives here. I 4 have not heard anything that suggests that one of 5 her motives could be she was afraid of -- that the 6 defendant in this case was pressuring her because 7 she had not reported her taxes. I did see that in 8 Mr. Minton's return -- I mean in Mr. Minton's 9 deposition. 10 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I think basically 11 because of the close relationship between Mr. Minton 12 and Ms. Brooks and some of the money that changed 13 hands between LMT and some -- I guess Ms. Brooks' 14 testimony was that she thought money was coming from 15 other sources. She didn't know where it was coming 16 are from. Basically we want to be able to look at 17 whether or not she received large sums of money, and 18 that might be one of the bases that Mr. Minton is 19 concerned with his tax issues. 20 THE COURT: Well, you don't know of any large 21 sums of money. She was paid by LMT $5,000 a month. 22 Right? 23 MR. LIROT: That is part of what she was 24 getting. Yes. 25 THE COURT: Well, what else was she getting? I
1020 1 mean, if she's having a relationship with a man and 2 the man is providing her money, that is not going to 3 be income in the traditional sense. She's not going 4 to have to report that on her return any more than a 5 wife would have to report moneys given to her by her 6 husband. 7 MR. LIROT: Well, respectfully, Judge, I think 8 that goes to the sum changing hands, if it's -- I 9 think if it is over $10,000, even if it is a gift, 10 it has to be reported. So we don't know. But we 11 think it's relevant and it is worthy of examination. 12 And certainly I think if the plausibility 13 argument is going to be one that, yes, Mr. Minton 14 has said this, I don't know that we can draw that 15 very distinct line between Mr. Minton's financial 16 concerns and Ms. Brooks' financial concerns. 17 I think that there is certainly a carryover. 18 Ms. Brooks has a very close relationship with 19 Mr. Minton. She seems to be intimately involved, or 20 at least aware of what his financial realities are. 21 And I think that might have carried over at least 22 into some of the tax returns that she might be 23 responsible to file. So ... 24 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, it's a bit of a 25 stretch to go from Mr. Minton to Ms. Brooks' tax
1021 1 returns. What I guess they are saying is that since 2 Ms. Brooks has recanted, therefore, she must be -- 3 THE COURT: Must lie on her income tax returns. 4 MR. McGOWAN: Yes, and let's fish through her 5 tax returns and see. 6 THE COURT: That is the problem I have. I 7 don't have a problem with Mr. Minton because I saw 8 in the depositions some subtle threats -- that is 9 too strong a word, some subtleties suggesting there 10 was some awareness he had not been completely honest 11 in his taxes. 12 MR. LIROT: Yes. 13 THE COURT: That is a motive for worrying about 14 a party and what they might know. You can explore 15 that except you cannot require him to testify. He 16 can claim the Fifth Amendment. I have not seen 17 that. If you have got it, show it to me. I'll give 18 you time to show it to me. I have not had the 19 benefit of looking at her depositions. 20 To be honest with you, unless I just have to, I 21 would like for somebody to point these out rather 22 than me have to read, myself. So if you have got 23 it, you find it. You show me where either whoever 24 took the deposition for the Church in this case or 25 this kinda sorta semirelated case suggested to her
1022 1 that they had information that she wasn't paying her 2 taxes. If you find that for the year 2000, I will 3 allow you to have her 2000 tax return. 4 MR. LIROT: Very good. 5 THE COURT: Because I think if you had the LMT 6 tax return, you could see hers, see if they are 7 deducting it, if she's paying it, all that sort of 8 stuff. But if you can't find any subtle suggestions 9 that there is a thought here that she's not paying 10 her taxes, then I don't think that is relevant, 11 quite frankly. 12 MR. LIROT: We'll go through her depositions 13 and find that for you, Judge. 14 THE COURT: If you can find it. But even then, 15 I'm only going to require the 2000 return. Then you 16 look through the 2000 return, which you'll have from 17 LMT, you would have hers. If you find @ somewhat 18 you would consider to be gross distortion of income 19 reporting, then you can make another argument to me 20 and we'll see whether -- but the first thing that 21 has to be shown is that Ms. Brooks would have some 22 reason to believe that the defendant in this case is 23 subtly suggesting to her that they have information 24 that she's not reported her taxes correctly. 25 MR. LIROT: Understood, Judge.
1023 1 THE COURT: If you don't have that, then I 2 don't think that becomes -- I mean you can argue 3 that is a motive, but that is about all you can do. 4 So that is my ruling for now. I'm going to 5 grant your request not to turn those over, but I do 6 want you to have the 2000 return close at hand. If 7 they can find those same things that I believe would 8 allow them to make the inquiry of Mr. Minton and I 9 believe would allow him to claim the Fifth, she is 10 not going to claim the Fifth, is she? 11 MR. McGOWAN: No. 12 THE COURT: Then I would then permit them to 13 have that one year's return. Based on what they 14 would tell me if they had the one year's return, I 15 may or may not permit other years' returns. 16 MR. McGOWAN: That return I know is in Atlanta. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. McGOWAN: Well -- 19 THE COURT: If she's coming back -- I don't 20 know when Mr. Minton will be done, but if she's 21 coming back, if she could bring it back. If she's 22 not coming back, she could send it to you with 23 directions, whatever her directions would be. 24 MR. McGOWAN: That is fine, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Right now, I haven't asked it be
1024 1 produced. 2 MR. McGOWAN: Right. Okay. 3 THE COURT: But I think you ought to have it so 4 that if, in fact, that becomes an issue that I allow 5 them to have it, it's here and they can be turned 6 over. 7 MR. McGOWAN: All right. Your Honor, this is 8 the sixth day of her testimony. I have sat 9 silently. I understand @ somebody is recanting 10 perjury, the Court will have less patience with that 11 witness and it's perfectly understandable. But, you 12 know, trials come and go in six days, over -- 13 THE COURT: They sure do. 14 MR. McGOWAN: -- over issues and there has to 15 be some point -- I mean, this witness has been 16 subjected to a lot of repetitious examination, and 17 can we get some idea of how long this is going to go 18 on? I mean, this is -- you know -- 19 THE COURT: It sounded like yesterday morning 20 that Ms. Brooks had been well-advised by counsel 21 because, you know, what I saw, yes, no, yes, no. 22 Good counsel usually suggests to a witness, their 23 own witness, don't go into all kinds of discussion 24 here, just answer the question. I thought, "Wow." 25 Well, that all changed. I can't help that the
1025 1 witness goes on for fifteen minutes when a question 2 is asked. And nobody asked me to shut her off, and 3 I'm not saying improperly. But if everybody sits 4 there, I can't very well say, "Look, the question 5 has been answered a long time ago." 6 If he asks a question and she answers it yes or 7 no and then doesn't explain it, then he has to move 8 on to the next question. If he asks a question and 9 Ms. Brooks takes fifteen or twenty minutes to answer 10 it, and nobody steps up and says the question has 11 been answered, I'm -- you know, my hands are tied. 12 MR. McGOWAN: My observation was that starts to 13 happen around 2:30 in the afternoon, and I think 14 there is a reason for that, too. 15 (Discussion had off the record.) 16 MR. McGOWAN: You were talking about lengthy 17 answers, and I said they tend to come late in the 18 day. And -- later in the day. And I'm just trying 19 to get some idea. I know I spoke to Mr. Lirot 20 yesterday and he indicated he had a couple hours. 21 That was in the morning. And obviously we now have 22 a 23-page affidavit we're going to go through, and I 23 assume the tax return, which does have depreciation 24 schedules. 25 THE COURT: I can't imagine they are going into
1026 1 depreciation schedules. They may not ask her a 2 question. 3 MR. McGOWAN: I hope not. 4 THE COURT: I know what I would ask her and I 5 could ask her in ten minutes. But I tend to be a 6 different type of questioner than some of the 7 lawyers involved in this case. 8 MR. McGOWAN: I think less is more sometimes, 9 but that is -- anyway, I will tender the LMT tax 10 return. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. McGOWAN: And this is for the year 2000, 13 and we'll get the other one if we, indeed, need it. 14 MR. LIROT: Thank you, sir. 15 THE COURT: Let me see a copy of it. Let's 16 see, Mr. Minton, @ on is there more on him or can we 17 delay the rest of it until we get to his testimony? 18 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, just out of an 19 abundance of caution, since we were raising as to 20 item number 6, as long as I'm raising Fifth 21 Amendment privilege, I also wanted to go on record 22 as raising Fifth Amendment privileges to item number 23 6 requesting a copy of any and all bank statements 24 from all banking institutions utilized by Robert 25 Minton for the period of two years prior to the
1027 1 filing of this notice. 2 On the same grounds Mr. Minton intends to raise 3 Fifth Amendment privilege. We have previously 4 stated in our response that it's unduly burdensome 5 and not likely to lead to discovery of admissible 6 evidence. 7 What we failed to note in our written response 8 is that he will also be raising Fifth Amendment 9 privileges at that point. 10 That is all. 11 THE COURT: I think -- and as I said, I don't 12 know what the request to produce -- I haven't really 13 seen it, so maybe if I could -- I have seen the one 14 for Ms. Brooks, but I haven't seen one for 15 Mr. Minton. 16 If I could see it and if I could then see -- is 17 it attached to your response? 18 MR. HOWIE: No, your Honor, it is not. I just 19 assumed it had been filed, but I'm referring to -- 20 THE COURT: It may have been filed, but I don't 21 have it. 22 MR. HOWIE: I'm referring specifically to 23 number 6, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Did you see that number 6? 25 That is the request for bank statements from all
1028 1 banking institutions utilized by Mr. Minton for the 2 period of two years prior to filing of this notice, 3 he plans to take the Fifth Amendment regarding that. 4 MR. LIROT: Judge, I guess we'll have to 5 explore that when he decides to assert the 6 privilege, but we certainly would resubmit our 7 argument as to why we believe these materials would 8 be relevant. I don't know what options are 9 available to the Court. Maybe Mr. Minton's 10 testimony would have to be stricken if he's going to 11 take the Fifth Amendment -- 12 THE COURT: You know, Counsel, I'm always happy 13 to listen to argument. But that is legal argument 14 which I assume you will request at the right time. 15 What they told me now, he's asserting his Fifth 16 Amendment privilege and will not give those up. 17 And, therefore, I would suspect what you need to do 18 is ask your questions, see what happens, and if he 19 asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege, I'll not make 20 him give it up. 21 That would go to his income tax return. I 22 don't think he waived it. I think he has been 23 consistent in claiming his Fifth Amendment. And 24 I'm, frankly, not going to require him to give up a 25 very valuable right available to all citizens of
1029 1 this country, which I assume -- well, it's a 2 available to more than all citizens of this country, 3 but Mr. Minton can be afforded that right. 4 MR. LIROT: Understood, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: May I keep this? 6 MR. HOWIE: It is my only copy, Judge. 7 THE COURT: Is there anything else, Mr. Howie? 8 MR. HOWIE: Nothing further from me, your 9 Honor. 10 THE COURT: I mean, are there other legal 11 matters? Are you going to produce the rest of what 12 they have asked? 13 MR. HOWIE: I have already provided some copies 14 and I made responses -- non-objection responses to 15 the rest of the items. 16 MR. LIROT: Judge, we are still curious about a 17 draft of any racketeering suit that may have been 18 presented, so apparently there was something 19 floating around. To that extent we are very curious 20 what might have happened to that. I don't know what 21 privilege would apply to that document. 22 THE COURT: It wouldn't be. But @ Mr. Howie 23 hasn't produced it, that means he doesn't have it. 24 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, our written response is 25 clear on that point.
