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

                                  CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11


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

           7              Plaintiff,

           8    vs.                                     VOLUME 4

                and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,


          15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                                    Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                CONTENTS:           Testimony of Robert S. Minton.
                DATE:               May 21, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
                PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
          19                        St. Petersburg, Florida.

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



342 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 4 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 MR. KENDRICK MOXON 6 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 7 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 8 Organization. 9 MR. LEE FUGATE and 10 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 11 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 12 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 13 14 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 15 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 17 18 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor 19 New York, New York 10003 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 20 Organization. 21 22 23 24 25
343 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 MR. BRUCE HOWIE 3 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. 4 Attorney for Robert Minton. 5 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 Mr. Rick Spector Ms. Sarah Heller 8 Mr. Ben Shaw Mr. Brian Asay 9 Ms. Joyce Earl Ms. Donna West 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
344 1 THE COURT: We were going to take up some legal 2 matters. 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: We need Mr. Moxon, too. I 4 guess everyone took two o'clock too literally, your 5 Honor. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: That is all right. 8 MR. DANDAR: Oh, Judge, we were able to find 9 two articles, attacks on Scientology, one by 10 Mr. Frank March, 1997 and EO Tax Bulletin, 1997 -- 11 is this the New York Times -- 12 THE COURT: I just wanted to know what he was 13 talking about. 14 MR. DANDAR: Let me be sure that is all I gave 15 you. 16 Yes, okay. 17 THE COURT: You want to keep going with the 18 testimony and we'll deal with this legal stuff a 19 little later? 20 MR. FUGATE: Whatever your pleasure, Judge. 21 Actually, I was trying to get this off so it doesn't 22 blind us all. 23 Whatever your -- 24 THE COURT: Whatever my pleasure? I'm not 25 sure.
345 1 MR. FUGATE: That is a stupid way to phrase it, 2 by the way, too, around here. 3 Judge, you want me just to go on? 4 THE COURT: Yes, go ahead, we'll take this up 5 maybe after the next break. It's hard to shift from 6 facts to law. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Mr. Minton, when we left off, we were back on 9 Paragraph 6. And I want to go back to that for a couple of 10 items, if I may. 11 If you see, in the second sentence there -- well, 12 first sentence is you were -- there was an indication you 13 were not to participate in the control of the litigation. 14 And in the second sentence it talks about, 15 "Mr. Dandar began immediately consulting with me about the 16 conduct of the litigation." 17 Do you see where you said that, sir? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Now, when we were talking about the meeting, in 20 your testimony, in August of 1999 in Philadelphia -- 21 A Right. 22 Q -- you were talking about you wanted to put more 23 emphasis on attacking the religion or religious issues. Is 24 that correct? 25 A Oh --
346 1 THE COURT: What is the date again, I'm sorry? 2 MR. FUGATE: August 26, really, of 1999. 3 MR. DANDAR: Objection. 4 THE COURT: It's the one meeting but we changed 5 the dates a couple times. 6 MR. FUGATE: I think somehow one time it got to 7 be May. But the check is dated the 27th, really 8 handed over on the 26th. I think we established the 9 date. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Do you know where we are talking about now? 12 A I do, yes. 13 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Leading. 14 MR. FUGATE: I'm trying to just get him back to 15 it. 16 THE COURT: I think he's just trying to get him 17 back to a point in time. So proceed. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Now, as part of your -- well, at that point in 20 time, had you been talking to -- and I'm saying at that 21 point in time being in August, in or about August of 1999, 22 had you been talking to Mr. Dandar about the litigation and 23 what you wanted to see happening in the litigation? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Now, there was mention made, I think in
347 1 Mr. Dandar's testimony, about him being at a meeting in Key 2 West in August of 1999, as well. Were you aware of that 3 meeting? 4 A Mmm, well, I think what we said -- I didn't 5 remember the date of that meeting. But you were going to 6 show me that pleading or something on that religiosity issue 7 to refresh my recollection of the date of that Key West 8 meeting. 9 Q Well, I'm going to ask you some questions and show 10 you a posting, if I might. 11 A Okay. 12 Q Do you recall, as of August of 1999, had you been 13 funding Jesse Prince? 14 A Yes. Yes, I had been. 15 Q And how had you been funding Mr. Jesse Prince? 16 A By check and by cash, through his working at 17 FACTNet, you know, paying him while he was going out to work 18 for Mr. Leipold, you know. Pretty all-encompassing support. 19 Q Now, as of August of 1999, had you been providing 20 funding -- providing funding to Stacy Brooks, as well? 21 A Yes, I had. 22 Q And preceding August had you been doing that on a 23 regular basis? 24 A Before August of '99? 25 Q Uh-huh.
348 1 A Yes. 2 Q I should say yes. 3 And had you provided funds prior to August of 1999 4 to one Vaughn Young, as well? 5 A Well, I never directly provided funds to Vaughn 6 Young. You know, I provided funds to Stacy Brooks, who was 7 the one who dealt with the money in the house. But, yes. I 8 mean, I had been, through that mechanism. 9 Q Now, the Key West meeting, regardless of the date 10 of that meeting, do you have knowledge that Mr. Prince, 11 Jesse Prince, went to that meeting? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 Q And do you have knowledge that Dan Leipold went to 14 that meeting? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And do you have knowledge that Ford Greene went to 17 that meeting? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Do you have knowledge Mr. Dandar went to that 20 meeting? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And I think you had indicated in your testimony 23 before we broke for lunch that you wanted to -- you wanted 24 to get Leipold and Greene into the case with Mr. Dandar -- 25 or words like that. I'm going to ask you what your
349 1 recollection is of it so I'm not putting words in your 2 mouth, to press on certain issues. Do you recall that? 3 A I do. 4 Q And what issues were you trying to get them 5 involved in with Mr. Dandar? 6 A Mainly, attacking Scientology on this whole 7 religious issue. 8 Q Now, sir -- 9 A There was also -- there was also a lot of 10 discussion back and forth, which I don't think eventually 11 ever amounted to anything, concerning the alter ego 12 therapies Leipold was using in the Wollersheim case and how 13 they might be somehow applicable here. But I don't think it 14 ever became a major issue in this case. 15 Q And on Friday, I believe you testified that you 16 were aware that Jesse Prince had done an affidavit that 17 would be utilized in the wrongful death case. Do you recall 18 that? 19 A Yes. I'm aware of that. 20 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MR. FUGATE: I think it's already -- 23 MR. DANDAR: I would object if he approaches 24 without foundation established as to when he first 25 saw this affidavit, because the affidavit will
350 1 disclose a date on it. 2 THE COURT: All right. Fair enough. 3 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, may I approach the 4 clerk? 5 THE COURT: You may. 6 MR. FUGATE: What is our next number? 7 THE CLERK: 106. 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge, this would be marked for 9 identification as Defendant's 106. It's a posting. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Is this the affidavit 11 you-all have been referring to throughout this case? 12 No? 13 MR. DANDAR: Not what I have been handed. This 14 is a posting. 15 THE COURT: No, but the affidavit. 16 MR. DANDAR: That is 1 and 2. 17 MR. WEINBERG: That is the one -- that is the 18 end of cycle one. 19 THE COURT: I have this one then. 20 MR. DANDAR: Yes, you have that one. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Sir, I have just showed you what has been 24 marked -- and I forgot the number, going back and forth. 25 THE CLERK: 106.
351 1 MR. FUGATE: 106? 2 BY MR. FUGATE: 3 Q -- Defendant's 106 for identification. Do you 4 recognize that 106 as a posting that you authored? 5 A Let me get to the part that I wrote. 6 Q And it is important you identify for the Court 7 what you mean by "the part" you wrote. 8 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, you were having 9 some questions the other day about all these little 10 carets or these signs where it says Stickwork. 11 THE COURT: Yes? 12 THE WITNESS: The person above -- on the line 13 above that on August 21, 1999, R. Keller wrote -- 14 and what he's saying, he's repeating something 15 someone else wrote named Stickwork. And carets in 16 front of that and the colon indicate that was 17 written by Stickwork. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: Then on the second page in the 20 second paragraph where there is only a single caret 21 there in front of the three lines, "It's been 22 suggested they took her to New Port Richey" -- 23 THE COURT: Yes? 24 THE WITNESS: -- those are written by Rod 25 Keller.
352 1 And my response to Rod Keller is following 2 that. "Rod, you're getting closer." 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q So from "Rod, you're getting closer," to "Bob 6 Minton" at the bottom, would that be something you wrote, 7 sir? 8 A It is, yes. 9 Q Could you tell us a date that you wrote that? 10 A That was August 21, Saturday. 11 Q Of? 12 A 1999. 13 MR. FUGATE: All right. And I would move 14 Defendant's 106 into evidence, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Any objection? 16 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 17 THE COURT: It will be -- 18 MR. DANDAR: Except the part written by 19 Stickwork and Rod Keller. That is not this 20 witness's -- 21 THE COURT: Well, it's a posting so I'm going 22 to let it in. I mean, some of this stuff is not 23 going to be important. I don't care what Stickwork 24 wrote. 25
353 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Do you see the highlighted portion on yours, "A 3 couple of very key questions yet to be answered are where 4 did she die and how long was Lisa dead before David 5 Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun decided to have her 6 transported to New Port Richey Hospital." Do you see that? 7 A Yes, I do. 8 Q And do you recall where you got the information 9 that you posed in the question there as to the purported 10 involvement of David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty 11 Rathbun? 12 A Well, I'll answer it in two parts. 13 The first part: "A couple of very key questions 14 yet to be answered are where did she die," that came from 15 Mr. Dandar. 16 And the second part, "How long was Lisa dead 17 before David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff, and Marty Rathbun 18 decided to have her transported to New Port Richey Hospital" 19 was either from Jesse or Mr. Dandar. I don't know who 20 discussed that with me. 21 Q Then you see the last phrase there, "Some Scienos 22 will due --" although it is D-U-E "-- time for Lisa 23 McPherson"? 24 A Yes. 25 Q What did you mean by that?
354 1 A Well, that, you know, one or more of these three 2 people up there might end up going to jail and serving time 3 for having been involved in the murder of Lisa McPherson. 4 Q And is the murder of Lisa McPherson -- I think you 5 testified to that earlier -- something you wanted to push in 6 the litigation? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q Now, with regard to the affidavit of Jesse Prince 9 that was utilized in the case, do you know when you first 10 saw a copy of that affidavit? 11 A Mmm, this would lead me to believe that I'd seen 12 it before this was written. 13 Q Well, do you have a recollection? 14 A Before it was signed, I mean. Sorry. 15 Q Okay. 16 A You know, I don't think Mr. Dandar showed it to me 17 in Philadelphia. 18 Q Had you seen it before you went to Philadelphia, 19 though, on or around August 26 of 1999? 20 A Yes. I believe I had seen it before then. 21 MR. FUGATE: All right, may I approach the 22 witness and show him the affidavit and ask if that 23 refreshes his recollection? 24 THE COURT: Yes. 25
355 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q First of all, if you just look at this and see if 3 what I have handed you is a copy of the affidavit of Jesse 4 Prince that you have been referring to. 5 A I have never seen it before with all of the 6 attachments to it. But -- 7 THE COURT: Me, either. 8 A -- but -- yeah, I recognize this as Jesse's 9 affidavit of August 20, 1999. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q And is it your testimony you saw this before it 12 was actually even signed? 13 A Mmm, I believe I did. 14 THE COURT: Does that mean that you're not 15 sure? Or you think you did? Or -- 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not a hundred percent sure, 17 your Honor, but I believe I did. 18 THE COURT: All right. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q But were you generally aware of the information 21 that was in there? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And when you met in Philadelphia on August 26 of 24 1999, do you know if the Key West meeting had already taken 25 place?
356 1 A You know, I'm still not a hundred percent sure on 2 the timing of that Key West meeting. 3 Q At any rate, the affidavit that you have now in 4 front of you that was executed on the 20th of August, 1999, 5 is that generally the gist of what you wanted to have 6 injected into the litigation? 7 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Vagueness. 8 THE COURT: Well, yes, it's an awful long 9 affidavit. I would assume he would have to study 10 that and read every word of it and -- 11 MR. FUGATE: Actually, I thought I'd asked. 12 BY MR. FUGATE: 13 Q You are familiar with the affidavit. Correct? 14 A I am. 15 Q And were you familiar with -- are you familiar 16 with it from discussing it with Mr. Prince? 17 A I have discussed it with Mr. Prince. 18 Q Were you familiar with it from discussing it with 19 Mr. Prince prior to the time it was actually executed? 20 A You know, I would like to be able to give you a 21 definitive answer, but I just, unfortunately, can't. 22 Q Well, you have to testify the best you can under 23 oath, sir. 24 A Yes. 25 Q My question, though, is this a point in time in
357 1 August of 1999, though, when you were paying Jesse Prince? 2 A It is. 3 Q And is Jesse Prince -- I think -- well, how did 4 Jesse Prince get to Mr. Dandar, if you know? 5 THE COURT: We have been through this, 6 Counselor. 7 MR. FUGATE: Pardon me? 8 THE COURT: You have been through this, 9 Counsel, at least two or three times. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q Was the subject of the expanding, if you will, the 12 lawsuit, was that the subject of the August 26, 1999 meeting 13 in Philadelphia? 14 A Expanding the Scientology aspects of it, yes. You 15 know, to take it away from a simple wrongful death case. 16 Q Now, sir, if you go to -- 17 THE COURT: In 1999? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: In 1999 you are saying that you 20 thought that the thing was -- the thing, that is a 21 very poor choice of words -- the lawsuit of the 22 Estate of Lisa McPherson versus the Church of 23 Scientology was just a simple wrongful death case? 24 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. -- Mr. Dandar and 25 Dr. Garko were -- and I don't remember whether there
358 1 was a discussion with Dr. Garko on more than one 2 occasion about this, but -- 3 THE COURT: Sounds like an explanation. 4 I want to know on that day, August of 1999, is 5 it your belief, having seen, you said, the first 6 amended complaint, that the case was still a simple 7 wrongful death case? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, that is the way Mr. Dandar 9 saw it, and that is the way he communicated it to 10 me. 11 THE COURT: Did you read -- did you take the 12 time to read this first amended complaint? 13 THE WITNESS: I have, your Honor. I realize 14 what it says. 15 THE COURT: Well, I don't think then you need 16 me to read into the record some of the allegations 17 in here. 18 Oh, that is the wrong thing. 19 They're fairly outrageous, aren't they? 20 THE WITNESS: They are, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: But, nonetheless, you, because 22 Mr. Dandar told you, having read this, thought that 23 this was just a, quote, simple wrongful death case? 24 THE WITNESS: Well, that is the way -- the 25 reason this is a very significant thing to me,
359 1 because I remember, you know, what I said to him 2 after the "holding the Lisa McPherson against her 3 will" charges were dropped. 4 And that was that, okay, you finally got what 5 you wanted, you know, you got a simple wrongful 6 death case because all of the damn Scientology 7 aspects of this case are stripped out of it. 8 And this is something Mr. Dandar said all 9 along, that he just wanted a simple wrongful death 10 case. 11 Obviously, the first amended complaint has got 12 a lot of inflammatory language in it. But I'm just 13 saying what Mr. Dandar said, that, you know, he 14 wanted in this thing, that he wanted a simple -- 15 THE COURT: Mr. Minton, I'm assuming you have 16 got a brain. 17 THE WITNESS: I do. 18 THE COURT: I know that you do. I mean, Count 19 1 -- I am only looking at first amended complaint. 20 How many were filed by this August of '99 date? 21 MR. DANDAR: Five. 22 THE COURT: Well, okay -- 23 MR. DANDAR: Four. 24 THE WITNESS: Four. 25 MR. DANDAR: Well, your Honor, we were on the
360 1 fourth amended complaint at that time. 2 THE COURT: Well, I am not even onto two, three 3 and four. But this one, as I said, I went through 4 it this morning, it's so long I couldn't even read 5 it all. It is 35 pages, filed on or about the 4th 6 of December of 1997. It's 35 pages. 7 It has got outrageous allegations. If I were 8 the Church, I would say these are fairly outrageous 9 allegations, as a preliminary. 10 MR. FUGATE: We did. 11 THE COURT: And as a preliminary to everything, 12 Count 1 is statutory wrongful death, which takes up 13 a page. 14 Count 2 is common law wrongful death, which 15 takes up a page or page and a half. 16 Count 3 is intentional and reckless infliction 17 of emotional distress. 18 Count 4 is false imprisonment. 19 Count 5 is a violation under Florida Statute 20 Chapter 400, which has to do with nursing home care. 21 MR. FUGATE: Nursing home. 22 THE COURT: Count 6 is a violation of Chapter 23 415. 24 Count 7 is fraud. 25 Count 8 is rescission of contract.
361 1 Count 9 is deceptive trade practices. 2 Count 10 is intentional reckless infliction of 3 emotional distress. 4 Count 11 is battery. 5 Count 12 is negligence. Count 13 is civil 6 conspiracy. 7 Count 14 is violation of some other chapter, 8 458, practicing medicine without a license. 9 And you are telling me you thought this was a 10 simple wrongful death case? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, if I may 12 explain. 13 THE COURT: Because Mr. Dandar told you that? 14 THE WITNESS: No. No, your Honor, this was -- 15 this was the pattern that had -- has been used in 16 all of the Scientology litigation that I have seen, 17 you know, going back to this Fishman case and all 18 these other, just put as much stuff on the wall as 19 you can possibly put and hope some of it sticks, no 20 matter how outrageous it is. I mean, that is the 21 way this litigation against Scientology has been 22 done, your Honor. 23 Mr. Dandar, you know, was saying, you know, 24 it's a simple wrongful death case. Obviously, the 25 charges that were in this first amended complaint
362 1 are broad and sweeping. It is an attack on 2 Scientology. At the end of the day what has 3 happened in this case is there is a simple wrongful 4 death case, by and large. That is all that is left. 5 THE COURT: That is, what, the fifth amended 6 complaint? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, after -- you know, after 8 there had been summary judgment and motions on 9 holding Lisa McPherson against her will, you know, 10 basically it's come down to a simple wrongful death 11 case. 12 And I remember saying to Mr. Dandar, after that 13 charge was dropped, that it's -- you know, bottom 14 line now, it's going to be your expert witnesses 15 versus their expert witnesses, you know, in terms of 16 the medical evidence. And that is all there is. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, let me see if I can 19 ask some questions to try to focus this, because I 20 think I may have caused some confusion by my 21 questioning. 22 THE COURT: No, you didn't cause any confusion. 23 I wanted simply to see if this witness meant what he 24 said. 25 MR. FUGATE: Okay.
363 1 THE COURT: He said at the time of this meeting 2 in 1999, he was saying let's get on with the 3 business about getting to Scientology, I don't want 4 this just simple wrongful death. That is what he 5 said. And that is what he said several times. 6 And I haven't read two, three and four lately. 7 I will, however, once again, to see if they deviated 8 anyplace from this first amended complaint. But 9 this is anything but a simple wrongful death 10 complaint. 11 MR. FUGATE: Well, I agree. 12 THE COURT: I guess I was trying to get the man 13 to explain to me what he meant. And I don't know 14 what he's saying exactly. I think he now said -- 15 well, he said what he said. But, you know, I don't 16 care whether you are confused. I care about him. 17 You are not the witness. He is. 18 MR. FUGATE: Well, I understand that, Judge. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q Prior to 1999, August of 1999, do you know, by 21 looking at your figures up there, how much you had provided 22 in funding to Mr. Dandar for the wrongful death litigation? 23 A Prior to August of '99? 24 Q Uh-huh. 25 A You know, my records indicate $600,000.