1030 1 THE COURT: Am I right about that? 2 MR. HOWIE: That is correct. 3 THE COURT: You don't have it. You can explore 4 it. If Mr. Minton says otherwise, then you may ask 5 me to ask him, I would say that is relevant. 6 MR. LIROT: Fair enough. 7 THE COURT: But if there isn't one, then there 8 isn't one. 9 MR. LIROT: Understood. 10 Judge, I have just a couple of housekeeping 11 matters. I did manage to copy Exhibit 15, and I 12 have one for the Court and one for the clerk. And 13 since counsel provided -- 14 THE COURT: Did you ask for the copy of the 15 document that was provided by Mr. Rosen in federal 16 court that has the wheel with the spider in the 17 middle and -- 18 MR. LIROT: We think we have that, Judge. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. LIROT: We think we obtained that 21 previously. 22 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. LIROT: So we'll ask questions about that. 24 But I have those. And just by way of scheduling, I 25 have a 1 o'clock conference call with a federal
1031 1 judge in Montana today. So if you could perhaps 2 just gear the lunch hour -- 3 THE COURT: If you'll remind me, I'll be happy 4 to. We'll take a 12:30 to 1:30 or something. Will 5 that work? 6 MR. LIROT: That would be great, Judge. I 7 appreciate that. 8 THE COURT: I try to accommodate counsel. I 9 had a call from Judge Beach, Mr. Moxon, maybe you 10 got a call from him. He had his plans, and I 11 suppose he spent his money already, but he had four 12 or five depositions. And I told him I didn't care 13 if you all were going to have enough lawyers to send 14 and do depositions, but I wasn't going to stop the 15 hearing because, frankly, the request was to dismiss 16 the charge and -- not the charge, the case. And if 17 the case were dismissed there was no need for the 18 depositions. So -- 19 MR. LIROT: This is definitely job one, Judge, 20 no doubt about it. 21 THE COURT: So he was going to call Mr. Moxon. 22 Has he called you? 23 MR. MOXON: No, but I'll call him at break, 24 your Honor. In fact -- 25 THE COURT: He was wanting to know if we were
1032 1 still going to be going next week. And I said, "Oh, 2 looks like it." So I would like for you to try to 3 finish up with this witness. 4 MR. LIROT: I'll finish her up -- I'll just 5 have her authenticate documents and I'll ask some 6 following up questions, and I'll do it as quickly as 7 I can. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. LIROT: Judge, I have two conflicts 10 tomorrow. I have cleared my calendar for Thursday 11 and Friday. I had other hearings. I actually asked 12 continuances of those. But tomorrow I have two 13 where there are many counsel involved, and I was 14 wondering if we could just have Wednesday off this 15 week and then pick it up Thursday and Friday. I 16 hate to put the Court or any of my colleagues at a 17 disadvantage. 18 THE COURT: I suspect they have things to do. 19 I expect if I gave them a day off, they would fill 20 it up. 21 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not sure where downtown 22 Tampa is anymore. I haven't been there in a while. 23 THE COURT: You are telling me these are not 24 things you can do just in an hour or something like 25 that?
1033 1 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, there is one in the 2 morning in front of Judge Case and one in the 3 afternoon in front of Judge Arnold in Tampa. And 4 they have all -- the one in the afternoon involves 5 several other attorneys, and they may not take more 6 than an hour, but they will be peppered both in the 7 morning and in the afternoon. So I need to get 8 started -- 9 THE COURT: Will it hurt anybody's feelings if 10 I take tomorrow off? Okay, we'll just not be in 11 trial tomorrow. I'm still trying to reach Justice 12 Anstead -- he and I are missing each other -- to see 13 if he really needs me at that meeting on Monday, but 14 I suspect next Monday is out, too. Okay? Are you 15 ready? 16 MR. LIROT: Yes. That is it. 17 THE COURT: Ms. Brooks. 18 Good morning. 19 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, before we start I 20 would like to clarify something you said. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 THE WITNESS: With regard to my motive, I just 23 want to clarify that I believe my testimony was 24 that -- Mmm -- with regard to any harassment or 25 anything like that from the Church, that I may have
1034 1 felt I was being subjected to, you know, I have been 2 doing this work since 1993. And when we were going 3 through the harassment time line with Mr. Lirot, I 4 think I made it very clear that neither I nor 5 Mr. Minton were intimidated by those actions. It 6 was the concern that we had for the courts and for 7 the actions that the courts might take against us 8 that led to our coming forward. 9 THE COURT: I understand that, ma'am. But I 10 think that the innuendo is clear from counsel that 11 they're going to argue that is not true. They're 12 going to argue by your time line, by Mr. Minton's 13 having had this episode where he was getting all 14 distraught, that it had to do with the other 15 matters, including the harassment. In other words, 16 they quite frankly aren't going to tell me that what 17 you have said is true. 18 THE WITNESS: I understand. I just wanted -- 19 THE COURT: I'm saying that -- I'm suggesting 20 that is what I'm going to hear. I am not saying 21 anything of this I heard is true. Obviously they 22 are quite different allegations as to what is 23 motivating your testimony. Yours, and that 24 coincides with the defendant's, and there is the 25 plaintiff's. And they're very different.
1035 1 And so, trust me, I'm going to hear about the 2 fact that part of your motivation is this -- what in 3 your time line is huge harassment that you have 4 alleged. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes? 6 THE COURT: Despite what you are saying. Okay? 7 So I'm not saying it is true or not, but that is 8 what I am going to hear. So I said that was your 9 motivation. I don't know what your motivation is. 10 I have listened to this testimony and will 11 eventually have to evaluate credibility. 12 All right, Counsel. 13 MR. LIROT: All right. 14 BY MR. LIROT: 15 Q Ms. Brooks, I want to ask you a few more questions 16 about document retrievals and policies at the LMT. 17 Now, did I ask you if you gave any orders to shred 18 documents? 19 A I don't recall that you did. 20 Q All right. Were there any documents shredded at 21 the LMT at any time? 22 A Yes. 23 Q All right. Do you know what kind of documents 24 were shredded? 25 A Yes.
1036 1 Q All right. Can you tell me what those were? 2 A I received a notice in the mail one day in the 3 summer of 2001, I believe, from Mr. Rosen informing me that 4 the position that the Church of Scientology was taking was 5 that the Lisa McPherson Trust was a successor corporation to 6 FACTNet and, therefore, the Lisa McPherson Trust was -- they 7 would consider that the Lisa McPherson Trust was bound by 8 the -- by the settlement agreement Mr. Minton and I had 9 signed with regard to FACTNet. 10 And that included a -- I don't remember what the 11 term is for when you have to pay money if you violate a 12 settlement agreement. 13 THE COURT: Liquidated damages? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. That we would also be 15 subject to the liquidated damages clause of that 16 settlement if we were found to be in violation of 17 the settlement agreement, which included we were not 18 to have any copies of any copyrighted materials by 19 the Church of Scientology. 20 So I took that to be a precursor to a raid 21 that -- a similar raid that had occurred on FACTNet. 22 And I ordered everyone in the office to shred every 23 copy of any copyrighted material of the Church of 24 Scientology that they might have in their area. 25 And there was quite a bit. And --
1037 1 BY MR. LIROT: 2 Q FACTNet was the Foundation Against Coercive 3 Tactics, is that what it stood for? 4 A Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network. 5 Q What was this raid you mentioned? What raid 6 occurred on FACTNet? 7 A Mmm, Church of Scientology obtained federal 8 warrants to conduct a raid or a search on the FACTNet office 9 based on their suspicion that FACTNet was in violation of 10 Scientology's copyrights. And, in fact, FACTNet was. 11 Q And you had copyrighted materials at the LMT? 12 A Yes. Very many copies of copyrighted materials. 13 Q And the settlement said you couldn't even have 14 them? 15 A Yes. It did. That is how I understood the 16 settlement agreement to read. Mr. Rosen attached a copy of 17 the settlement agreement to his letter, and I understood the 18 settlement agreement to say that we were not -- that 19 according to the settlement, copies of copyrighted materials 20 would -- could also constitute violation of copyright. 21 Q Is that disseminating them or just having them in 22 a drawer somewhere? 23 A You know, I'm not a copyright attorney and I'm not 24 sure and I didn't want to take any chances. 25 Q Were you and Mr. Minton personally identified in
1038 1 this settlement? 2 A Mmm, no. 3 Q Well, how is it -- you just didn't believe 4 Mr. Rosen that LMT is subject to FACTNet settlement? 5 A I thought in an abundance of caution it would be a 6 good idea to ensure that the LMT was also not in violation 7 of Scientology's copyrights. 8 Q What else was shredded? 9 A Mmm, that was the major shredding project that 10 occurred. Other than that, there were documents that were 11 shredded on a regular basis if they weren't needed. 12 Q Well, what type of documents? Telephone notes? 13 Things like that? I mean, did you do a lot of shredding at 14 the LMT? 15 A Yes, we did quite a bit of shredding. And I think 16 there were probably four shredders in the various offices. 17 Q Why was shredding such a popular activity in the 18 LMT? 19 A I wouldn't characterize it as a popular activity, 20 Mr. Lirot. 21 Q Okay. Well, how many people worked there? 22 A Mmm, eight at one time. 23 Q So that is one shredder for every two people. 24 Yes? Mathematically that seems to work out? 25 A Mathematically, I think your calculation is
1039 1 correct. 2 Q What is it you have to shred all of the time? 3 A Well, for example, I shredded pretty much 4 everything except the wrappers on, you know, a package of 5 paper or whatever. I shredded envelopes, any mail that I 6 got that -- that I wasn't going to keep. 7 Q Is the shredding being done to prevent Scientology 8 from going through your trash or getting these documents and 9 finding people that have come to LMT for help out of your 10 concern they might be harassed? 11 A Yes, in some part. 12 Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you to shred these 13 materials? Or was that you? 14 A Mmm, I would say that was my decision. 15 Q Okay. Now, were you questioned in your deposition 16 about shredding documents? 17 A Yes. I believe you showed me a document yesterday 18 regarding that. 19 MR. LIROT: Judge, if I may change gears here. 20 BY MR. LIROT: 21 Q I'm going to show you what we'll have marked and 22 would like to introduce as Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 16. 23 And this appears to be -- it is titled Minton Controls and 24 Finances. 25 MR. LIROT: And I have a copy for you, Judge.
1040 1 THE COURT: Is that an Exhibit Number? 2 MR. LIROT: Yes, this is Exhibit Number 16. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 BY MR. LIROT: 5 Q Do you recognize this document? 6 A Yes. This is the document that the judge referred 7 to as the spider web. 8 THE COURT: That is the one Mr. Minton referred 9 to, as I recall. He was in the middle and -- 10 THE WITNESS: He's the spider. 11 THE COURT: He's the spider. Right. 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q All right. And where did you first see this 14 document? 15 A In a hearing in a federal court in the Tampa area 16 when Mr. Rosen submitted it in a court case concerning Grady 17 Ward's bankruptcy. 18 THE COURT: Who submitted this, Mr. Rosen? 19 THE WITNESS: Mr. Rosen. 20 BY MR. LIROT: 21 Q Did this document find its way into the meeting on 22 the 28th or 29th or any of the subsequent meetings you had 23 with Scientology to work out this global settlement that you 24 have testified to? 25 A That is not my testimony. We weren't working out
1041 1 a global settlement. 2 Q Okay. Did this document come up at any of the 3 meetings that you had with Scientology since March 28th? 4 A No. 5 Q Not at all? Now -- 6 THE COURT: I'm sorry, did you answer that? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. "No." 8 BY MR. LIROT: 9 Q Now, this document was presented in one context. 10 You said it was in Grady Ward's bankruptcy hearing. Did 11 Mr. Rosen just come up and hand it to you? Was it entered 12 into evidence in court? How did you come to be aware of 13 this document? 14 A Which of those questions do you want me to answer? 15 Q How did you become aware of this document? 16 A Mr. Rosen submitted it in court. 17 Q And he submitted it as an exhibit? 18 A I believe so. 19 Q All right. Were you in the court hearing when it 20 was submitted? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Who was Grady Ward? 23 A Grady Ward is someone who has been a critic of 24 Scientology and has been in litigation with Scientology. 25 Q Okay. In what way? Was he -- did he sue
1042 1 Scientology? Or did Scientology sue him? 2 A I believe Scientology sued him. 3 Q Okay. And for what? 4 A I'm not sure. 5 Q Okay. Well, what was Mr. Minton's relationship 6 with Grady Ward? 7 A What was his relationship? He was a friend. 8 Q Okay. Did he help Mr. Ward in defending the 9 litigation? 10 A He provided funding for it. Yes. 11 Q And I -- did he violate some settlement agreement? 12 I still don't know what the cause of action was between 13 Scientology and Grady Ward. 14 A Well, I can tell you what I do know. 15 Q Okay. 16 A There was some sort of settlement that was 17 reached. I'm not -- I'm not really sure what the litigation 18 was about, to be honest. But a settlement was reached. And 19 then there was an allegation that Mr. Ward had violated the 20 settlement. 21 I don't know that that was ever -- that a judgment 22 was ever made on that one way or the other. 23 Q Did Grady Ward work at the LMT? 24 A Yes. 25 Q For how long?
1043 1 A A year and a half. 2 Q What were his responsibilities? 3 A Mmm, as I said yesterday, he was responsible for 4 computer security. And security in the offices. 5 Q Did he ever counsel people that came in and said 6 that they were discontent with Scientology? 7 A No. 8 Q I see the next one, and I'll go around the wheel 9 here, clockwise. 10 The next one is Larry Wollersheim. And as I 11 understand it, he recently settled his case with 12 Scientology. 13 MR. McGOWAN: Is that a question? 14 BY MR. LIROT: 15 Q Do you understand that to be true? 16 A Mmm, I -- I understand that there is some sort of 17 resolution of the Wollersheim case, either that has happened 18 or is in progress. 19 Q Okay. Did you know Mr. Wollersheim personally? 20 A Yes. 21 Q For how long? 22 A Mmm, probably from 1995. 23 Q Okay. And what, to your knowledge, was 24 Mr. Wollersheim's case with Scientology? 25 A Mmm, I believe in 1984, sometime in the early
1044 1 '80s, Mr. Wollersheim sued Scientology -- 2 MR. FUGATE: I'll object to relevance, your 3 Honor, to this proceeding. 4 THE COURT: Overruled. 5 A Mmm, for intentional infliction of emotional 6 distress, I think. And he won a judgment. And there have 7 been various attempts on the part of Wollersheim to collect 8 and on the part of Scientology to pay him, as I understand 9 it. And finally I believe Scientology is -- has now paid 10 money into the court to resolve that case. 11 BY MR. LIROT: 12 Q Did you file any declarations in Mr. Wollersheim's 13 case? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What about Gerry Armstrong? What was his 16 relationship with Mr. Minton? 17 THE COURT: I have a question just because of 18 something that has been raised, and I don't know if 19 you are going to get there or not, but I have a 20 question. 21 Did you attempt to withdraw your declaration in 22 the Larry Wollersheim case around the same time that 23 the discussions were occurring with the defendant, 24 the Church, in this case? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
1045 1 THE COURT: Okay. Why did you do that? I 2 mean, maybe you don't want me to ask that. I want 3 to know. The hearing is in front of me so I am 4 asking. 5 THE WITNESS: That is okay. I don't mind. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: Because I knew that we were 8 now -- we had initiated settlement. I knew that I 9 wanted to withdraw from litigation, generally, with 10 regard to Scientology. That is the only other case 11 that is still active in any way utilizing testimony 12 from me. 13 THE COURT: Did that case and this case -- you 14 were trying to withdraw from both cases? 15 THE WITNESS: That is it. Yes. 16 THE COURT: So it wasn't -- I don't know what 17 you submitted, I don't think. Was it the affidavit 18 I saw the other day? The declaration, was that the 19 affidavit? 20 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure which one you mean. 21 It was -- it was a 1997 declaration. And what was 22 happening was Mr. Leipold was -- I think it was a 23 proffer that he was making to the Court -- 24 THE COURT: I think this is the one that was 25 provided to me, and it's in evidence in this case.
1046 1 This is a declaration dated December 14, 1994. 2 THE WITNESS: No. It's not this one. 3 THE COURT: So that is not the one. Some other 4 declaration? 5 THE WITNESS: It's some other declaration. 6 Apparently it's a 1997 declaration. 7 But it had already been filed. And then I 8 understood that Mr. Leipold was going to proffer my 9 declaration to the Court for some reason. And I 10 asked him not to proffer. 11 THE COURT: And it's my understanding he 12 refused to do that? 13 THE WITNESS: He proffered it regardless of my 14 request. 15 THE COURT: Some disagreement as to whether it 16 had already been done or not, as I recall from the 17 documents that have been submitted? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. 19 THE COURT: In any event, the request was that 20 he withdraw it if it had been filed. He refused to 21 do that, said he couldn't do that to his client or 22 something? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 THE COURT: You weren't trying to withdraw it 25 because it was false; you were trying to withdraw it
1047 1 because you didn't want to be filing affidavits 2 against the Church and trying to settle at the same 3 time? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. And also 5 because I had had my attorney review the declaration 6 and he had said that -- Mmm -- he was very surprised 7 that the declaration -- I'm not supposed -- 8 MR. McGOWAN: Privilege, your Honor. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, after consultation with my 10 attorney, I had -- I felt that there might be things 11 in the declaration that -- Mmm -- 12 THE COURT: You really better be careful 13 because you start talking about things, you may 14 waive the privilege. He asserted it, suggested 15 maybe you might want to assert it, so we'll let that 16 go. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 THE COURT: You didn't withdraw it because it 19 was false; you didn't say, "I lied in that 20 declaration, I could be charged with perjury" or 21 anything like that. 22 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't do that, but I said 23 there were things in the declaration that I wouldn't 24 be able to substantiate and that I didn't have 25 personal knowledge of.
1048 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 BY MR. LIROT: 3 Q As far as Gerry Armstrong, he's the next person. 4 What was his relationship with Mr. Minton? 5 A Mmm, Mr. Minton had sent him money for support, 6 and Mr. Armstrong had used quite a bit of that money to file 7 a lawsuit against Scientology. 8 Q Wasn't he named as a defendant in a suit where the 9 Scientologists sued him, apparently? 10 A You mean the recent suit? 11 Q Yes. 12 A I believe you were given a copy of that suit. 13 Q Right. 14 A I believe it speaks for itself. 15 Q How many suits are involving Mr. Armstrong and the 16 Church? 17 A That is the only one I know. 18 Q Just the most recent one? 19 A Well, there have been earlier ones that they have 20 settled. 21 Q Okay. And but what was his relationship with the 22 Church? 23 A He's a former Scientologist who is very 24 disaffected. 25 Q Okay.
1049 1 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 2 THE WITNESS: Very disaffected. 3 BY MR. LIROT: 4 Q What was it that brought him into court with 5 Scientology, other than being disaffected? 6 THE COURT: What is the relevance of that? 7 MR. LIROT: Judge, what I'm trying to find out 8 is on what basis does Mr. Rosen use this in court 9 and what is the concern with these people. And I 10 think what we're going to establish here is most of 11 these people, rather than being offensive or 12 plaintiffs against Scientology, most of them are 13 defendants which are trying to defend themselves in 14 lawsuits which are brought by the Church. 15 THE COURT: Okay. I'll allow it. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q What was Mr. Armstrong's beef with Scientology, if 18 I can frame it that way? 19 A Mmm, well, there is quite a history. Originally, 20 he left Scientology in '81. He took a lot of documents -- 21 copies of a lot of documents with him. Church sued him for 22 theft of documents. They lost that suit. 23 I believe Mr. Armstrong then sued them. And I 24 believe that it was his lawsuit against Scientology that was 25 the subject of his settlement which I believe was in 1986.
1050 1 THE WITNESS: Sorry, your Honor, my teeth are 2 chattering. 3 THE COURT: Do you want some coffee? I think 4 we have coffee. 5 THE WITNESS: I think that would make it worse. 6 Could we take a little break? 7 THE COURT: All right. We can do that. We'll 8 be in recess for fifteen minutes. 9 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.) 10 _______________________________________ 11 THE COURT: All right, you may continue. 12 BY MR LIROT: 13 Q Ms. Brooks, I think when we left off we were 14 talking about Gerry Armstrong and what action he had with 15 the Church. 16 A I believe I answered that question. 17 Q Well, I don't recall your answer, if you can 18 repeat it for me. I'm sorry. 19 THE COURT: I think she answered it. Didn't 20 she? 21 MR. McGOWAN: She did, your Honor. 22 BY MR LIROT: 23 Q Do you know what the status of Mr. Armstrong's 24 present case is? Has he filed an answer or anything? Do 25 you know where that is at?
1051 1 A I have no idea. 2 THE COURT: Look, there is a suit that has been 3 filed against Mr. Armstrong, LMT, I believe, or 4 perhaps this witness and Mr. Minton. We're all 5 aware of that. 6 MR LIROT: Yes. 7 THE COURT: In that suit, which I have read, 8 they discuss some suits that Scientology had against 9 Mr. Armstrong and judgments that the court 10 apparently has imposed for contempt, and this is 11 another whatever it is, it speaks for itself. 12 Apparently he's on the lamb or he moved out of 13 the country, and there are contempt -- another 14 contempt being considered by the Court. I mean, 15 what is it else we need to know? That is a matter 16 of record. It has been filed, I think, as an 17 exhibit in this case. 18 MR LIROT: It has, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Is there more than that? 20 MR LIROT: No. I'll move along. 21 BY MR LIROT: 22 Q The next name we see here is Jesse Prince. Why is 23 Mr. Prince involved in this wheel? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 25 MR. McGOWAN: Objection.
1052 1 THE COURT: Yes, unless she knows. Do you 2 understand this wheel? 3 THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor, I understand 4 that this is a drawing of people that Mr. Minton has 5 helped financially. 6 THE COURT: You understand -- well, maybe you 7 don't. Mr. Minton has seen this. 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: And Mr. Minton has called this 10 something. At least he called it something I have 11 read. What does he call it to you? 12 THE WITNESS: Mmm, an enterprise chart that -- 13 THE COURT: What does the word "enterprise" 14 signify to you? 15 THE WITNESS: RICO. 16 THE COURT: RICO, racketeering. 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 THE COURT: Being an enterprise, and that there 19 is some illegal activities going on, presumably. I 20 don't know if I could even define RICO to you. 21 Whenever I read it to a jury I'm thinking, "Oh, my 22 God, if they understand it, it's remarkable." 23 But you know it's a crime. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 THE COURT: And so Mr. Minton apparently is in
1053 1 the middle here, and there is some allegation, and 2 he understands it as an enterprise. 3 So I guess the question really is what would 4 Mr. Prince's connection be, if you know, to whatever 5 this is all about? 6 THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor -- 7 THE COURT: Is that what you are trying to get 8 at? 9 MR LIROT: Yes, Judge. 10 THE WITNESS: What I -- I can tell you what I 11 know, which is Mr. Minton has supported Jesse Prince 12 since the summer of 1998. 13 BY MR LIROT: 14 Q Why would that be problematic as far as 15 racketeering concerns? 16 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, objection, this is 17 outside of her knowledge. 18 THE COURT: I think that is true. I think the 19 problem we have here is that this is something that 20 if she knows what Mr. Minton's concern is about it, 21 then I think she can answer that. If she doesn't, I 22 think we'll have to wait for Mr. Minton. 23 THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton doesn't have a concern 24 about this. 25
1054 1 BY MR LIROT: 2 Q Okay. Well, isn't it true that Mr. Minton funded 3 a criminal case involving Mr. Prince? 4 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, this has been asked 5 and answered at least a dozen times. 6 THE COURT: I don't know if that has or not, to 7 be honest with you, so I'll allow that to be asked. 8 BY MR LIROT: 9 Q Didn't he pay for Mr. Prince's criminal defense -- 10 THE COURT: I have seen it. I saw it in 11 something just -- 12 THE WITNESS: I testified to it, too, your 13 Honor. 14 THE COURT: The affidavit. 15 THE WITNESS: I have testified to it. 16 THE COURT: If you testified to it, then you 17 don't have to repeat it. Even I forgot, it has been 18 so long. 19 THE WITNESS: I understand. 20 THE COURT: So if I say I don't think I have 21 heard it, that doesn't mean you haven't said it; it 22 just simply means it has been a long number of days 23 and -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: -- I can't remember everything you
1055 1 said. You would remember better than I would, I'm 2 sure. 3 BY MR LIROT: 4 Q Vaughn Young's name is on there. Why would his 5 name be on there, do you know? 6 MR. McGOWAN: Again, over and over again, we 7 have some chart that Mr. Rosen who is somewhat 8 flamboyant in his presentations put up in federal 9 court someplace. Why he put it there is -- is 10 something outside of this witness's knowledge. 11 MR LIROT: Judge, I want to know what her 12 knowledge is as to these people that are identified, 13 what she knows about them and why she thinks they 14 would be on this chart. 15 MR. McGOWAN: That is calling for speculation. 16 If he wants to know who these people are, I think 17 we've been around this -- 18 THE COURT: I tell you what I'm going to do. 19 I'm going to suggest she knows these people, and if 20 there are any of them she doesn't know, she can tell 21 us. And so she would probably know the same thing 22 about any moneys provided by Mr. Minton. Why don't 23 you save it for him? 24 I mean, do you know these people? I have heard 25 about most all of these people myself.