364 1 Q And had you communicated with Mr. Dandar as those 2 amounts were paid in to cover the expenses and costs of the 3 wrongful death case, as you have testified about, the 4 direction and course of the litigation? 5 A Well, you know, in that meeting in Philadelphia -- 6 Q I'm talking about prior to Philadelphia, had you 7 had those sorts of discussions? 8 A I'm sorry. Ask me again. I'm sorry. 9 Q Over the course of the payments that you have just 10 indicated that added up to roughly $600,000 prior to 11 Philadelphia, if that number is right, had you had 12 discussions with Mr. Dandar about the course and conduct of 13 the litigation prior to Philadelphia? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. And were you communicating with him 16 about your thoughts or ideas about the lawsuit prior to 17 Philadelphia? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And when you get to Philadelphia, what is it, in 20 particular, that you are trying to communicate to 21 Mr. Dandar? 22 MR. DANDAR: Asked and answered before lunch. 23 THE COURT: Well, I'm still confused so I'm 24 going to allow it. Overruled. 25
365 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Do you understand the question? 3 A I do. Mmm, well, again, going back to the whole 4 issue of the Scientology aspects of the case, you know, Lisa 5 McPherson was somebody who died on the introspection 6 rundown. It wasn't just a simple, you know, wrongful death 7 case. This was a case about Scientology. Scientology was 8 always the issue, from day one, in this case, you know, from 9 my involvement in it. 10 Q Well, can I ask you a question? What about, from 11 your understanding, perspective, the involvement of Stacy 12 Brooks? 13 THE COURT: The involvement of Stacy Brooks? 14 MR. FUGATE: Well, he said "from my 15 involvement." 16 A From my perspective. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q I'm asking him, do you know what Ms. Brooks's 19 perspective was up until that point in time? 20 A Yes. 21 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Hearsay. 22 THE COURT: I would think -- it sort of is 23 hearsay. We heard from Ms. Brooks in this case. I 24 don't know how much of that -- 25 MR. FUGATE: Well --
366 1 THE COURT: I mean, after six days of her 2 testimony, or seven or eight, or however many it 3 was, I don't know how much of this they discussed. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q Well, let me ask you this way. As of August 6 through December of 1999, were you in direct contact, 7 through those months, with Stacy Brooks? 8 A On practically a daily basis, yes. 9 Q Were you in direct contact with Jesse Prince? 10 A Very frequently. 11 Q And to your knowledge and understanding, were 12 Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks working with and/or for Ken 13 Dandar in the various iterations of the complaints, whatever 14 the numbers were, from August through December of 1999? 15 A Yes. They were. 16 Q And to your knowledge, sir, were you communicating 17 to Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks what you wanted to see 18 interjected into the litigation? 19 A You know, I remember summarizing it one time as 20 basically nailing the cult's ass to the floor. 21 Q Were you communicating that to Jesse Prince during 22 this period of time? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were you communicating that to Stacy Brooks during 25 this period of time?
367 1 A Absolutely. 2 Q Were you communicating that to Ken Dandar during 3 this period of time? 4 A Yes. I did. 5 Q And did you, in your own mind, feel that that was 6 being done, in your own mind, in the litigation? 7 A For what period again? 8 Q From August of '99 through December of '99. 9 A Yes. 10 Q And did you continue to -- 11 THE COURT: Wait a second. You're talking 12 about this was being done for a three-month period 13 only in this lawsuit? 14 MR. FUGATE: No. No. No. I was asking his 15 perspective during the period of time. You've been 16 talking, Judge, about a variety of iterations or 17 complaints, that as my recollection is, spanned from 18 September through to December of 1999. 19 And I'm asking him, during that period of time 20 was that the perspective, was that the instruction 21 and was that his understanding of what was going on. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 A The answer to that, again, was yes. 24 THE COURT: So the only time that, quote, 25 anybody nailed the cult's ass to the floor is from
368 1 September to December of 1999, is that your 2 testimony? 3 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. What I'm saying, 4 during that time period there was a clear effort to 5 do that. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: Or there was a more clear effort. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Now, if I can direct your attention to Paragraph 8 10 of your affidavit. 11 THE COURT: And how was that -- I guess I need 12 to know, because I don't know what this witness is 13 talking about, I'm a little confused. What was it 14 from August to October of -- 15 MR. FUGATE: December. 16 THE COURT: I'm sorry, August to December. 17 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 18 THE COURT: Is that what he testified to, 19 August to December of 1999, that was being done 20 to -- differently to nail the cult's ass to the 21 floor? 22 THE WITNESS: The fifth amended complaint. 23 THE COURT: The fifth amended complaint? Okay. 24 THE WITNESS: Utilizing, you know, Jesse 25 Prince's affidavit.
369 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q I was just asking you if you would look to 3 Paragraph 8 of your affidavit. Do you have that in front of 4 you, sir? 5 A I do. 6 Q The second affidavit. 7 THE COURT: And is that -- is that all you are 8 speaking about as to, what, during this period of 9 time, was specifically done in this regard was -- 10 well, I don't know if you are saying all, but the 11 principal thing that was done was the fifth amended 12 complaint was filed? 13 THE WITNESS: Well -- well, getting it ready. 14 That wasn't the only thing, but it was the principal 15 thing. 16 THE COURT: The principal thing? Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: Getting this whole -- getting 18 this whole concept of going after these Scientology 19 witnesses was also part of that. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q Have you got your affidavit there? 23 A My affidavit. Yes. 24 Q And I know we're jumping back in time, but I'll 25 try to get back on track here in your affidavit.
370 1 THE COURT: Are we done talking about the -- I 2 don't know that we finished Paragraph 6. I thought, 3 when we left for lunch, he was telling me about the 4 religiosity issue in this New York Times article. 5 Are we just going to ignore that? 6 MR. FUGATE: Not ignore it, Judge. I thought I 7 would progress on and try to go through these. I 8 have them really referenced with exhibits because it 9 makes it easier. 10 THE COURT: I want to know because you had an 11 opportunity, because I gather you are past Page 6, 12 you had the lunch break to think about it. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Is there anything else you want to 15 add for my consideration as to other things that 16 Mr. Dandar did where you said, "Mr. Dandar would do 17 things in the litigation designed to satisfy my 18 wishes and, thus, get more money from me"? Have you 19 pretty well covered that? 20 THE WITNESS: Well, there is another section in 21 the affidavit. 22 THE COURT: Okay, what section is that? 23 THE WITNESS: It's a section called 24 "Confidential Information," which is in the -- let 25 me try to find the page -- starting on Page 21, in
371 1 55. 2 THE COURT: 55? Paragraph -- 3 MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 55 on Page 21. 4 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 55. I'm sorry. You 5 know, some of that I already testified about, to the 6 mediation discussions in June or July of '98. 7 THE COURT: Okay. So -- so whatever this 8 confidential information was that you were getting 9 is part of what you're talking about in Number 6? 10 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else? 12 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think so. 13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Go ahead, 14 Mr. Fugate. 15 MR. FUGATE: All right, let me flip back, 16 Judge, if you'll bear with me a moment. 17 THE COURT: Sure. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Did you -- have you had a chance to read Paragraph 20 8, Mr. Minton? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Can you tell us what you recall how in December of 23 1997 you came to discuss with Mr. Dandar some plan for 24 funding? 25 A At the time, as I recall, some of the
372 1 spokespersons for the Church of Scientology were talking 2 about Mr. Dandar as being an ambulance-chasing attorney, in 3 this case for the money, and Dell Liebreich being -- I think 4 the quote was a "money-grubbing old woman, trying to get 5 rich," something, you know, along those lines. 6 And, you know, I suggested to Mr. Dandar that in 7 order to mute that criticism by the Church of Scientology 8 against him and the estate, that, you know, the estate 9 would -- you know, that one way to do that would be the 10 estate would agree to donate a substantial part of the -- 11 whatever proceeds they would get out of either a trial or 12 settlement to an anticult organization. And that -- 13 Q Now -- 14 A And that information should, you know, be made 15 known in advance so that this public criticism of the case 16 and its attorney and the estate would no longer be an issue. 17 Q Do you remember, if you can, how many discussions 18 like that you had with him before December 5, 1997? 19 A Well, there was just that one discussion, I 20 believe. And there was a subsequent discussion, I'm not 21 sure whether it was before December 5, but -- 22 Q Well, if you'll look at your affidavit, sir, you 23 indicate that on Page 4 that: "Mr. Dandar told me on or 24 about December 5, 1997 he discussed this matter with the 25 family of Lisa McPherson and they agreed to donate the
373 1 'bulk' of any proceeds received after covering expenses and 2 Mr. Dandar's contingency fee to an anticult group." 3 MR. DANDAR: You know, I object to trying to 4 lead the witness by reading this affidavit which he 5 apparently doesn't remember what he said. 6 THE COURT: I think that is the problem, 7 Counselor. Apparently this man isn't able to 8 testify without having his affidavit shown to him, 9 then you have to wonder how valuable it is. 10 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, I think he already 11 started down this road when we interrupted before 12 lunch. But I'll ask him. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Do you recall where you were in December -- as you 15 sit here today, where you were in December of 1997, sir? 16 A Well, just to clear up a misunderstanding, you 17 asked me if there were more than one meeting prior to 18 December 5. 19 Q Right. 20 A To my recollection, there was only one meeting 21 prior to December 5. You know, the second meeting was on 22 December 5. 23 Q Do you remember where you were on December 5 of 24 1997? 25 A Mmm, I think I was in Mr. Dandar's office.
374 1 Q And what would you have been doing in 2 Clearwater -- or Tampa on December 5 of 1997? 3 A Well, that would have been the second anniversary 4 of Lisa McPherson's death. And I was here with a bunch of 5 other people to picket and protest against the Church of 6 Scientology over the Lisa McPherson matter. 7 Q And when you were at Mr. Dandar's office, what 8 happened? 9 A Well, referring back to the Tampa Club meeting on 10 December 1, Mr. Dandar told me that he had discussed the 11 matter with the family -- he didn't say with just Dell 12 Liebreich; he said the family -- concerning this concept of 13 donating the bulk of the proceeds or a substantial part of 14 the proceeds to an anticult organization. And that the 15 family had agreed that that is what they should do. 16 Q And at that point, in 1997, what -- what 17 anti-Scientology or anticult organization were you talking 18 about? 19 A Well, I'd actually suggested three organizations. 20 One I think was American Family Foundation. FACTNet, which 21 I was a part of or would soon be a part of. I was already 22 elected to the board of directors but only went into effect 23 from December 15 of -- 24 THE COURT: What was the first one again? 25 THE WITNESS: American Family Foundation.
375 1 Short name, AFF. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 A Then there was a third one, which I can't remember 4 what it was. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Of the three, did you have any specific 7 discussions with Mr. Dandar about which organization you 8 would prefer? 9 A Well, obviously I was keener for him to make sure 10 that this happened with FACTNet as opposed to the other two. 11 Q Now, do you recall, after that meeting in December 12 that you just testified to, then testifying for the first 13 time in the deposition in Boston? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And do you recall testifying under oath in that 16 deposition that you did have an agreement with Mr. Dandar -- 17 THE COURT: Do you know, the deal is you don't 18 use depositions unless you are going to use them to 19 impeach the witness. He just said he testified to 20 it. 21 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Do you recall in that testimony whether or not you 24 said that the bulk of the funds would be -- or recovery or 25 settlement would go to the anticult group?