1056 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I know these 2 people. 3 THE COURT: These are all people -- maybe I'm 4 wrong. Are these all people that are perceived -- 5 people or corporations like FACTNet, LMT, that are 6 perceived to be -- I hate to use the word "enemies," 7 but whatever word you might want to use it of the 8 opposition to the Church? 9 THE WITNESS: Anti-Scientologists. 10 THE COURT: Anti-Scientology people? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Either anti-Scientology people, or 13 anti-Scientology companies like -- 14 THE WITNESS: Correct. 15 THE COURT: -- like LMT, FACTNet. There is one 16 here that I don't think I have heard about, and that 17 is Courage Productions. I don't know what that is. 18 Could you tell me that? Because I know myself and 19 can deal with this. 20 THE WITNESS: Courage Productions is a company 21 that Mr. Minton owns the majority, 50 percent, of; 22 and two other people, Peter Alexander, Patricia 23 Greenway, some amounts of each. I don't know what 24 their amounts are each that they own, but it's the 25 company that was created to make that film,
1057 1 "Prophet." 2 THE COURT: Then I know what that is about. So 3 we know -- we all know what this is and you can 4 refer to it in argument. What exactly is it that 5 you want this woman to testify about? 6 MR LIROT: Just what she knew about this 7 document and what she understood it to represent, 8 Judge. So I think that has been established at this 9 point. 10 I just have -- obviously -- I don't know who 11 Dennis Erlich is. That's a new one. 12 BY MR LIROT: 13 Q Who is Dennis Erlich and why is he on this chart, 14 if you know? 15 A Dennis Erlich is a former Scientologist. Why he's 16 on this chart, I don't -- 17 THE COURT: Did Mr. Minton provide him money? 18 THE WITNESS: I think Mr. Minton provided him 19 with a small amount of money. 20 THE COURT: Is it assumed, since all these -- 21 these are all around Bob Minton, are all these 22 dollars, is it assumed Mr. Minton in one way or 23 another provided funds of some sort to all these 24 people? 25 THE WITNESS: Well, that is what I think this
1058 1 chart represents, is that people that either -- that 2 Mr. Minton either has given money to or that 3 Scientology thought he had given money to. 4 THE COURT: I suppose -- and nobody will agree 5 with me on this -- but I suppose racketeering says 6 you take illegal money and put it into -- you 7 launder it through a legal source, perhaps. I don't 8 know if that is it or not. 9 THE WITNESS: Is that what it is? 10 THE COURT: Yes, in other words, if you have 11 got some illegally obtained money, such as the 12 allegations of some illegal money coming out of 13 Nigeria -- 14 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh? 15 THE COURT: -- and you launder it through 16 something that is legitimate, legal, sort of -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: It could be the other way, too. 18 Take legitimate funds and use it for illegal 19 purposes. 20 THE COURT: That is right. Take legal money, 21 put it out for illegal purposes or take illegal 22 money and put it out for legitimate purposes, and 23 either of those can amount to a racketeering charge. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Or you can take illegal money 25 and use it for illegal purposes and that could be
1059 1 racketeering. 2 MR. DANDAR: Or not have any money at all. 3 THE COURT: But a racketeering -- normally when 4 you use the word "enterprise," you think 5 racketeering. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I wasn't real clear on what 7 that meant. But -- but in any case, what Mr. Rosen 8 was bringing it up for in that particular hearing 9 wasn't that. He was bringing it up in that 10 particular hearing -- 11 THE COURT: What was the hearing? What was 12 going on? 13 THE WITNESS: It was about trying to collect on 14 the -- what is that thing called when you -- Mmm, 15 when you violate your settlement? There is 16 something kind of judgment? 17 THE COURT: Liquidated damages? 18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Liquidated damages. The 19 hearing was about the liquidated damages that 20 Scientology wanted to go after Mr. Ward for based on 21 their allegation that he had -- Mmm -- violated the 22 settlement agreement. 23 And the purpose of this, as I understood it, 24 why Mr. Rosen was bringing this up, was to try to 25 convince the court to let them go after the money --
1060 1 go -- go to Mr. Minton for the money since Grady 2 Ward didn't have the money. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: So ... 5 THE COURT: But Mr. Minton has referred to this 6 as an enterprise chart with him in the middle and 7 the -- the spider in the middle and all of the arms 8 going out. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 THE COURT: So clearly he understood this was 11 in some fashion, in his mind, being used as a 12 suggestion of racketeering? 13 THE WITNESS: Right. 14 MR LIROT: Judge, could I ask for continued 15 permission to approach the witness with something in 16 my hand? 17 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 18 BY MR LIROT: 19 Q Ms. Brooks, I think you earlier testified that you 20 were the one that maintained the LMT website? 21 A Are we done with this now (indicating)? 22 Q Yes. 23 A Excuse me, what did you say? 24 Q You testified that you helped maintain the LMT 25 website. Is that correct?
1061 1 A No. 2 Q All right. So -- 3 A I don't know how to maintain a website. 4 Q Well, you had some declarations posted on the 5 website. Is that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q All right. I'm going to hand you one that is 8 dated September 9, 1993. And I think on the website it was 9 entitled "Stacy Brooks' Declarations." Does that look to 10 be -- under the heading Scientology versus Fishman dated 11 September 9, 1993. 12 Does that look to be -- there are many copies 13 there. I'll just give you the one. I'll hand it back to 14 you. 15 MR LIROT: Judge, we're going to want to 16 introduce this as Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 17. 17 THE COURT: All right. Do you have copies for 18 everybody? 19 MR LIROT: Yes, we do, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Well, here is one with holes in it. 21 Is there a notebook? 22 MR LIROT: Judge, we had them three-hole 23 punched and took them out. We'll put it in a 24 notebook if you want us to. 25 THE COURT: No, I was just being a little
1062 1 facetious. I'm sorry. 2 THE WITNESS: This isn't a Fishman affidavit. 3 BY MR LIROT: 4 Q Do you know what affidavit it is? 5 A Or declaration? 6 Q Do you know what affidavit? 7 A It likes like a declaration in the Sterling case 8 written for Dan Leipold. 9 Q But is it your declaration? 10 A Yes. 11 Q All right. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, the one we have is 13 not executed. Is there an executed copy somewhere? 14 MR LIROT: Judge, we took these off the 15 Internet, and they were represented on the Internet 16 to be the declarations of Stacy Brooks. 17 THE COURT: I think she can tell us if she 18 executed it. If she did, the fact we don't have a 19 signed copy is not of import. 20 MR. WEINBERG: It just came off the Internet? 21 So this is where they got it? 22 MR LIROT: Yes. 23 THE COURT: I mean, if this is a declaration is 24 what he's asking her. 25 MR LIROT: If it's her declaration.
1063 1 THE COURT: If she submitted this as a 2 declaration similar to an affidavit in another case, 3 and she indicated that she had. 4 MR LIROT: That is correct. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't believe it was executed 6 for the Sterling case. 7 BY MR LIROT: 8 Q Let me hand you one -- 9 THE COURT: You are moving to introduce it 10 then? 11 MR LIROT: I am moving to introduce it. 12 THE COURT: Any objection? 13 MR. FUGATE: No. 14 THE COURT: It will be received then. 15 BY MR LIROT: 16 Q Ms. Young, this is a November 23, 1993 declaration 17 that we got off the LMT website. 18 MR LIROT: And, Judge, I want to move this as 19 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 18. November 23rd, 1993. 20 THE COURT: Any objection? 21 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, is this for the 22 purpose of authenticating that this stuff came off 23 the website? 24 THE COURT: The purpose of this, I'm sure, is 25 to say is this true or is it a false declaration.
1064 1 MR. McGOWAN: Well, then that is not best 2 evidence. That is something off a website. I think 3 she can say this came off a website. But unless she 4 has the actual declaration next to it, I mean, she 5 would have to go through it word for word. If she 6 pulled it off the website and the website said that 7 is a declaration, and she said that is her 8 declaration, that is one thing. 9 THE COURT: Well, you know, the truth of the 10 matter is if we find out where it is, we can go to 11 all of the trouble, I suppose, of having to go out 12 there and ask the Court to send us one and certify 13 it and the whole person. 14 The best person who would know if this is her 15 declaration is the witness. If she can tell us it 16 is, that's good enough. If she can't, then it can't 17 come in as a declaration and they'll have to get it 18 from the Court file. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, what I can tell 20 you is I believe this is somewhat similar to a 21 declaration that I filed. But it's not -- it is 22 not -- I mean, there are many, many -- what it looks 23 like happened is that this was scanned and that it 24 wasn't ever corrected. You know how when you scan a 25 document, it gets goofed up?
1065 1 THE COURT: Right. You're talking now about 2 the same thing that you referred to in the 3 declaration that has already been introduced that 4 has kind of misspellings and some bad grammar and 5 some stuff that doesn't make any sense, as far as -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 THE COURT: -- spellings and things? 8 THE WITNESS: Spellings, and -- so I can say 9 that this is similar to a declaration that I filed, 10 but this is definitely not the declaration that I 11 filed. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, would that be also 13 for 17, as well? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. Well, the one right 15 before that? If it was 17, yes. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 17 THE COURT: Other than the misspellings and 18 this type of thing, are these the declarations? 19 THE WITNESS: Mmm, let me just finish looking 20 through it for a second. 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, let me just record an 23 objection if I may. I'm just getting these handed 24 to me and I haven't finished reading 17 and I 25 haven't gotten to 18. And the only -- I understood
1066 1 the Court wanted all of the declarations that she 2 has filed. I have no problem with that. 3 But as to whether or not -- 4 THE COURT: No, I didn't ask for all of the 5 declarations she filed. 6 MR. FUGATE: Oh, I thought you did. 7 THE COURT: I asked for the affidavits she 8 filed in this case. 9 MR. FUGATE: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize, 10 Judge, I misheard that. But the point I want to 11 make here -- 12 THE COURT: This case, meaning our case, I 13 understood from reading whatever I was asked to read 14 that she had filed three affidavits. And I wanted 15 them. And I have now received them. 16 MR. FUGATE: All right. 17 THE COURT: This is being introduced into this 18 case -- I mean, this hearing -- 19 MR. FUGATE: Well, the Court made a comment a 20 moment ago, I assume they are introducing them 21 because they are going to ask if these are true. I 22 haven't even had a chance to read them. I don't 23 know if they are accurate. I don't know if I'll be 24 cross-examining on them, if that is the purpose they 25 are being introduced for, but I'll have to have time
1067 1 to do that because I was looking at what you said 2 yesterday, which was the affidavits that pertained 3 to the case. So that is my objection to them being 4 admitted unless there is some -- 5 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. These 6 are declarations filed under oath. She said she 7 committed perjury in this case. I think this Court 8 needs to know whether she committed perjury or 9 whether these are true affidavits. She signed them 10 under oath. I think that is the purpose for which 11 he's introducing them. If there is some other 12 purpose, let me know. Is that what you're 13 introducing them for? 14 MR LIROT: Exactly correct, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Then we need to know whether it is 16 false or true. It is relevant for this proceeding. 17 Your objection is overruled. All we need to know 18 is, other than misspelled words, this is a 19 declaration or whether there is a need to go to the 20 court where it has been filed and get the 21 certificate from the clerk and bring those 22 declarations here, in which case we would have to 23 bring Ms. Brooks back. 24 MR LIROT: Understood. 25
1068 1 BY MR LIROT: 2 Q Ms. Brooks, I'm -- this one actually has a caption 3 dated January 3, 1994, and it looks to be church versus 4 Fishman. 5 MR LIROT: Judge, we would like to introduce in 6 as Plaintiff's Exhibit 19. 7 THE COURT: You can't introduce them unless she 8 authenticates them. In other words, if these were 9 declarations she filed in the court proceedings, 10 which we understand declarations, I didn't know 11 before this hearing a declaration is the same as our 12 affidavit which is an under-oath filing. 13 THE WITNESS: I think the difference is that a 14 declaration doesn't have to be notarized. 15 THE COURT: But it -- 16 THE WITNESS: But it's under oath. 17 THE COURT: It still needs to be under oath. 18 MR. DANDAR: The Florida Statutes provide for 19 declarations, as well. 20 THE COURT: Does it? I'm just used to 21 affidavits, I guess. 22 MR. DANDAR: To my surprise, yes. 23 BY MR LIROT: 24 Q Again, with your statements about misspellings and 25 perhaps some problems with scanning the documents, does this
1069 1 look to be the declaration that you filed in this case that 2 was identified on the LMT website? 3 A Just one minute. 4 MR. FUGATE: I impose the same objections. 5 She's obviously not reading them, and if that is the 6 purpose they are introducing them for, I think she 7 has to read and authenticate them. 8 THE COURT: I agree with that, and I think if 9 she would like to say she would like to have time to 10 look at these, I will give her that time. She can 11 take the lunch hour or whatever to look at them to 12 see if the only problem with them are the 13 misspellings or whatever. I think that is fair. 14 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I think that would be good. 15 But I don't want to slow this process down. So if 16 you would be willing to let me review them at 17 lunch -- 18 MR LIROT: That will be fine. 19 THE WITNESS: Then move on to something else. 20 But I don't want to now waste another hour and a 21 half of your time. 22 MR LIROT: Well, then, Judge, let us mark them 23 then and tender them and she can review them over 24 lurch hour. 25 MR. McGOWAN: Fine.
1070 1 THE COURT: Fine. Give them to the clerk so 2 they are all to be marked, and if they are to be 3 authenticated -- well, maybe we can just ask this. 4 Have you ever filed a false affidavit or declaration 5 that you know of? 6 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 7 MR LIROT: Then, Judge, I think certainly these 8 are relevant as either a prior consistent statement 9 or a prior inconsistent statement. 10 THE COURT: Counselor, I have already indicated 11 they are admissible. However, we're going to have 12 to let her have the opportunity to see if this is, 13 in fact, what she filed. These are -- I mean, these 14 are the kind of things I take home at night and read 15 because they're too lengthy. 16 MR LIROT: Understood, Judge. 17 THE COURT: I don't want this woman to say, 18 yes, this is it and it's true, then find out six 19 weeks down the road that here is a page that is 20 absolutely not a part of her affidavit, she never 21 submitted it. It's not fair to her, to me, to you 22 all, to the Church or anybody. 23 MR LIROT: We're not going to quibble with 24 that, Judge. 25 THE COURT: If that is the purpose, then I can
1071 1 presume we can let her read them at the lunch hour. 2 In the interim, if there is some specific thing you 3 want to ask about any one of them, you can ask. I 4 hope we're not going through these paragraph by 5 paragraph. 6 MR LIROT: No, Judge. I just want to 7 authenticate these. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 MR LIROT: All right? 10 THE COURT: So you may have the lunch, take it 11 with you. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you, your Honor. We 13 can go on to other things in the meantime? 14 THE COURT: I hope so. 15 MR LIROT: I marked this as Exhibit 20. 16 BY MR LIROT: 17 Q This is your January 8, 1994 -- what appears to be 18 your January 8, 1994 declaration. 19 A And the same thing holds true for this? 20 Q Yes. 21 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, could we get the 22 whole file? I imagine there are a number -- 23 THE COURT: Yes, if you have more, let's have 24 them all. She can look at them overnight if they 25 are too big.
1072 1 MR LIROT: A lot of declarations, Judge. 2 THE COURT: Let's do them all. Give her the 3 whole pile. 4 MR. DANDAR: You have to announce which ones. 5 THE COURT: I know. 6 MR LIROT: Why don't I approach the witness and 7 give them all and I'll try to distribute these 8 efficiently, Judge. 9 THE COURT: All right. 10 MR LIROT: We would like this marked as 21. 11 This is February 3rd, 1994. 12 THE COURT: Is this the fourth one? 13 MR LIROT: Judge, I'll make you -- I'll key 14 which ones they are. 15 MR. WEINBERG: This is the fifth one. 16 THE COURT: I lost one. 17 MR. WEINBERG: 9/9/93. 17, 9/18 -- 18 THE COURT: Wait. Wait. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 20 THE COURT: Wait, Counsel. 9/9/93 was the 21 first one. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is 17. 23 THE COURT: Next. 24 MR. WEINBERG: 9/18/93. 25 THE COURT: That is the one I know you gave it
1073 1 to me but I cannot find it. 2 MR. DANDAR: That was November 23rd. 3 November 23rd, 1993 is 18. 4 MR. WEINBERG: All right. So it is 9/23/93. 5 THE COURT: 11/23. 6 MR. WEINBERG: 9/23. 7 MR. DANDAR: 11/23. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, 11/23. 9 THE COURT: 11/23/93 is next. 10 MR. WEINBERG: 1/3/94. 11 THE COURT: Got that. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Then -- 13 THE COURT: 1/8/94. I have them all then. 14 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 15 THE COURT: This one will be the fifth one. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 17 BY MR LIROT: 18 Q This is February 3rd, 1994. This is February 21, 19 1994. It appears to be a declaration of Stacy Brooks Young. 20 THE COURT: Do you know what case that was used 21 in? 22 THE WITNESS: Mmm, let me just look at it for a 23 minute, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: Oh, well, it says -- let's see --
1074 1 this is in the Fishman case. 2 THE COURT: Fishman? 3 THE WITNESS: It says so in the second 4 paragraph. 5 THE COURT: Do I have that, Counselor? 6 MR LIROT: Judge, I'm actually breaking these 7 up. I'll write the numbers on them so we keep them 8 in order. 9 THE COURT: Good. 10 BY MR LIROT: 11 Q All right, this is the March 9, 1994 appears to be 12 declaration of you, Ms. Young. 13 THE WITNESS: This is also in the Fishman case, 14 your Honor. 15 MR LIROT: This is March 22nd, 1994. This 16 appears to be in the Fishman case, as well, there is 17 a caption on this March 22nd, 1994. 18 This is December 14, 1994. 19 Judge, we've already entered this one in. She 20 already authenticated the December 14, 1994 one. 21 THE WITNESS: When did I do that? 22 THE COURT: One of the first days. I have got 23 it right here. 24 THE WITNESS: But, your Honor, if it came off 25 the Internet, I wish I would still be allowed to
1075 1 have a chance to look it over. 2 THE COURT: Okay. I think you already did. I 3 mean, I think he went over this one in some detail 4 with you. 5 THE WITNESS: Really? 6 MR LIROT: I believe so. 7 THE COURT: This was the one you indicated was 8 true but there was a slant on some things in favor 9 of the -- 10 THE WITNESS: I don't remember it exactly. 11 Okay. 12 MR. WEINBERG: So that has already been marked 13 so we're not putting a new number on it? 14 MR LIROT: No, we are not. We are leaving that 15 one out for now. 16 THE WITNESS: But could I have a copy just to 17 look at it? 18 MR LIROT: If you would like a copy, I'll give 19 you a copy. 20 MR. FUGATE: Just for my records, what number 21 did it come in as then? 22 MR. McGOWAN: 24. 23 THE COURT: No, it came in earlier, like an 24 earlier number. 25 MR. FUGATE: Could I just approach the clerk?
1076 1 THE COURT: Sure. 2 Give her a copy of it. 3 MR LIROT: Sure. 4 THE COURT: I don't need a copy of it. And you 5 all -- 6 THE WITNESS: You gave me two. 7 MR LIROT: Did I? I'm sorry. Sorry about 8 that. 9 THE COURT: What number was it? 10 MR. FUGATE: 14. 11 THE CLERK: 14, Judge. 12 THE WITNESS: Oh, this is the -- 13 THE COURT: I totally lost any numbering system 14 I ever have. I have no idea what is any number. 15 BY MR LIROT: 16 Q This one appears to be Kisser versus Chicago 17 Crusader dated December 1, 1994. 18 (A discussion was held off the record.) 19 BY MR LIROT: 20 Q All right. This one just has a date of 21 September 1994 and heading declaration of Stacy Brooks. 22 MR. McGOWAN: This one is 26? 25? 23 MR. DANDAR: 25. 24 MR. WEINBERG: I thought 11/1/94 was 25. 25 THE COURT: Where are these things posted?
1077 1 MR LIROT: They are on the LMT website under 2 "Stacy Brooks Declarations." 3 THE COURT: Is that still up and running? 4 MR LIROT: I think it's down now, Judge. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry to interrupt. I 7 thought I heard 11/1/94, the Kisser thing, was 25. 8 Right? 9 MR. DANDAR: Right. 10 MR. WEINBERG: What you just showed her was 26? 11 September of '94? 12 MR. DANDAR: That is 26. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Is there a more specific date? 14 MR LIROT: No, heading just says 15 September 1994. I don't have a specific date on 16 that. 17 MR. WEINBERG: So that is 26? 18 MR LIROT: Correct. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 20 BY MR LIROT: 21 Q This is another document declaration of Stacy 22 Brooks Young March 13, 1997. 23 This is another one, a document that -- 24 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, could Counsel please 25 give the number so that we can keep track of this?
1078 1 Because he just keeps saying, this, this and this 2 and it will not make a record. 3 MR LIROT: That was 27. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 MR LIROT: All right? 6 BY MR LIROT: 7 Q This will be Number 28, declaration of Stacy 8 Brooks June 12, 1999. 9 THE COURT: Are we finding out what -- what 10 cases these had to do with? 11 THE WITNESS: I'm -- I'm not able to identify 12 some of them, your Honor, as far as what case they 13 were filed in. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR LIROT: Judge, I believe on the website it 16 identifies what case they are in, so once she looked 17 at them, if she doesn't have the information she 18 needs, we might be able to refresh her memory with 19 the designations on the website because it indicates 20 what case they were involving. 21 THE COURT: I thought the website wasn't up and 22 running? 23 MR. DANDAR: It is. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. DANDAR: It switched Internet service
1079 1 providers, apparently. 2 BY MR LIROT: 3 Q This last one just says, "Declaration of Stacy 4 Brooks on DM." I hand you that. It doesn't appear to have 5 a date in the heading. 6 A Well -- 7 THE COURT: DM -- versus DM? 8 BY MR LIROT: 9 Q It says, "Declaration of Stacy Brooks on DM." 10 A There is no signature line or anything on this. 11 THE COURT: Just for now, just take them -- 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 THE COURT: She'll not be able to review all 14 those at lunch. 15 MR LIROT: I understand, Judge. 16 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm a little lost here. If 17 they're going to be offered as true, I guess that 18 means we're going to have to go through them 19 ourselves and then decide if we are going to 20 cross-examine if we believe anything is false in 21 them? 22 I mean, I would object to them as being 23 irrelevant and nothing collateral to the matter 24 because they are not an issue in this case, as I 25 understand it.