376 1 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Improper question. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q Was Mr. Dandar present at that deposition? 5 A Yes. He was. 6 Q Did he correct any of your statements that you 7 made under oath in that deposition? 8 A No. He didn't. 9 Q Now, after that deposition, did you have any 10 discussions with Mr. Dandar about further funding of the 11 Lisa McPherson case? 12 A Are you talking about October of '98? 13 Q No. I'm talking about the January of '98 14 deposition. 15 A Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Mmm, well, you know, money 16 was always a topic. This wasn't -- you know, I don't 17 remember a specific discussion right after that deposition. 18 There was a discussion sometime in January or February. 19 Q Can you tell us what you remember about that 20 discussion? 21 A There was this -- 22 THE COURT: This was in 1998? 23 MR. FUGATE: 1998, Judge. 24 A Right. Mr. Dandar was in Boston for -- I don't 25 remember whether it was a related or disrelated deposition.
377 1 But he was deposing somebody at Mass. General Hospital. 2 And during the lunch break that day, we met at a 3 Starbucks, which is on the corner of Cambridge Street and 4 Blossom Street, I believe. Well, it's across from exactly 5 where that Blossom Street enters Cambridge. It is on the 6 other side of the street. 7 And, you know, Mr. Dandar was trying to find out 8 more about the possibilities of a continuous source of 9 funding, you know, just kind of trying to assure himself 10 that this was not a one-time type event, you know, that 11 there was going to be a continuous source of funding for 12 this case. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q What did you tell him? 15 A Mmm, you know, I said, for the foreseeable future, 16 you know, I see being able to fund it. 17 That was also the time in which he brought up the 18 possibility of using any offshore moneys for funding the 19 case. 20 Q And what was that discussion, as you recall? 21 A Well, it started out by him saying, "Look, anybody 22 who has made as much money as you have must have substantial 23 funds offshore. And, you know, if you think that using 24 those would be helpful, fine." 25 Q Had you had any discussions about how much money
378 1 you had made, or things like that, before this? 2 A He had some idea. We'd discussed generally the 3 debt buyback business I had been involved in, and he had 4 some idea of the magnitudes of the amount -- the face amount 5 of debts that had been traded. And, you know, I think he 6 extrapolated more out of it than I told him. But he had 7 some idea. 8 Q Was there any other discussion about using 9 offshore funding at this '98 meeting? 10 A No. 11 Q Now, in 1997, the end of '97, the beginning of 12 1998, did you appear on a radio show, WRKO, and talk about 13 your funding of the litigation? 14 A I believe it was the Two Chicks Dishing Show, yes. 15 Q And do you recall making statements, public 16 statements, about the fact you were funding the Lisa 17 McPherson case and what you expected to get in return for 18 your funding? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And so, in addition to testifying about it at the 21 deposition, you were also publishing that or broadcasting 22 that on the public airways? 23 A Yes. 24 MR. DANDAR: Excuse me, could we have a date, 25 please?
379 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Do you recall specifically the date? 3 A It was early 1998. I don't know whether it was 4 January, February, something like that. 5 MR. DANDAR: Is that Paragraph 12? 6 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the clerk, your 7 Honor? 8 THE COURT: You may. 9 MR. FUGATE: This is going to be Defendant's 10 107, your Honor. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q I show you a copy of a transcript and ask if that 13 is the radio show that you were referring to? 14 A Yes, it is. 15 Q And does that date the show? 16 A Yes. December 9, 1997. 17 Q And is that the same radio show you were just 18 discussing? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And do you see in there where you indicated your 21 funding, what was going to happen with the funds? 22 A Are you talking about on the second page? 23 Q Uh-huh. 24 A Yes, I do. I see it. The number two point down 25 at the bottom, "Profit Loaded."
380 1 Q And what did you indicate? 2 A "The family of Lisa McPherson has agreed, and I 3 have announced this to the New York Times yesterday, that 4 the bulk of funds they get out of this wrongful death suit 5 will be donated to a cult awareness group so that there 6 won't be any more Lisa McPhersons." 7 Q Would that also indicate you talked to the New 8 York Times about your investment, as well? 9 A Yes. 10 MR. DANDAR: Objection as to the word 11 "investment." That does not appear in this posting 12 at all. 13 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I didn't want to go into 14 it, I -- you asked the date. 15 BY MR. FUGATE: 16 Q My question was did you talk to the New York Times 17 about your funding -- 18 A Yes. 19 Q -- of the Lisa McPherson case? 20 A Yes, I did. 21 THE COURT: Sustained as to the use of the word 22 "investment." I don't think it -- 23 A Well -- 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Let me ask you, did you have any belief as to what
381 1 your funding was doing with Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson 2 wrongful death case? 3 A Yes, I did. 4 Q And what was that? 5 A Well, it was a means to secure a long-term funding 6 source to go after Scientology. 7 Q Now, in Paragraph 9 there is a reference to the 8 moneys that you provide. Do you have any recollection of 9 Mr. Dandar talking to you about what he felt that your 10 funding would do with regard to the Church? 11 THE COURT: Where are you, Counsel? 12 MR. FUGATE: Paragraph 9, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Are we done then, with this, 107? 14 MR. FUGATE: Yes. I'm sorry, Judge. 15 MR. DANDAR: I object to the witness being 16 asked to read his affidavit to refresh his memory. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Well, let me ask you this, sir. Was there any 19 conversation about the ratio of money funded to cost to the 20 Church? 21 A Yes, there was. 22 Q What was that? 23 A Mmm, Mr. Dandar told me that for every dollar that 24 we spent, that they would spend at least 20. And this was a 25 commonly discussed matter among Scientology litigators --
382 1 anti-Scientology litigators in terms of how little money was 2 necessary to make Scientology spend a lot of money in 3 litigation. And Mr. Dandar had already picked up on this. 4 Q And you are saying Mr. Dandar, and who else were 5 you having those sorts of discussions with? 6 A Mmm, Mr. Leipold was well acquainted with that 7 concept. And, you know, and other people, Arnie Lerma, 8 Grady Ward, Keith Henson, who all were involved in some sort 9 of litigation with Scientology; it was discussed, you know, 10 face-to-face, and it was openly discussed on the Internet, 11 you know, the ratio. Some people's ratio was 40 to 1. Some 12 people, it was 10 to 1. But, you know, any dollar you spend 13 in litigation against Scientology was going to cost them a 14 lot more. 15 THE COURT: Well, that was -- of course, are we 16 trying to say there is something wrong with the 17 Church spending money to defend itself? 18 MR. FUGATE: No, Judge. We are not saying 19 there is something wrong with it. 20 THE COURT: Surely it is their choice to bring 21 in the number and quality of the lawyers they do. 22 You are not suggesting, are you, that you are not 23 needed to help Mr. Weinberg or that we don't need 24 the lawyers, Mr. Moxon and the gentleman, I have 25 forgotten, from New York, and --
383 1 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Hertzberg. 2 THE COURT: That is not Mr. Hertzberg. 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Me, Judge. 4 THE COURT: Even though Mr. Hertzberg is 5 frequently here. And Mr. Lieberman. 6 This is not your choice, this is nothing 7 Mr. Dandar requires or requests or anything of the 8 sort. Right? 9 MR. FUGATE: Well, no, I think what his answer 10 was, Judge, which is what I was asking about, was 11 was it the intention of the funding to cost the 12 Church money. And I think he testified that is what 13 he -- he understood what happened and that is what 14 Mr. Dandar understood happened. And that is the 15 point. 16 THE WITNESS: It was a dividend. 17 THE COURT: What was a dividend? 18 THE WITNESS: Well, making Scientology spend a 19 lot of money on litigation was a dividend to anybody 20 putting money into litigation. 21 THE COURT: Because they would have less money 22 for something else? Was their ability to raise 23 funds ever an issue here? The Church of Scientology 24 has money, I take it, to -- most churches do. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, the -- the whole concept in
384 1 this, you know, sort of litigation enterprise was 2 that for Scientology to get money to litigate, they 3 had to go through their IAS war chest which they go 4 to their individual members to collect the money to 5 support their litigation. You know, I don't know 6 whether that is true, but that is what everybody 7 said was true. 8 And, you know, by financially putting pressure 9 on the people who were donating substantial amounts 10 to the Church, you were putting a substantial amount 11 of pressure on Scientologists, on the Church, in 12 terms of their ability to, you know, use other -- 13 use that money for other things. 14 THE COURT: I see. 15 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor? 16 THE COURT: You may. 17 THE WITNESS: I mean, for example, your Honor, 18 we used to think that it would cut down on 19 harassment, you know. If they were having to raise 20 all this money for litigation, they would have less 21 time to harass people. 22 THE COURT: I -- 23 THE WITNESS: Less time and money. 24 THE COURT: I was having a hard time figuring 25 out what was being said. But I understand now.
385 1 Thank you. 2 Let's see. Well, I'm not going to go there. 3 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'll hand him two postings. 4 The first one will be 108. The second will be 109. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q Mr. Minton, just for purposes -- I'll show you 7 copies of two postings. The first will be Defendant's 108. 8 And the second will be 109. 9 THE COURT: You want to tell me which is which? 10 MR. FUGATE: Yes, Judge. The February -- wait 11 a minute. I think I better check with the clerk 12 before I -- the February 2000 is 109. The May 28, 13 '99 is 108. 14 THE WITNESS: Mr. Fugate, I believe I have two 15 copies of the same one. 16 MR. FUGATE: Do you? Well, that is my fault 17 then. 18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, but I marked "108" and 19 "109" on them. 20 MR. FUGATE: Well, it can't be. Let's look 21 here and see what you have here. You do. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 MR. FUGATE: So this would be 109. 24 THE WITNESS: Okay. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Can you give the dates to me
386 1 again? 2 MR. FUGATE: Yes. As soon as I get back. 3 Judge, let me get organized here. The first 4 one which is dated 5/28/99 is 108. And the second 5 one which is dated 2/2/00 is 109. 6 Is that correct, Madam Clerk? 7 THE CLERK: Yes. 8 THE COURT: I have them just the opposite. 9 5/28/99 is what number, Madam Clerk, at the top? 10 THE CLERK: 5/28/99 is 108. 11 THE COURT: The one at the top dated 12 February 2, '00 is? 13 THE CLERK: 109. 14 THE COURT: Okay, I have got it. 15 MR. FUGATE: If I could just take a look at 16 them, Judge. 17 BY MR. FUGATE: 18 Q Were you, sir, aware that the family members, that 19 is, Dell Liebreich, Ann Carlson, Lee Skelton, had all 20 testified about the understanding -- their understanding of 21 what the bulk of the proceeds would be -- how the bulk of 22 the proceeds would be treated? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q How were you aware of that? 25 A Mmm, through Mr. Dandar.