1080 1 THE COURT: Anything that this lady has lied 2 about in any other cases at issue, if she filed 3 something else under oath that is a lie, I need to 4 know about it. Because that has -- bears on her 5 credibility. So either it's a lie or it's the 6 truth. If it's the truth, then it bears on their 7 argument that is going to be whatever it is they're 8 going -- 9 MR. FUGATE: I'm just asking because I have to 10 decide what we have to do -- 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 MR. FUGATE: -- because I haven't read them, I 13 have to go through them at this point. 14 THE COURT: I obviously haven't, either. 15 MR. FUGATE: All right. Thank you, Judge. 16 MR LIROT: Judge, I'll hand these up to the 17 Court. 18 THE COURT: I mean, there may be some that have 19 no relevance at all. I don't know. I'll let you -- 20 you can't -- we don't have the time right now -- 21 MR. FUGATE: I can't respond yet. 22 THE COURT: But for now, I'm going to assume 23 that they're being introduced to ask her whether 24 they are true or whether she lied under oath. 25 MR. FUGATE: I understand your point. I'm
1081 1 trying to get in my mind what I'll be doing -- 2 THE COURT: Maybe we'll get a clue -- 3 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 4 THE COURT: But let's -- what is it -- if they 5 are true, what are you going to -- 6 MR LIROT: I want to know, if these are 7 authenticated by her, I want to know what is true 8 and what is false in these affidavits, these 9 declarations. 10 THE COURT: Oh, brother, we may have trouble 11 with that. 12 MR. McGOWAN: I think the Court asked her are 13 all of the declarations you filed in this case true. 14 She said yes. So I think the point has been made. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Well, seems like she needs to 16 read them. 17 THE COURT: Yes, I guess so. Look at this. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Right. I mean, before she's 19 answering questions as to whether they are at this 20 point true or false, I think she needs to go through 21 them. 22 THE COURT: Well, I mean, I think she can tell 23 us whether she ever filed a false affidavit. Surely 24 anybody that filed a false affidavit would be able 25 to readily tell us about it. I mean, when you
1082 1 file -- one should not file false, affidavits and if 2 one does, you would think you would remember it. 3 MR LIROT: All right. 4 THE COURT: So if she said yes, these are her 5 affidavits and yes, they pertain to these cases, 6 then I'm going to have to know what the relevance is 7 and then we'll let you tell us what is relevant and 8 then they'll be introduced. If, in fact, they're 9 true and there is no relevance to them, then I'm 10 going to have them taken out. 11 MR LIROT: Fair enough, Judge. 12 THE COURT: If they are false, they are 13 relevant. No question about it. If she testifies 14 any one of these are false, they are in. That is 15 relevant. 16 MR LIROT: Very good. 17 THE COURT: If she testifies they are true, 18 then you, Counselor, are going to have to tell me 19 why a true affidavit has relevance to this hearing. 20 And I'll let you do that. I don't know what her 21 answer is going to be because she -- although she 22 said they're all true, in fairness, I think -- I 23 think you need to take a look at them -- 24 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, thank you. 25 THE COURT: -- and read them and then we'll go
1083 1 from there. 2 MR LIROT: Very good, Judge. 3 MR. McGOWAN: So for now 17 through I think 28 4 are marked for identification only? Is that right? 5 THE COURT: Yes. This Number 14 has been 6 introduced and it is relevant to matters in this 7 hearing. 8 MR. McGOWAN: And that is also 24 which didn't 9 come in so we skip a number. 10 THE WITNESS: Which one is that, your Honor? 11 THE COURT: That is this one, ma'am, where it 12 talks about that Mr. Rinder -- 13 THE WITNESS: Oh, that is the one -- 14 THE COURT: -- asked you all -- you and your 15 husband to come in and perjure yourself by stating 16 under oath some lawyer lied. 17 THE WITNESS: That is the one that was 18 submitted earlier? 19 THE COURT: Yes. Well, you asked for a copy of 20 it? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: You are welcome to have it, but it 23 has already been admitted. That is in for 24 relevance, but I have already determined it is 25 relevant and nobody objected to it so we are not
1084 1 going to spend a lot of time on it. 2 THE WITNESS: But it is true I never really 3 read the whole thing. 4 THE COURT: What he asked you about it and 5 asked you if it was true, you already testified 6 about. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 THE COURT: If you want to change that 9 testimony, well, then you can do that. But as far 10 as I'm concerned, you want to avoid looking at one 11 of these, you may avoid looking at that one because 12 it is in already. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: But always you want to correct 15 something that you said is false. 16 THE WITNESS: Okay. 17 BY MR LIROT: 18 Q Ms. Brooks, I'm going to go ahead and hold these 19 other declarations and documents marked for identification 20 and abate any questions on those for the time being. 21 Do you have a copy of your affidavit of April 29, 22 the one that was marked as Exhibit 72, I believe, to the 23 omnibus motion? 24 A Yes. 25 Q I would like to go through that with you at this
1085 1 point, if I may. 2 THE COURT: Before you do that, how about these 3 extra copies -- any reason why I need this? I don't 4 need this. I'm going to throw these in the 5 wastebasket, in other words, if nobody claims them. 6 MR. WEINBERG: That is the Hague Convention? 7 THE COURT: The Hague Convention? 8 MR. MOXON: That is fine, your Honor. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Shred them. 10 THE COURT: They are going to be shredded right 11 now. They're going in the wastebasket. Here we go. 12 Continue, Counsel. 13 Oh, I'm sorry, I found those as I was looking 14 for the affidavit. Let me find that, before you 15 begin. 16 Do you have your affidavit? 17 THE WITNESS: I have a copy. 18 MR. WEINBERG: That is the second affidavit? 19 MR LIROT: This is the second affidavit. 20 THE COURT: That is the long affidavit, right? 21 MR LIROT: The long one, Judge, we'll refer to 22 it as. I believe the affidavit was signed on 23 April 29, 2002. 24 THE COURT: Are you going to be talking about 25 the small affidavit?
1086 1 MR LIROT: No, Judge, I think we've already 2 gone through that one. 3 THE COURT: You have? Okay. 4 MR. WEINBERG: In the thick notebook, it is 5 Exhibit 72, if you can't find a copy of it. 6 THE COURT: I found it. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 8 THE COURT: Okay, I have got it, the witness 9 has it, we all have it. This is the affidavit that 10 she dated -- or I shouldn't say she -- that the 11 notary dated 4/29/02. A 17-page affidavit. Is that 12 it? 13 MR LIROT: That is it, Judge. 14 THE COURT: All right. And this is the last 15 thing we're going to cover with this witness. 16 Right? 17 MR LIROT: After those declarations are cleared 18 up, that is it. 19 THE WITNESS: My answers are going to be real 20 short, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MR LIROT: See, we are all taking the advice 23 given, Judge. 24 BY MR LIROT: 25 Q Ms. Brooks, this affidavit, I think you already
1087 1 testified, was the product of, I guess, your initial draft 2 and was produced in meetings with, I guess, Ms. Yingling and 3 some other people, is that -- 4 A Incorrect. 5 Q -- correct? 6 A That is incorrect. 7 Q All right. You did meet with Ms. Yingling in 8 producing this? Or did she just type it for you? 9 MR. McGOWAN: Asked and answered. 10 MR. FUGATE: Objection. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Judge -- 12 THE COURT: Sustained. She already did this, 13 Counsel. If you have more questions about this 14 preparation, but you have covered this. And that 15 was not what I recall her testimony being. 16 BY MR LIROT: 17 Q Was it you that decided to put in all this 18 information about background, I guess there is a heading 19 here, "Background"? 20 MR. McGOWAN: Asked and answered. 21 THE COURT: I'll allow it. If he's going 22 through the affidavit, I don't remember about the 23 headings. It has been so long. That was one of the 24 first days. 25 A Well, just to try to shortcut this a little bit,
1088 1 it was my decision to put in all of the information that is 2 in it, including any paragraph that you wanted to ask me 3 about specifically, all of it was my decision. 4 THE COURT: I think what he's asking you about 5 specifically, I think what he was talking about, you 6 see up here where it says "Background" and then 7 there is one later that breaks out -- 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, the headers? 9 THE COURT: The headers. 10 THE WITNESS: I do headers. It's my habit. 11 Those are my headers. 12 BY MR LIROT: 13 Q Okay. I think that you talk about some of the 14 background that you had I guess in Paragraph 2, you talk 15 about you being contacted by Dan Leipold and Graham Berry? 16 A I believe it speaks for itself. 17 Q Okay. How did they find you, Mr. Leipold and 18 Mr. Berry? 19 A Mmm, I had occasion to meet a woman who was 20 involved in an anti-cult organization and Mr. Leipold was 21 her attorney. 22 Q Who was the woman? 23 A Her name is Priscilla Coates. 24 Q And did she have any involvement with Scientology? 25 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, we covered all this.
1089 1 THE COURT: We did? 2 MR. McGOWAN: Yes, your Honor, the first day. 3 Her whole dealings, how she got into the -- how she 4 got into the business with Leipold and the 5 witness -- 6 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I don't remember it, but 7 if you say we did, and if -- did we cover this, 8 Counselor? 9 MR LIROT: I don't remember covering anything 10 about Ms. Coates, Judge. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. McGOWAN: All right. 13 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I wish I could help you 14 out here. If he said it is covered -- I don't 15 remember. 16 BY MR LIROT: 17 Q I think my question was did Ms. Coates have any 18 discontent with Scientology? 19 A She was involved in a lawsuit -- her organization 20 was involved in a lawsuit having to do with Scientology. 21 Q Okay. What organization was that? 22 A The Cult Awareness Network. 23 Q And how did you come to meet Ms. Coates? 24 A Mmm, a former Scientologist met with me and my 25 husband and introduced us to her.
1090 1 Q You were out of Scientology at that point, I take 2 it? 3 A Yes. He was involved in anti-Scientology 4 litigation. 5 Q I guess your next paragraph talks about you were 6 paid by -- 7 THE COURT: I don't want you to read now, 8 Counselor, what it says. It says what it says and 9 it's in the record. Ask her questions about it, if 10 you want to. 11 MR LIROT: I will, Judge. 12 BY MR LIROT: 13 Q There is a statement in here that says attorneys 14 wanted to know what they could do to put pressure on 15 Scientology to get a case dropped or get a large -- 16 THE COURT: Counselor -- 17 MR LIROT: I'm just laying foundation, Judge. 18 THE COURT: There is no foundation to be laid. 19 Ask her a question about it. She can read. I can 20 read. Do you want to say, "Read Paragraph 2? I 21 have got a question"? 22 BY MR LIROT: 23 Q All right, read Paragraph 3. I have a question. 24 THE COURT: I thought we were on Paragraph 2. 25 MR LIROT: I moved on, Judge.
1091 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR LIROT: Blinding pace here. 3 THE COURT: What paragraph are we on? 3? 4 MR LIROT: We're on 3. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 BY MR LIROT: 8 Q All right. Now, it says there you had -- the 9 overall strategy that you developed was to target David 10 Miscavige because he was the head of Scientology. Okay? 11 How did you develop that strategy? Was that completely made 12 up by you? 13 A I believe we covered this earlier, but I will 14 cover it again. 15 There was a case that I was familiar with from 16 when I was in Scientology in which it was a successful 17 strategy by a party to target L. Ron Hubbard. 18 Q Who was the head of Scientology then, right? 19 A Yes. So at this time when I was being paid to do 20 this work, David Miscavige was head of Scientology. 21 Q Okay. And I think you testified something to the 22 effect that Mr. Hubbard didn't like to have his deposition 23 taken. Do you remember saying something to that effect? 24 A No. 25 Q So I guess my question to you is, it says you have
1092 1 known -- you read paragraph -- "I have no knowledge or 2 evidence of any involvement of Mr. Miscavige in the cases." 3 "In the cases." You knew him to be the head of Scientology. 4 Isn't that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. Paragraph 4, I'll cut right to the chase, 7 right in the middle it said you wrote affidavits and 8 declarations based on these theories. You'll have an 9 opportunity to read the declarations. I guess I'll ask if 10 those relate to your statement here in Paragraph 4. 11 A It -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: You want her to read it? Is 13 that what you're asking? 14 MR LIROT: No, I'll get back to that. I'm 15 going to give her a chance to read those 16 declarations first. 17 BY MR LIROT: 18 Q Now, you make a statement, "Use supposition and 19 careful wording to make allegations that would fit the 20 particular assertion." 21 Is that what you did in this affidavit? 22 MR. McGOWAN: In which affidavit? 23 A In which affidavit? 24 BY MR LIROT: 25 Q In the April 29 affidavit?