387 1 Q And, in fact, if you look at 108, were you in 2 communication with Mr. Dandar on or around May 28, 1999 3 about the depositions of the family members? 4 A Yes. I believe -- Mmm, I believe that Mr. Dandar 5 had invited me down to Dallas for this while he was there 6 for these depositions. 7 Q Did you go? 8 A I didn't. 9 THE COURT: So your knowledge of what they said 10 is based on what Mr. Dandar told you. Is that it? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, at the time of this posting 12 it was, yes. I have since read the depositions. 13 THE COURT: Are you -- are you clear, from a 14 reading of the depositions, that what Mr. Dandar 15 told you is accurate? 16 THE WITNESS: It seemed pretty accurate. Yeah. 17 THE COURT: Because my recollection is, in 18 reading the little bit that was provided to me -- I 19 mean, I glanced over these depositions -- I was not 20 quite so clear as to what they were saying. But, 21 anyway, in any event, that is all right. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Now, were you aware that the depositions of -- of 24 the family members were confidential at that point in time, 25 in other words, they weren't to be disclosed, by agreement
388 1 with all of the parties? 2 A No. 3 Q Okay. So if that were the case -- 4 THE COURT: Is that pursuant to any court 5 order, by the way? 6 MR. FUGATE: Yes, it was the order we discussed 7 earlier with your Honor where everybody agreed to 8 that, because there had been -- at this point in 9 history, the criminal investigation was pending, and 10 so the discovery could go forward -- 11 THE COURT: Really all I needed was a yes. And 12 the answer is yes? 13 MR. FUGATE: The answer is yes. 14 THE COURT: By who? 15 MR. FUGATE: Judge Moody. 16 MR. DANDAR: It was up to the deponent to keep 17 it confidential or not. 18 MR. WEINBERG: In other words, what would 19 happen, your Honor, in every deposition the deponent 20 would be given the option. And in this case the 21 family members chose that they would be kept 22 confidential at the end of the depo. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Can I ask you to look at 108, and see if you can
389 1 identify that posting as a posting that you made, sir. 2 A Yes, it is. 3 Q And was it made on or about 5/28/99? 4 A Yes. 5 MR. FUGATE: I would move 108 into evidence. 6 THE COURT: Any objection? 7 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 8 THE COURT: It will be received. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q And do you see the second paragraph which is a 11 highlighted reference to another $100,000 to refill the Lisa 12 McPherson case coffers? 13 A Right. 14 Q Do you show a check of $100,000 being produced to 15 Mr. Dandar there in 1999, in May? 16 A Yes, I do. 93D, I believe it is. 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry, usually you-all 18 highlight this. Where are you? What one are you 19 referring to? 20 MR. FUGATE: Just above the highlighting, it 21 says, "Another $100,000 being donated to the 22 coffers." 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q Tell me, where did you get the information 25 reflected in the highlighted portion of 108?
390 1 A From Mr. Dandar. 2 Q And do you recall, if you weren't there at the 3 depositions, how you got the information that you have set 4 out that: "Ken was in Dallas as the Scieno's deposed Dell 5 Liebreich for 7 hours, not to mention 30 minutes for Ann 6 Carlson. Ken told me on Monday night it was the 'Bob and 7 Ken' show for the entire 7-hour intimidation session. They 8 were only interested about his communications with me and 9 what Ken had told her about his communications with me." 10 Where did you get that information? 11 A From Mr. Dandar. 12 Q Did you understand from him that is what was being 13 inquired at, at the deposition? 14 A That's right. That is what I understood. 15 Q Did he tell you generally what they were 16 testifying about as far as the arrangement or agreement that 17 they were describing? 18 A Yes. I believe he mentioned that with respect to 19 at least one of the sisters. I don't remember whether it 20 was Dell, or Ann Carlson or Lee Skelton. 21 THE COURT: How many times have these folks 22 been deposed? 23 MR. FUGATE: You mean -- by -- by these folks, 24 you mean Dell -- 25 THE COURT: Not Dell. Ms. Carlson and
391 1 Ms. Skelton and -- 2 MR. WEINBERG: Are you talking about at that 3 point in time? 4 THE COURT: Yes. 5 MR. WEINBERG: That was the first time. 6 THE COURT: So just once? 7 MR. DANDAR: At that time, it was only once. 8 MR. WEINBERG: That was the first time. 9 MR. DANDAR: Ms. Carlson has been deposed 10 twice, flew here for her third deposition April 2nd 11 but was never deposed. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. WEINBERG: What happened, we went to May -- 14 we went to Dallas in May of '99 and deposed 15 Ms. Liebreich for the second time. She had been 16 deposed in '97. And deposed for the first time 17 Ms. Carlson for a little while. She got hurt while 18 she was there. And -- 19 MR. FUGATE: She fell, actually. 20 MR. WEINBERG: She fell down. We -- 21 MR. FUGATE: We agreed to continue the 22 deposition. 23 MR. DANDAR: The one on April 2nd was her -- 24 the third scheduled deposition of Ms. Carlson -- 25 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
392 1 MR. DANDAR: -- who is like 83 years old. 2 THE COURT: Stop here just a second. I want to 3 look at something. 4 Okay, you can go on now. I'm not finding what 5 I wanted to find, so go ahead. I just didn't want 6 to miss anything while I was off looking. 7 MR. FUGATE: All right, Judge. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q Do you recognize the posting that is Defendant's 10 Exhibit 109 for identification? 11 A Yes, I do. 12 Q And is that a posting by you, sir? 13 A It is. 14 Q And the date is February 2nd, 2000. Is that at or 15 around the time you issued it? 16 A That is correct. 17 MR. FUGATE: I move Defendant's 109 into 18 evidence. 19 THE COURT: Any objection? 20 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 21 THE COURT: It will be received. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q And if you turn to the highlighted portion, let me 24 just ask you, is this again another public posting as to 25 your understanding of what is to be done with the majority
393 1 or the bulk of any settlement proceeds? 2 A That is correct. The top part. 3 Q Yes. 4 MR. DANDAR: I object. The word "bulk" is not 5 used in the posting. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Well, you say: "The family of Lisa McPherson has 8 given their full support, as you know, promised to give the 9 vast majority of any settlement or reward from the trial to 10 the Lisa McPherson Trust." 11 THE COURT: That is another expression. We 12 have "bulk of." 13 MR. FUGATE: Vast. 14 THE COURT: "Vast majority." That is not what 15 he used earlier. What did you say, "major part of"? 16 THE WITNESS: Well, "substantial part." 17 THE COURT: "Substantial part." Right. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q This post was after the formation of the Lisa 21 McPherson Trust, is that correct? 22 A That is correct. Yes. 23 Q And at the time of this posting, which is February 24 of 2000, what was your understanding of what the settlement 25 or the award was likely to be in the wrongful death case?
394 1 A Mmm, I think Mr. Dandar was still talking in the 2 neighborhood of 80-odd million at the time. 3 THE COURT: How much did you think you were 4 going to get? 5 THE WITNESS: Who? Me? 6 THE COURT: Yes. You are the one that is 7 saying you were going to get this. What were you 8 going to get? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, minus Mr. Dandar's 10 contingency fee, you know, which I think is like 11 40 percent, so that would be $32 million off the 12 top, the family would keep some money. 13 THE COURT: How much? How much? Come on, 14 Mr. Minton. You are a businessman. You sat down 15 and he said, "I'm going to get 80 million bucks out 16 of this." And you said, "Well, I want X"? Or did 17 you talk "bulk, vast amounts, majority"? 18 THE WITNESS: That is the way we talked, your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: You never said, "I want -- my deal 21 here is I want 40 -- 40 grand -- 40 million"? 22 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Or, "I want 60 million"? 24 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 25 THE COURT: How much were you going to sue for
395 1 if you didn't get it? The "vast amount"? The 2 "bulk"? What was it? 3 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, you have to 4 understand at that time the people who were involved 5 in this trusted each other. You know, I am -- 6 THE COURT: I see people fight over about 500 7 bucks. And you are telling me that all these folks 8 were just going to get together and agree on what 9 kind of a multi-million dollar check they were going 10 to write because they trusted each other? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, you have to 12 understand the background from which I have come 13 about this. In my business dealings, you know, the 14 people that I dealt with in business were people who 15 had to keep their word. Otherwise, you would be 16 weeded out of this business. People did 17 transactions in the billions of dollars cumulatively 18 based on nothing more than a handshake, a phone 19 conversation. 20 THE COURT: There were advantages, weren't 21 there, Mr. Minton, into not putting things -- when 22 people are dealing in millions, billions -- in 23 writing? 24 THE WITNESS: No. 25 THE COURT: No tax advantage, none of that
396 1 stuff? 2 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I'm talking about 3 dealing with the biggest financial institutions in 4 the world. You know, these weren't -- 5 THE COURT: Who? Tell me what big financial 6 places you deal with in the billions of dollars who 7 don't put their agreements in writing. 8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if I may -- 9 THE COURT: No. I want you to answer that. 10 You are telling me you deal with institutions and 11 you deal with millions and billions and they don't 12 put things in writing, they just make these 13 agreements on a simple handshake. Who are they? 14 MR. HOWIE: May it please the Court, at this 15 time, Mr. Minton, I believe, wishes to raise a 16 privilege to the Court's inquiry, with all due 17 respect. 18 THE WITNESS: Well -- 19 THE COURT: Is that true? 20 THE WITNESS: No. That is not true, your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: Well, then you either have a Fifth 23 Amendment or you don't. If you don't want to waive 24 it, if you want to exert it, that is fine. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, this is a very clear-cut
397 1 matter, Mr. Howie. 2 What I'm talking about is if you say -- if I 3 call up, say, Chase Manhattan Bank in London and I 4 wish to purchase from them or they wish to purchase 5 from me, say, $50 million worth of debt of some 6 third-world country, you know, on the basis of that 7 phone call we agree to a transaction that, you know, 8 at a certain price on a certain date that that debt 9 will be delivered by whichever side is agreeing to 10 sell it to whichever side is agreeing to buy it. 11 And the price is fixed. 12 THE COURT: Yes, you have a fixed price. 13 THE WITNESS: And a fixed amount of debt. 14 THE COURT: Fixed amount. 15 THE WITNESS: And the debt has to be, you know, 16 documented in terms of -- you know, the instruments 17 have to be instruments that are acceptable to the 18 party who is buying it. 19 THE COURT: Does the bank let you say, "I want 20 to buy a vast amount of debt," or "substantial 21 amount," or "bulk of the amount"? Or do they want a 22 dollars figure? 23 THE WITNESS: They want a Deutsche mark or 24 dollar or whatever currency figure. They want to 25 know how much you want to buy. Or how much you
398 1 want -- how much you are selling. 2 THE COURT: Tell me, what institution is it you 3 deal with that would allow you to conduct business 4 with things like "the bulk, I want the bulk of the 5 amount, I want the vast amount," anything like that? 6 THE WITNESS: That wouldn't happen, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Of course not. So that is why I 8 asked you, surely -- surely if you thought you had 9 an agreement here, you had some amount. 10 Ms. Liebreich and the sisters and Mr. Dandar 11 and you sat down and said, "There is $80 million. I 12 want 65 of it." Or, "I want 25." 13 THE WITNESS: You know, I don't think it was 14 ever specified in anything other than 80 percent. 15 THE COURT: Oh, let's see now. Now you 16 remember, do you, Mr. Minton, that it was 17 80 percent? 18 THE WITNESS: No, I remember that was discussed 19 one time. You know, I'm not saying that anybody -- 20 we were trying to define the term "bulk." 75, 21 80 percent, 85, 90. 22 But it was after Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Dandar's 23 fee. Everything started after Mr. Dandar's fee. 24 And the costs. Whatever costs that weren't covered 25 by me that related to this litigation were part of
399 1 this "bulk," you know, the remainder of whatever 2 the -- the total amount would be from trial or 3 settlement. 4 THE COURT: So you sat down with Ms. Liebreich 5 and you said, "Now, I want 80 percent of what is 6 remaining, is that okay with you?" 7 THE WITNESS: No. I discussed that with 8 Mr. Dandar. 9 THE COURT: You said to him, "I want 10 80 percent"? 11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say "I want 12 80 percent." We talked about what is the "bulk." 13 75, 80. Even Scientology was trying to get me to 14 answer that question in a deposition, as well. 15 THE COURT: What? What it was? 16 THE WITNESS: What it was. 17 THE COURT: Sure. Because nobody would know. 18 Right? 19 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there were -- no, 20 nobody would know. 21 THE COURT: And now maybe you are used to 22 wheeling and dealing in millions and billions with 23 firm figures. But now -- I don't know because I 24 don't know much about Ms. Liebreich and I know less 25 about Ms. Skelton and these other ladies, but surely
400 1 they don't deal in the millions and billions and 2 stuff like that. So surely you would want to get 3 something from those folks. I mean, what did you 4 sit down and talk with them about an agreement? 5 THE WITNESS: I trusted Mr. Dandar, your Honor. 6 And that was a mistake. 7 THE COURT: Well, you know, Mr. Minton, mistake 8 or no mistake, that is one bad business deal. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, Mmm -- 10 THE COURT: I mean, don't ever make that deal 11 with me or anybody else, or any lawyer I know of. 12 That is no deal. You say you had a deal with the 13 estate and you never talked to them. You talked 14 with Mr. Dandar and you don't even know what you 15 talked about with him because there were no figures. 16 Now, I have said this before and I'm going to 17 tell you-all, you could not have brought a suit, a 18 lawsuit or anything else, on the basis of whatever 19 it is you-all talked about. Could you? 20 THE WITNESS: Well, maybe, maybe not, your 21 Honor. I'm not going to -- 22 THE COURT: You are not going to concede that? 23 If they gave you a million bucks and you don't get 24 the bulk of it, you're going to go into court 25 somewhere and try to get it. Is that it?
401 1 THE WITNESS: Not anymore. 2 THE COURT: Oh. Well, what happened to undo 3 the agreement? I mean, a deal is a deal. Right? 4 THE WITNESS: I don't want any more things to 5 do with this. That is why I'm trying to sit down 6 and talk about settlement with the Church of 7 Scientology. I want out of this completely, your 8 Honor. 9 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what that has to 10 do with the deal you had with Ms. Liebreich and her 11 brother and sisters. 12 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, here 13 is the thing. Everybody else seemed to think there 14 was a deal, Ms. Liebreich, Mr. Dandar, me, and all 15 of the people around us, and all around the Lisa 16 McPherson Trust. You know, maybe we were all wrong. 17 Maybe we were all smoking dope. But everybody 18 seemed to think there was a deal. 19 THE COURT: But you can't tell me what it was? 20 THE WITNESS: I told you the best I could. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know, I'm sorry, I 22 don't deal like that. I mean, I'm getting ready to 23 buy a house. They tell me how much they want, they 24 put it in writing, it's on a piece of paper, I know 25 exactly what kind of check I have to write. That is
402 1 how I make deals. That is how people loan me money. 2 I rather suspect Ms. Liebreich and her 3 sisters -- even though, I don't know, maybe they are 4 multi-millionaires, I expect that is how they 5 borrow, deal, do things, too. 6 I just can't really believe, in good 7 conscience, you are trying to come in and tell me 8 you had some sort of a firm deal with these ladies. 9 And I don't even know where the brother is 10 from. Have you ever talked to him or seen him? 11 THE WITNESS: I have never talked to him. 12 THE COURT: So you have a deal with somebody 13 you have never seen or never talked to. 14 Did Mr. Dandar ever tell you he talked to him? 15 THE WITNESS: Of course he did. 16 THE COURT: What did he tell you the brother 17 said? 18 THE WITNESS: He didn't say anything about the 19 brother. As far as I know, he's talking to Dell 20 Liebreich, the personal representative of the 21 estate, the sisters, Dell and Ann, who are the only 22 ones. I didn't even know there was a brother until 23 recently, you know. 24 Your Honor, as ridiculous as it may seem to be, 25 everybody who was involved in this thought there was
403 1 a deal. 2 THE COURT: Well, there might have been a deal, 3 and I'm not -- you know, I don't know what that deal 4 was and neither do you. But what I do know is you 5 had no agreement. 6 THE WITNESS: We had no written agreement. 7 THE COURT: And you had no oral agreement. You 8 can't tell me what it is. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, I told you, it was the 10 "bulk." What is the "bulk"? I'm sorry, your Honor, 11 I can't -- I can't make this up out of thin air. 12 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Minton, it was your deal, 13 not mine. I'm asking you to tell me what it was. 14 THE WITNESS: I'm telling you what the deal 15 was. 16 THE COURT: What was it? 17 THE WITNESS: The "bulk." 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: After Mr. Dandar's contingency 20 fee. 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q Did you understand, from Mr. Dandar, that whatever 23 dollar amount you were talking about would be less whatever 24 his contingency fee was? 25 A Yes. That was always off the top.
404 1 Q Did you understand, from talking to Mr. Dandar, if 2 Ms. Liebreich, as the personal representative, had any 3 monetary investment in the case? Do you understand what I'm 4 asking? 5 A I didn't understand that. 6 Q Okay. In other words, you don't know whether she 7 had any money invested in the case or not? 8 A Oh, no. She didn't. 9 Q Okay. And to your knowledge, who was investing 10 the bulk of the money that was being used to fund the Lisa 11 McPherson case? 12 THE COURT: The "bulk"? Here we are at the 13 "bulk." You just said Ms. Liebreich didn't have 14 any. 15 MR. FUGATE: Well, let me rephrase it. 16 MR. DANDAR: Objection to the word "investing." 17 THE COURT: I sustain that. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q How much money did you ultimately put into the 20 Lisa McPherson wrongful death case? 21 A Mmm -- 22 MR. DANDAR: Asked and answered four or five 23 times. 24 THE COURT: Sustained, unless there is more he 25 hasn't told us about.
405 1 MR. FUGATE: I just was trying to fix -- 2 THE COURT: No. He already told us. We've 3 gone through the checks. I have them here. They 4 are in evidence. If there is something else he 5 hasn't told us -- if he told us about all of it, I 6 don't want to go through it again. 7 MR. FUGATE: All right. 8 THE COURT: Do you know if anybody else gave 9 money to this lawsuit? 10 THE WITNESS: In recent months, there have 11 been, you know, a few thousand dollars, at the most, 12 donated to Mr. Dandar. 13 THE COURT: And you know that how? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Dandar told me in 15 February when he was in New Hampshire that he had 16 received, I think, $600, but he was expecting some 17 more. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: You know, this was part of that 20 posting that was on the Internet by Dell Liebreich, 21 you know, soliciting money. 22 THE COURT: I do remember that. Yes. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q So as far as you knew, you were providing most of 25 the funds, whatever they were?
406 1 A Yes, I was. 2 Q And had you ever had any conversation with Dell 3 Liebreich about what you termed the agreement was? 4 A Yes, I did. 5 Q And can you tell the Court what that was? 6 A Mmm, you know, I -- there were a couple of 7 conversations. 8 The first one that I remember is at the board 9 meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust in December of 2000. 10 And after that board meeting, you know, I thanked 11 Mrs. Liebreich for her commitment to the LMT and for 12 endowing this organization for the future. And in the 13 discussion, I used the word the "bulk" of the proceeds. 14 That is the best, you know, discussion of the amount that 15 ever was. 16 Q And in that conversation then, you did not define 17 "bulk," I take it? 18 A I didn't. 19 Q And she did not define "bulk," I take it? 20 A No. Mr. Dandar had -- we had a discussion about 21 this. And I believe I -- well, we had -- Mr. Dandar and I 22 had a discussion about this and I'd asked him early on -- by 23 early on I mean sometime in 1998 -- whether the family was 24 okay financially, or whether they actually needed money. 25 And he said that, you know, all of them were
407 1 retired, you know, they had sufficient income to live on, so 2 it wasn't like they were looking for, you know, a huge 3 windfall out of this. 4 Q And was it your understanding that you were going 5 to -- if the case were successful, there would be enough 6 money to pay back what you had put in, as well as fund the 7 anticult organization that you were talking about? 8 A Well, with the amount -- with the numbers that 9 were being bandied about, yes, that was clearly the 10 likelihood that there would be more than enough money to 11 take care of Mr. Dandar's contingency fee, pay me back the 12 principal amount of what I loaned to the estate, and fund 13 this anticult group that would, you know, forever be on the 14 Scientology case. 15 MR. DANDAR: Object -- 16 THE COURT: Well, specifically, I believe you 17 said LMT. 18 THE WITNESS: Well, at that stage, yes. 19 THE COURT: Of course, they don't even exist 20 anymore. So where is it going now? The case hasn't 21 happened yet. 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I covered it. This was a 23 matter discussed with Mr. Dandar, even probably the 24 day before I had this check for $250,000 issued on 25 May 7.