1093 1 A Oh, no. 2 Q So you didn't use any supposition or careful 3 wording in this one? That is just basically the affidavit 4 that you want this Court to look at? 5 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, she answered it and 6 he asked it again. 7 THE COURT: No, I think that is fair. I think 8 what he's saying is she used this approach in all 9 these other affidavits, is she also using that same 10 approach in this affidavit. 11 This affidavit, ma'am, meaning the one you just 12 filed in this case that we're really here, what 13 brought us here -- 14 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I think when you read 15 this fairly large stack, you'll see that there is 16 quite a bit of supposition and careful wording in 17 them. It was my job. I was being paid to do it. 18 Now I have written an affidavit to set the 19 record straight. It's -- it was, to the best of my 20 ability, an attempt to communicate without trying to 21 put any kind of slant on it one way or the other. 22 THE COURT: I don't have to read the between 23 the lines here? 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 THE COURT: And it is straightforward, as far
1094 1 as you are concerned? 2 THE WITNESS: To the best of my ability, your 3 Honor. 4 MR. MOXON: For the record the stack she's 5 talking about are the -- 6 THE COURT: We're talking about this affidavit. 7 MR. MOXON: But she just -- 8 THE WITNESS: But the stack is the stack of 9 declarations that I'm assigned to read tonight. 10 MR. MOXON: Okay. 11 THE COURT: And that -- those affidavits are 12 the ones that she's referring to in here -- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 THE COURT: -- on theories and use supposition 15 and careful wording to make allegations that would 16 fit the assertions that would create an impression 17 without actually lying. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. And I think when you read 19 these, you'll see what -- 20 THE COURT: Oh, I shall look forward to taking 21 this home tonight and reading. I'm being facetious 22 again. 23 THE WITNESS: I know. 24 THE COURT: All right. I don't want that 25 misconstrued on the record.
1095 1 BY MR LIROT: 2 Q Now, you talk about supposition and careful 3 wording. 4 MR LIROT: Judge, if I could approach the 5 witness. 6 THE COURT: You may. 7 BY MR LIROT: 8 Q I would -- 9 MR LIROT: I would like this marked for 10 identification as Number 28. 11 MR. DANDAR: We already have 29. 12 MR. WEINBERG: We already have 29. 13 MR LIROT: 29. 14 MR. WEINBERG: We have 29. 15 MR LIROT: 30. All right. 16 THE COURT: Do you know, sometimes it is really 17 good if you are going to have a hearing if you mark 18 your exhibits in advance, put little tags on them. 19 BY MR LIROT: 20 Q Do you recognize this as an E-Mail sent from you? 21 MR. WEINBERG: What is it? 22 A I need to look it over for a minute, please. 23 THE COURT: What does PGP mean? I have seen 24 this before. 25 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, its an encryption
1096 1 program. 2 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I don't even know what 3 that is. 4 THE WITNESS: Well -- 5 THE COURT: Go ahead. 6 THE WITNESS: -- it's a computer program that 7 you can use to -- when you write an E-Mail message, 8 if you don't want it to be able to be intercepted 9 and read by someone else, you can use this program 10 called -- it stands for pretty good privacy, PGP. 11 And what it does is it turns your message into 12 gobbledygook, which the person at the other end of 13 it then needs to also have PGP to translate it -- 14 THE COURT: Unscramble it. 15 THE WITNESS: Unscramble it. 16 THE COURT: Apparently it doesn't work. 17 THE WITNESS: Well, there is also a function of 18 PGP that allows you to sign a message -- if you see 19 in the beginning it says PGP sign message, then at 20 the end -- well, they have taken off the PGP 21 encryption at the end. But this is a way for 22 someone to be able to tell that it was really signed 23 by the person that it says it is from. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: Or -- or I mean that it was
1097 1 really written by that person. 2 BY MR LIROT: 3 Q Ms. Brooks, let me draw -- 4 A Could I just look it over for a minute, please? 5 Q You certainly can. I'm sorry if I'm rushing you. 6 Take your time. 7 MR. McGOWAN: Is this an E-Mail, or a posting? 8 THE WITNESS: It's a posting. At the top of 9 the head of the page it says -- 10 THE COURT: Take your time reading it because 11 I'm reading it, too. 12 THE WITNESS: Why is this paragraph red? 13 BY MR LIROT: 14 Q Pardon me? 15 A There is a paragraph that is the color red. 16 THE COURT: I don't know what you are talking 17 about. Is there a red paragraph? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, see, look, it is red. 19 THE COURT: I haven't gotten -- I'm only on 20 Page 2. I don't even understand it, but go on 21 ahead. Have you had a chance to read it, ma'am? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. 23 THE COURT: Go on ahead. I'll catch up with 24 you all. 25
1098 1 BY MR LIROT: 2 Q I just want to draw your attention to the 3 paragraph, I believe it is fifth paragraph starts with 4 "Yesterday." 5 MR. WEINBERG: On which page is that? 6 MR LIROT: I'm sorry? 7 MR. WEINBERG: Page 1? 8 MR LIROT: It is on my Page 2. It must be on 9 your Page 2. 10 MR. FUGATE: We only have one between 11 Mr. McGowan and myself. 12 MR LIROT: It begins, "Yesterday the 13 Scientologists sent a letter." 14 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Yeah. 15 BY MR LIROT: 16 Q And did you make this posting? Is this something 17 you put on the Internet? 18 A As I recall, I did. 19 Q All right. And I think the second sentence of 20 that fifth paragraph says, "Although it was signed by Frank 21 Ofman, it was obviously written by one of Scientology's 22 attorneys." 23 Do you know Scientology's attorneys to prepare 24 documents for other people to sign in this fashion? 25 A No.
1099 1 Q Why would you say something like that in your 2 posting? 3 A Well, as I think I testified about quite often, 4 I -- at the time this was written, it says it was 5 December 17, 1998, it was my job to create the worst 6 impression possible of Scientology at every possible 7 opportunity. And that is what I was doing in this post. 8 Q Who were you working for on December 17, 1998? 9 A Mr. Minton. 10 Q And I guess the last sentence in that paragraph 11 says: "Apparently, a classic example of Scientology's slick 12 seductive manipulation of the truth." 13 Did you mean that when you wrote it? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And did you know that to be true when you wrote 16 it? 17 A Mmm, well, this is a posting on the Internet, not 18 an affidavit. 19 Q Did you know that to be true when you wrote it? 20 A You know -- 21 MR. FUGATE: Objection to the interruption, 22 your Honor. 23 A I'm not required to sign -- you know, to swear 24 under oath for a posting on the Internet. The purpose -- 25 MR LIROT: Judge, I move to strike as
1100 1 nonresponsive. It's just a yes or no question. 2 THE COURT: That is true. 3 BY MR LIROT: 4 Q "It's a classic example of Scientology's slick 5 seductive manipulation of the truth." 6 Did you know that to be true when you posted it in 7 1998? 8 MR. FUGATE: Objection as an opinion. 9 THE WITNESS: Excuse me? 10 THE COURT: I think he's only asking her 11 whether she believed this to be true when she wrote 12 it, I guess. 13 A No. 14 BY MR LIROT: 15 Q Okay. Go down -- I would like to draw your 16 attention down to the paragraph that begins with: "I was in 17 the Guardian's Office." Skip the one that said: "We 18 picketed for an hour." 19 Go down to: "I was in the Guardian's Office." 20 Would you read that paragraph, please. 21 A This is the red one. Do you know why it is red? 22 Q We must have highlighted it for some reason. 23 THE COURT: I don't even know how to do that. 24 You can highlight something and it comes out red? 25 MR LIROT: Apparently so, Judge. I don't know
1101 1 how to do that, either, but -- 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 BY MR LIROT: 4 Q Your first statement there, "I was in the 5 Guardian's Office in the Office of Special Affairs for 6 eleven years. And all that time I never saw -- I was in the 7 Guardian's Office and the Office of Special Affairs for 8 eleven years and in all that time I never saw anyone 9 targeted for elimination as relentlessly as Bob is being 10 targeted by Scientology." 11 Well, what does "targeted for elimination" 12 mean? 13 A Well, in this case Mr. Minton was already, by '98, 14 involved in funding quite a bit of various litigation in 15 which Scientology was involved. And it was my impression 16 that they were doing everything they possibly could to 17 dissuade him from continuing to fund their adversaries. 18 Q Well -- 19 A And -- and to dissuade him from being an adversary 20 himself. 21 Q Well, dissuading somebody from funding does not 22 seem to be targeted for elimination. Those are very strong 23 words. 24 MR. McGOWAN: He's arguing with the witness. 25 THE COURT: Pardon me?
1102 1 MR. McGOWAN: He's arguing with the witness. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. 3 MR LIROT: Judge, I would like this introduced 4 into evidence as Number 30. 5 THE WITNESS: So we're done with this one? 6 MR LIROT: We're done with this one. 7 THE COURT: Any objection? 8 MR. FUGATE: I just object to relevance based 9 on what she just testified to. 10 THE COURT: I think the relevance is that I 11 suspect, as I indicated earlier, part of their 12 argument is going to be part of the motive for what 13 they are going to say is fabrication is the extreme 14 harassment that was going on of Mr. Minton. 15 I'm not saying that is true, but if you read 16 her declaration, of the 52 pages -- which, by the 17 way, I read every word -- which she said that was 18 accurate, slanted perhaps, but accurate, they are 19 going to suggest one of the motives to have them 20 come in and lie, which is what they're going to 21 suggest, is to stop the harassment. This is 22 relevant to that harassment. 23 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, did you say you read 24 a 52-page declaration? 25 THE COURT: No, I'm sorry, I read your 52 pages
1103 1 of the time line on harassment of Mr. Minton. 2 THE WITNESS: Oh. Okay. 3 THE COURT: I'm not sure why. I just read it. 4 And I kept reading it and I kept thinking, "Maybe I 5 can stop." But I would just pick it up and read it 6 some more. So I finally realized I was ten pages 7 from the end and I thought, "I'm going to finish 8 this." 9 THE WITNESS: Well, I take that as a compliment 10 on my writing, so -- 11 THE COURT: Yes. 12 BY MR LIROT: 13 Q I'm going to get into the McPherson wrongful death 14 case section, I think that begins with Paragraph Number 7. 15 A Which document are we on now? 16 Q Our affidavit of April 29. 17 A Okay. 18 THE COURT: Actually, it was in that 19 affidavit -- I'm sorry, not that affidavit. It was 20 in that time line of Scientology's harassment of 21 Robert Minton where I saw quite a few indications of 22 the Nigerian discussion. 23 THE WITNESS: Oh, that is true. 24 THE COURT: When I said I read that a few 25 places, it may have been a few places in there,
1104 1 although I do believe I read it in one of his 2 depositions. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, it was definitely in the 4 time line. 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 BY MR LIROT: 7 Q Now, please read Paragraph 7 of your April 29 8 affidavit. 9 THE COURT: So, Mr. Fugate, that is the 10 relevance and therefore I'm going to allow him to 11 get it in. 12 MR. FUGATE: I heard you. 13 THE COURT: I don't know what the relevance is. 14 I'm assuming -- I mean, we are all lawyers, 15 everybody seems to know where we are going. We just 16 seem to be slow in getting there. 17 MR. FUGATE: Thank you, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: What paragraph, Counsel? 19 MR LIROT: Paragraph 7, Judge, under the 20 heading "The McPherson Wrongful Death Case." 21 BY MR LIROT: 22 Q Now -- 23 A Excuse me? 24 Q I'm sorry. 25 A Okay.
1105 1 Q Isn't it true that Mr. Dandar was more 2 communicating with Vaughn Young at this time than you? 3 A No. 4 Q Weren't you reluctant to even become involved in 5 this case, in the Lisa McPherson case? 6 A Mmm, at that time I was moving away from any work 7 in litigation. But I was -- I did speak to Mr. Dandar and I 8 did work on this case -- 9 Q All right. 10 A -- because he specifically wanted my help because 11 of my specific qualifications technically. 12 Q All right. Well, wasn't it Mr. Young that 13 participated with Mr. Dandar in the drafting of the first 14 amended complaint, and not you? 15 A It was both of us. 16 Q Well, didn't Mr. Young have some information about 17 how the hierarchy of, I guess, people in power in 18 Scientology was laid out. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Wasn't it Mr. Young that basically taught 21 Mr. Dandar how that hierarchy worked, who was in charge, who 22 was second in command and those types of things? 23 A It was both of us. 24 THE COURT: Since we're on that paragraph, I 25 had a question about that.