408 1 THE COURT: Well, where was it going? What did 2 he say then? 3 THE WITNESS: To a group that Stacy Brooks and 4 I would set up. 5 THE COURT: Another group? 6 THE WITNESS: Another group. 7 THE COURT: So -- so whatever testimony you had 8 about the LMT and it going to the LMT, once you and 9 Ms. Brooks decided to close that down, whatever that 10 deal was couldn't happen anymore. Right? 11 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, it is sort of 12 like the whole FACTNet thing, you know, and when -- 13 back -- you know, I have to go through the history 14 of this, because when this whole thing was 15 originally started, we were talking about FACTNet. 16 And FACTNet was sued by -- had already been sued by 17 the Religious Technology Center for copyright 18 infringement. Sometime in, I think, March or April 19 of 1999 we settled that litigation with the Church 20 of Scientology, you know, entered into this 21 liquidated damages clause of a million dollars, and 22 Ms. Brooks and I at that time felt that we would be 23 better off not staying in FACTNet because of this 24 potential liquidated damages thing hanging over our 25 heads. And we both eventually resigned from the
409 1 board of directors of that and began the process of 2 setting up a new organization. 3 And during the summer of -- of 1999, that 4 organization became the Lisa McPherson-something. 5 And this was following these depositions that 6 happened. Mr. Dandar told me that Dell Liebreich 7 wanted an organization named after Lisa. 8 BY MR. FUGATE: 9 Q May of 1999? 10 A Those depositions. Yeah. 11 Q You have testified to? 12 A Yes. 13 Q When was the Lisa McPherson Trust formed -- 14 actually incorporated, if you remember? 15 A I think it was October or November of 1999. 16 Q And was that the organization then that took the 17 place of FACTNet, as far as you understood, for your 18 agreement? 19 A Yes. And keep in mind that, you know, there 20 wasn't any rush to do anything here. It took several months 21 to get people in place who were going to come down here to 22 Clearwater to, you know, man this new organization. And, 23 yeah, that -- that was it, from that point forward. 24 THE COURT: And so -- well, let's see. I think 25 you said you had a discussion with Dell Liebreich on
410 1 12/00, December of 2000, at the -- was it the board 2 meeting? 3 THE WITNESS: That was the second board 4 meeting, actually. The first board meeting, which 5 was more of an organizational meeting, it was 6 after -- let's see, the organizational meeting took 7 place, you know, around that December 5, the year 8 before. December 5 -- or December 2000 was after 9 the first year of operation. And that was the -- 10 the first, you know, board meeting after we'd been 11 operating in Clearwater. 12 THE COURT: Is that the board meeting at which 13 you had this conversation with Ms. Liebreich? 14 THE WITNESS: That is one of the conversations. 15 Yes. 16 THE COURT: Is that the first one? 17 THE WITNESS: No. I believe the year before 18 there was a conversation about it at this Ruth Chris 19 steak house over by Mr. Dandar's office. 20 THE COURT: One is at a steak house, and one is 21 after a meeting, the meeting you were talking about 22 that you just testified about here I believe a half 23 hour ago where you thanked her for her commitment, 24 was in the December 2000 board meeting of some sort? 25 THE WITNESS: That's right.
411 1 THE COURT: Okay. And you said at that time, 2 "I want to thank you for your commitment," and what 3 else did you say? 4 THE WITNESS: Mmm, you know, "And for agreeing 5 to fund this organization in perpetuity," basically, 6 you know. 7 THE COURT: Well, I'm sure she understood that. 8 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I didn't use that 9 word, your Honor, but -- you know, I don't remember 10 the exact word. But it was concerning the proceeds 11 of this case. 12 THE COURT: So -- 13 THE WITNESS: You know, I wasn't trying to pull 14 anything over on this lady. This wasn't any -- 15 THE COURT: And what did she say? What did she 16 say? 17 THE WITNESS: Well, she thanked me, you know, 18 for providing the -- the money for this case. You 19 know, I mean, this was a -- you know, we were both 20 beholding to each other on this. 21 THE COURT: Okay. So when did LMT get out of 22 business? 23 THE WITNESS: Mmm -- 24 THE COURT: 2001, was it? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
412 1 THE COURT: Then did Ms. Liebreich call you and 2 say, "Well, Bob, where do I send the money when I 3 get it?" 4 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Did you call her and say, "Look, I 6 know LMT doesn't exist, but we've got a deal here, 7 and I'm going to set up something else, and I want 8 you to understand that I want the money"? 9 THE WITNESS: I discussed it with Mr. Dandar. 10 THE COURT: In March of 2002? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: What did you tell Mr. Dandar in 13 March of 2002? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I told him at that time I 15 wanted this agreement in writing. 16 THE COURT: Oh. Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: And he said he couldn't do it 18 because it would destroy the case, we have to keep 19 it secret. 20 MR. FUGATE: Could I have a moment, your Honor? 21 THE COURT: You may. 22 THE WITNESS: And that was the day before, you 23 know, I had this check for $250,000 issued. 24 THE COURT: That is the bank check? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is the March 7, 2002.
413 1 THE COURT: What do we call this? Is this a 2 check? A draft? 3 THE WITNESS: A check. 4 THE COURT: March 7, 2002? 5 THE WITNESS: Right. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I have an exhibit, let 8 me see if I can put my hand on it. It is 9 probably -- bear with me a moment, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: I'm just beside myself. For the 11 life of me, you thought somebody would get 12 $80 million. Let's do this. 80 million is what you 13 said you all were hoping for? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, minus 32. 15 THE COURT: Let's do this. 40 percent would be 16 32 million. I used to -- when I was with the IRS, I 17 couldn't deal with these kinds of figures until -- 18 so I just lopped off zeroes. 19 THE WITNESS: Drop off all of the zeroes. 20 THE COURT: Yes. I used to go out as a field 21 auditor and I would go into Winn Dixie and some 22 mega-million dollar company, and it was just too big 23 for me, and I would just lop off a bunch of zeroes 24 and I could figure out what I was dealing with. 25 But now 80 million, here, 32 million, what does
414 1 that leave us? 2 MR. DANDAR: 68. 3 MR. WEINBERG: 58. 4 THE COURT: 58 million. 5 MR. WEINBERG: 48. 6 THE COURT: 48 million, right. 48 million. 7 Now we're going to take off, up to date, 2,000,150 8 for what you have put in. 9 THE WITNESS: 2,000,050. 10 THE COURT: We'll just round this off. Can I 11 round it off to 2 million, because I have a bunch of 12 zeroes out here. This is just for a hypothetical, 13 okay, plus or minus $50,000. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 15 THE COURT: Now we're down to $46 million. 16 Right? 17 And so you just thought a good old handshake 18 between you and Mr. Dandar and a good old chat with 19 Ms. Liebreich where you never even discussed the 20 terms was good enough for the bulk of $46 million? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Wow! Okay. 23 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the witness, your 24 Honor? 25 THE COURT: You may.
415 1 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to hand you, Judge, what 2 has been marked for identification as Defendant's 3 Exhibit Number 110, and a copy to you, Mr. Minton. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q I'll ask you if you can take a moment to look at 6 Defendant's Exhibit 110. 7 A Yes. I know what it is. 8 Q Have you had a chance to read it? 9 A I have read it before. 10 Q First of all, did you receive this Defendant's 11 Exhibit 110 on or about February 26, 2002? 12 A Yes. I did. 13 Q Did you receive it unsigned, as we see it here? 14 A It was sent as an E-Mail attachment. 15 Q And it was sent as an E-Mail from who, sir? 16 A Well, I got it twice, I believe. Once from 17 Dr. Garko -- well, I think I got it first from Mr. Dandar, 18 and then subsequently from Dr. Garko -- no, no, actually, I 19 got a draft of it from Dr. Garko first, then from 20 Mr. Dandar. 21 Q You see it has "Dandar & Dandar, Attorneys" on it. 22 Is that how you got it from Mr. Dandar? 23 A Yes. This is the form in which it came. 24 MR. FUGATE: I would move this into evidence, 25 your Honor, as Defendant's Exhibit 110 for this
416 1 hearing. 2 MR. DANDAR: I would object. I don't see a 3 signature on this. I would like him to produce the 4 original and mark that, instead -- 5 THE COURT: Well, I mean -- 6 MR. DANDAR: -- because I don't know what this 7 is unless I see my signature on it. So I would 8 object to it. 9 MR. FUGATE: I think he just testified it had 10 no signature on it. 11 THE COURT: It came as an attachment to an 12 E-Mail. 13 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Are you identifying this as what 15 you got? 16 THE WITNESS: It is what I got. 17 MR. DANDAR: Then where is the E-Mail that came 18 with it? 19 THE COURT: Do you have it? 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Do you have it, Mr. Minton? 22 A I gave it to the Church of Scientology. 23 THE COURT: Well, then they have it. Then 24 we'll have the whole thing. 25 MR. FUGATE: Well, Judge, can I proceed with
417 1 questions about this? 2 THE COURT: I don't know. He said he objected 3 to it. I mean, you just can't put in some document 4 if the person who wrote it says I don't know if this 5 is it or not. He doesn't know because it came on 6 E-Mail. 7 MR. FUGATE: So Mr. Dandar is saying he didn't 8 send this to Mr. -- 9 THE COURT: No, he's saying he doesn't know if 10 he sent it or not, unless he can see his signature 11 or the E-Mail. So we need the E-Mail. 12 THE WITNESS: This letter is the letter I 13 referred to as the suck-up letter. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q That you referred to in Paragraph 49 of your 16 affidavit? 17 A Somewhere in my affidavit. I'll check. Yes, that 18 is the one. 19 Q And although it is not admitted, did you receive 20 this in conjunction -- 21 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, how about reading 22 this thing and tell us if this is the letter you 23 sent? 24 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I would love to, but I 25 heard him say Dr. Garko sent him a draft of the
418 1 letter, so I don't know if this is the draft or the 2 one I sent. 3 THE COURT: Well, I sure don't know. You would 4 be the one most able to tell us. 5 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to see if I can find it. 6 THE COURT: You see if you can find it, then 7 we'll -- 8 MR. FUGATE: Could we take a break? 9 THE COURT: Yes, we'll go ahead, it has been a 10 while. We'll take our afternoon break. Let's find 11 out if this is your document. If it is, it needs to 12 come into evidence. 13 But I think the E-Mail that went with it would 14 be of some interest. 15 MR. DANDAR: That would help. 16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, how long will that 17 be? 18 THE COURT: Twenty minutes. 19 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:25 to 3:40 p.m.) 20 _________________________________________ 21 THE COURT: You may be seated and you may 22 continue. 23 What do we know about this letter? 24 MR. FUGATE: Here is what happened as you 25 exited.