1106 1 This apparently was sent to -- this, according 2 to your affidavit, occurred in May of 1997. This 3 letter that was written. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: That was before Mr. Dandar ever met 6 Mr. Minton. Isn't it? 7 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I'm not sure if it was 8 before he had met him. But it was before he had 9 begun funding the case. 10 THE COURT: I believe that the testimony is and 11 has been that it was October of 1997. 12 THE WITNESS: That is possible, your Honor. 13 And I had never met Mr. Minton at this point, 14 either. 15 THE COURT: So, in fact, in May of 1997, before 16 Mr. Minton was ever involved, Mr. Dandar wrote a 17 letter saying: "I'm enclosing a copy of the 18 proposed amended complaint. I intend to sue 19 Mr. Miscavige." 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 MR. FUGATE: I would just correct the Court's 22 impression. I think in Mr. Minton's affidavit he 23 talks about meeting Mr. Dandar and Mr. Wollersheim, 24 I think it was, in the -- 25 THE WITNESS: In 1996.
1107 1 THE COURT: Okay. We'll see. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Specifically, he said a meeting 3 in March of 1997 in Clearwater. 4 THE WITNESS: Oh, March. 5 MR. WEINBERG: In a hotel room. 6 THE COURT: Where Mr. Minton didn't say a word. 7 THE WITNESS: Right. 8 THE COURT: When was the first check written? 9 MR. WEINBERG: October. 10 THE COURT: Of what? 11 MR. WEINBERG: 1997. 12 THE COURT: And the allegation of Scientology 13 has been, at least if I read everything you have 14 given me correctly, is right after that check was 15 written, bingo, we have a first amended complaint. 16 Right? 17 MR. FUGATE: Right. 18 MR. WEINBERG: In December of 1997, right. 19 THE COURT: And by golly, that is when the 20 Church was starting to be attacked because 21 Mr. Minton wanted it attacked. Right? Am I -- did 22 I not read what you wanted me to read correctly? 23 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 24 MR. FUGATE: You read it correctly. 25 THE COURT: And here, in May of '97, before
1108 1 October of '97, a letter is being written saying, 2 "I'm enclosing a copy of the proposed amended 3 complaint." Then it says, "I intend to sue David 4 Miscavige." 5 I mean, that is what I wrote on my margin. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Right, and Mr. Minton explains 7 in his affidavit basically a discussion, I think, at 8 the meeting in March that he was silent at but that 9 he was participating in, a discussion of strategy 10 including Mr. Miscavige. That is what he said, I 11 think, in his affidavit, but I don't have it in 12 front of me. 13 THE COURT: We'll hear your argument. That is 14 a benefit for you you don't normally get. That is 15 what I wrote down and I starred it. I thought it 16 was fairly important. 17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, Mr. Minton had argued 18 in front of Mr. Wollersheim. And I believe it was 19 Mr. Wollersheim that brought Mr. Dandar in contact 20 with Mr. Minton. 21 THE COURT: Don't try to show bias here, ma'am. 22 I will give the lawyers the benefit of my thinking 23 here. 24 THE WITNESS: Okay, sorry. 25 THE COURT: And you don't need to help one side
1109 1 or the other. 2 Now, also another little note here, since we're 3 on that paragraph. 4 You were the expert consultant, whatever it is, 5 it says, "Mr. Dandar hired me as a consultant expert 6 witness." Right? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: He's asking you -- he's paying -- 9 was he paying you at that time? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 THE COURT: That is what you do with a 12 consultant and expert, you ask. "I don't know much 13 about this. I need some help here." Right? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 THE COURT: He asked you, as a consultant, as 16 an expert, to help him out. Right? 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 THE COURT: And what did you tell him? 19 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I told him -- well, 20 generally, I told him things that I thought would 21 help him. 22 THE COURT: Well, here is the question, this is 23 to you, I guess, would Mr. Miscavige have personal 24 knowledge of those in isolation and their condition, 25 and your answer was?
1110 1 THE WITNESS: That he might. 2 THE COURT: And you are the expert. Right? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 THE COURT: And based on that, he takes the 5 advice of his expert and files a lawsuit. Maybe. 6 All right. Move on. 7 MR LIROT: All right. 8 BY MR LIROT: 9 Q The last sentence says you couldn't have -- "I 10 could not possibly have any personal knowledge of what had 11 happened to Lisa McPherson." 12 Nobody asked you about any personal knowledge, did 13 they? 14 A Nobody -- 15 Q About what happened to Lisa McPherson. You 16 weren't there. Nobody could ever have asked you about that. 17 Right? 18 A Mmm, I don't recall if he asked me about that. 19 But it was clear that I didn't. 20 THE COURT: I mean, fair is fair. And 21 Mr. Dandar may be guilty of lying or suborning 22 perjury or guilty of committing perjury himself, but 23 it does seem to me when a lawyer hires and pays 24 for -- a lawyer for expert advice and they ask them 25 a question, that they are allowed to rely on their
1111 1 advice. It seems to me. 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, it all depends what they 3 are relying on and what the advice is, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: I understand that. 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: The lawyer is not allowed to 6 make allegations of intentional murder based upon 7 somebody saying, "Well, it might have happened." 8 And that was addressed in the memorandum we filed 9 today. No matter what the expert says. The expert 10 can't speculate and say, "Well, yeah, that might 11 have happened and yes, you could make an allegation 12 of that because maybe it might have happened." You 13 have to have evidence, your Honor. 14 THE COURT: We'll hear your argument at the 15 proper time. I'm just suggesting to you when you 16 hire an expert, you have got to be able to rely on 17 your expert to some extent. Maybe there are certain 18 things you can't do. But that is where you go get 19 this information. There is no allegation here that 20 Mr. Dandar ever was, has been or ever will be a 21 Scientologist. She has. 22 MR LIROT: Very good. 23 THE COURT: And her husband has. And Jesse 24 Prince had. 25
1112 1 BY MR LIROT: 2 Q Ms. Brooks, let me draw your attention to 3 Paragraph Number 8 and ask if you can read that paragraph. 4 A Okay. 5 Q All right? This so-called strategy that you had 6 developed, you had not developed any strategy; you knew all 7 of what you put in those declarations to be true. Isn't it? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor, all of 9 those statements in the declarations to be true, he 10 gave her 15 declarations -- affidavits. 11 THE COURT: Are you referring to those you gave 12 her to look at? 13 MR LIROT: Everything that she has put into the 14 record in any judicial proceeding that talks about 15 her so-called, quote, strategy, about adding or 16 developing a way to target Mr. Miscavige. 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry, let me read this 18 paragraph again. You are talking about Paragraph 8? 19 MR LIROT: Paragraph 8, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Okay, now I have read it. Now what 21 is your question? 22 BY MR LIROT: 23 Q Well, clearly Vaughn Young is not included in this 24 paragraph. Is he? You take full credit for the development 25 of this strategy, as you call it?
1113 1 A Yes. 2 Q And Vaughn Young didn't have any input with 3 Mr. Dandar prior to the first amendment complaint being 4 filed. Is that your position? 5 A No. 6 Q Well -- 7 A It's not. 8 Q What input did Mr. Young have that might have 9 helped Mr. Dandar in crafting the first amended complaint? 10 A Mr. Young and I were married and we were partners 11 in this consulting business that we had. And he and I had 12 worked together on the earlier Fishman case in which this 13 strategy had been developed. 14 Q Well, it wasn't your strategy then, was it? 15 A It was primarily my strategy. He and I had worked 16 together. But it was my strategy. 17 Q And you sold it to Mr. Young, knowing it not to be 18 true? 19 A I didn't sell him anything. What do you mean, 20 sell him? 21 Q Convinced him that there was some merit to this 22 strategy? Mr. Young didn't have any personal feelings that 23 what you were putting in all these declarations was 24 accurate? 25 A Mr. Young didn't have any problem with it at all.
1114 1 He was in the same business I was. We were working 2 together. 3 Q Did he know it to be untrue? 4 THE COURT: Who are we talking about? 5 MR LIROT: Mr. Young. 6 THE COURT: Mr. Young? 7 MR LIROT: Mr. Young. 8 A You would have to ask Mr. Young. 9 BY MR LIROT: 10 Q Fair enough. 11 THE COURT: Well, I guess the obvious question, 12 in light the of the allegations made, is to the best 13 of your knowledge and belief, did Mr. Minton have 14 anything to do with this? Or is this you and 15 Mr. Young? 16 It says: "Mr. Dandar incorporated the strategy 17 I had developed to target Mr. Miscavige and the 18 upper echelon of Scientology --" 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Then it has: "Following 21 Mr. Minton's $100,000 loan." 22 How are those connected? I understand people 23 might like to have them connected, but the truth of 24 the matter is, is what you are really alleging is 25 that it was your information that was incorporated.
1115 1 Right? Information you had provided, perhaps 2 others, as well? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Do you know of your own 5 knowledge whether the first payment of $100,000 had 6 anything to do with incorporating your strategy into 7 a first amended complaint? 8 THE WITNESS: Mmm, only my belief. 9 THE COURT: Do you have any knowledge -- in 10 other words, I know there are other things in here 11 where you have indicated that you and Mr. Minton and 12 Mr. Dandar met with Dr. Garko, and we'll hear about 13 that -- 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 THE COURT: -- from other witnesses maybe. But 16 do you have any knowledge, was there ever any 17 discussion by Mr. Dandar, "I wouldn't have used what 18 you told me but for the fact I got $100,000 from 19 Mr. Minton"? 20 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, he never said 21 that to me. I only -- you know, I -- the answer to 22 your question is I do not have personal knowledge 23 about it. I assumed that it was the case based on 24 my subsequent dealings with Mr. Dandar and my 25 overall belief that his pursuit of this wrongful
1116 1 death case in the way he has done it has been as a 2 result of Mr. Minton's funding. 3 BY MR LIROT: 4 Q Well, Mr. Dandar didn't include Mr. Miscavige in 5 the first amended complaint. Did he? 6 A No, he did not. 7 Q So he rejected your strategy. 8 A No, I believe the court -- I believe he'd already 9 made that agreement in which he was not supposed to. But 10 I'm not -- I believe that is why he didn't, but I'm not 11 sure. 12 Q But your strategy, it didn't work with that first 13 $100,000, did it? 14 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I object. The first 15 amended complaint is going to speak for itself. 16 THE COURT: Sustained. 17 BY MR LIROT: 18 Q All right. Would you please read Paragraph 9. 19 THE COURT: Let's say we try to beat the crowd 20 for lunch. 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you had told 22 Mr. Lirot that he could have until 12:30. 23 THE COURT: That is right. I did. 24 MR LIROT: I don't mind a long lunch. 25 THE COURT: What did I say? We go 12:30 to
1117 1 1:30? 2 MR. McGOWAN: He had a 1:00 o'clock hearing. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. WEINBERG: What time is your hearing? 5 MR LIROT: One o'clock conference call. 6 THE COURT: How much time is your hearing? 7 MR LIROT: I would imagine no longer than 25 8 minutes, Judge, tops. 9 THE COURT: Okay. All right. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay, I read that paragraph. 11 BY MR LIROT: 12 Q All right. Now, in mid-1998, where were you 13 living? 14 A Mmm, I believe I still lived in Washington state. 15 And I was traveling. 16 Q All right. And how many different lawsuits were 17 you involved with in 1998? 18 A Perhaps three, as I recall. 19 Q Okay. And you were living here, you were working 20 on three other lawsuits -- 21 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, objection. She just 22 said she was living in Washington. 23 MR LIROT: Correct. 24 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was thinking about 25 lunch.
1118 1 MR. WEINBERG: Then you said she was living 2 here. 3 MR LIROT: Weren't. Weren't. 4 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. I was thinking about 5 lunch, too. Maybe. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Let us both concentrate 7 more. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Or have lunch. 10 THE COURT: Right, or have lunch, have a long 11 one. 12 THE WITNESS: Do you want to have a long lunch, 13 your Honor? 14 THE COURT: I might. I really get weak. 15 Especially when I haven't eaten breakfast. Your 16 hearing is from 1 to 1:30? 17 MR LIROT: Yes, Judge. 18 THE COURT: We'll take from now until 1:30. 19 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.) 20 21 22 23 24 25
1119 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 14th day of May, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25