419 1 MR. DANDAR: We have no objection to the 2 letter. 3 MR. FUGATE: So we want to make sure we have a 4 complete record here -- 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. FUGATE: -- as you left, Mr. Minton handed 7 to me a copy of a signed letter with a fax legend on 8 it and a copy of, apparently, an E-Mail transmission 9 letter, which I think these are both the originals. 10 I'm going to ask him to identify those, then 11 I'll ask these be marked. I have made copies and 12 given them to Mr. Dandar. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Did you just give the letter with Mr. Dandar's 15 signature on it and the fax legend on top, and the one 16 without a signature, the E-Mail path on it, to me just 17 before the break? 18 A Yes. I did. 19 Q And did these -- where did they come from? 20 A Well, when I went back to New Hampshire recently, 21 I don't even remember when I went back there, but the fax 22 copy was up there. The printout that I had done was when I 23 was down here before, which was the E-Mail that came to me, 24 which was unsigned. But Mr. Dandar had sent a fax. So one 25 is the E-Mail printout, and one is the fax letter that
420 1 Mr. Dandar's signature is on. 2 MR. FUGATE: Just for the sake of the record, 3 Judge, I would like to maybe make these a composite 4 of all three letters, the one I handed up that 5 didn't have a signature, the one with the E-Mail 6 path, and the one that was a fax, so we can identify 7 what we're talking about, because I didn't have the 8 other two. 9 MR. DANDAR: Well, I didn't have the other two. 10 THE COURT: You didn't have the E-Mail he said 11 you did? Was he mistaken about that? 12 MR. FUGATE: Well, I didn't have it. 13 THE COURT: Had you given the Church of 14 Scientology that E-Mail? 15 THE WITNESS: Mmm, not this one, but the same 16 one -- this actually was just a print from a screen, 17 a print screen. 18 THE COURT: But you had provided it to them? 19 THE WITNESS: I did. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. FUGATE: The unsigned one. 22 THE WITNESS: The unsigned one, that is 23 correct. I had not provided the signed one. 24 THE COURT: Okay, but you had provided the 25 E-mail that went with it, and the signed letter that
421 1 accompanied the E-Mail previously? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 3 MR. FUGATE: May I approach the clerk then, 4 your Honor? 5 THE COURT: You may. 6 MR. FUGATE: I think, since these copies didn't 7 turn out, I'm going to ask if we can mark the two 8 originals he gave me as a composite -- 9 THE WITNESS: This one, too. 10 MR. FUGATE: Whoops -- as 110A, B and C. 11 THE COURT: I'm not sure why we need two 12 different letters, one signed and one not. 13 MR. FUGATE: I just want, for completion, to 14 make the record clear on it, so there is no 15 confusion. 16 THE COURT: Well, you had the E-Mail. You just 17 didn't have his -- whatever it was -- the screen 18 copy was. 19 MR. FUGATE: Right. Judge, here is the fax 20 copy, and the E-Mail copy, which are 110, I guess, B 21 and C. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Now you have no 23 objection, correct, Mr. Dandar? 24 MR. DANDAR: That is correct, Judge. 25 THE WITNESS: I got two copies of the fax.
422 1 MR. FUGATE: Okay. Once again, I -- before I 2 leave -- 3 THE WITNESS: I have got that. 4 MR. FUGATE: Okay. Got it? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. FUGATE: Okay. Thank you. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q Now, have we -- 9 MR. FUGATE: Well, we're going to move all 10 three into evidence, your Honor, as Composite 11 Defendant's 110, based on Mr. Dandar's statement. 12 THE COURT: All right. They'll be received. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Can you tell us, sir, what this February 26, 2002 15 "Dear Bob" letter was all about, as far as you understood 16 it? 17 A Well, when Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko were in New 18 Hampshire the weekend of I think the 23rd and the 24th of 19 February, one of the things that I mentioned to them that 20 weekend is that people who, you know, I believed were 21 operating under instructions from Mr. Dandar had been waging 22 a smear campaign on the Internet against me. And this 23 started about the time that John Merrett sent that E-Mail or 24 letter -- I can't remember which one it was -- about the 25 22nd or the 23rd or the 24th of August, 2001, telling
423 1 Mr. Dandar that I would not fund the case any further. And 2 shortly thereafter, this smear campaign started. 3 And it appeared, to me, at the time that this was 4 basically to play on my emotions and involvement in this 5 case to date, to try to pressure me into funding the case 6 more, over and above what I had done up until August of 7 2001. 8 Q After you received this letter on February 26, 9 2002, did you continue to fund the Lisa McPherson wrongful 10 death case? 11 A After some additional conversations with 12 Mr. Dandar, yes. 13 Q What were those conversations? 14 A Mmm, well, specifically, the conversation on the 15 6th of March concerning the so-called secret agreement. 16 Q Now, if you'll look in the second full paragraph 17 of the letter, there is the phrase, "There are no secret 18 agreements between or among you, me or Dell." Do you see 19 that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Now, had there ever been any discussion on the 22 part of anyone on the Church of Scientology litigation side 23 or any knowledge, as far as you knew, of any secret 24 agreement? 25 A Well, agreement they discussed. I mean, you know,
424 1 the thing got called a secret agreement after December of 2 2000, I believe. 3 Q We're going to get back to that. But the point is 4 the Judge just asked you a series of questions about 5 agreements. And you didn't write this letter, obviously, 6 did you, sir? 7 A No, I didn't. 8 Q And the term "secret agreement" was put in there 9 by Mr. Dandar? 10 A Correct. 11 Q And what did that refer to, as far as you 12 understood? 13 A Mmm, it was an attempt to make sure that the 14 integrity of the case remained intact by saying that there 15 was no secret agreement. 16 Q And was there, in fact, sir, a secret agreement, 17 as far as you knew and understood? 18 A Yes, there was. And it was confirmed to me when 19 Mr. Dandar was in New Hampshire, and confirmed to me again 20 by phone on the 6th of March, 2002. 21 Q And do you see the last paragraph there, the 22 second sentence, "There is much to be done, just as you've 23 always done. We know that you will remain steadfast in your 24 support." 25 What did you understand that to mean in the letter
425 1 of the 26th of February, 2002? 2 A You know, put up the money. 3 Q And did you, in fact, put up one last payment? 4 A Yes. I did. 5 Q And do you have that check in front of you there, 6 sir? 7 A Yes. It's Number 93I. 8 Q And is that a UBS bank check? 9 A Yes, it is, dated March 7th. 10 Q You said there was a conversation on March 6th. 11 Can you tell us what that conversation was about the 12 check -- if it was about the check, I should say? 13 A It was -- it was about the money, yes. And it was 14 about the secret agreement. 15 Q Tell us what -- who was in the conversation and 16 what was said. 17 A Just Mr. Dandar and myself. I was standing on my 18 back porch in my house outside the kitchen door. 19 Q Would this be a telephone conversation? 20 A Yes. It was. 21 Q And who was calling? Were you calling? Or was he 22 calling? 23 A Mmm, I think I probably called him. 24 Q All right. And what was the substance of the 25 conversation, as best you recall today?
426 1 A But I'm not sure who called who. 2 Q Okay. 3 A Okay? I might have been calling him about the 4 secret agreement aspect. He might have been calling me 5 about the money. So I just don't remember who called. 6 But the substance of the conversation was, you 7 know, "Are you going to come through for the case? You 8 know, we need this to get to trial. You know, you've always 9 come through for us before. You've got to do it this time, 10 too. You know, the case is strong. We're at the home 11 stretch. You know, do the right thing and give me the 12 money." 13 I mean, that was the money side of it. 14 Q What was the secret agreement side of it? 15 A Mmm, the secret agreement side of it was that 16 Mr. Dandar said that, you know -- I told him, you know, "I'm 17 still feeling uncomfortable, you know. I would like to have 18 this secret agreement in writing." 19 And he said, you know, "You know I can't do that. 20 That will destroy the case if anybody ever finds out about 21 it." 22 And, you know, this is when he said, you know, "I 23 assure you that the agreement is still in place, you know, 24 that I want to --" and he referred back to a conversation of 25 a few days earlier, I think it was, where he said, "Look,
427 1 you know, Bob, I want to be your lawyer for life, you know. 2 Together, we're going to take these guys down." 3 You know, he referred back to that conversation. 4 He said, "You know, how much more of a commitment do you 5 need than to know that I want to be your attorney for the 6 rest of my life?" 7 Q And what "guys" was the reference to, if you know? 8 A Mmm, which guys? I'm sorry. 9 Q You said, "Take these guys down." 10 A Oh, the Church of Scientology. 11 Q And was this part of the conversations about the 12 trust you had with Mr. Dandar that you explained to the 13 Court? 14 A Well, you know, I got -- you know, at this stage I 15 wasn't as trusting as I had been, because when I started 16 this meeting on the 23rd or 24th of February when Dr. Garko 17 and Mr. Dandar came up there, I had spent, with 18 Ms. Brooks -- I was up until 3 o'clock the night before just 19 dictating to Ms. Brooks like seven pages of things that I 20 wanted to, you know, lay out to Mr. Dandar about this lack 21 of trust that existed, that -- you know, that he had used 22 these people to smear me -- at least I thought he used these 23 people to smear me, in order to pressure me into giving more 24 money; that you know he had asked me to sign this affidavit 25 on December 13th, I think, 2000, you know, totally
428 1 renouncing this agreement, you know, while maintaining that 2 the agreement was still in place but from henceforth it 3 would be secret. 4 And, you know, I was -- I was not happy, to say 5 the least, with Mr. Dandar at that time. I was -- you know, 6 and Mr. Dandar and Dr. Garko expressed great surprise and 7 great shock at the fact that I said I didn't trust them, I 8 didn't trust the estate, and I didn't trust Dell Liebreich 9 when we started those meetings on the 23rd and 24th. 10 Q Of February, 2002? 11 A Correct. 12 Q And did you describe or explain what the basis for 13 your not trusting Mr. Dandar or Ms. Liebreich or Mr. Garko? 14 A Yes. I mean, I -- you know, I thought that the 15 estate was -- you know, based on this affidavit that I'd 16 signed, that they were just going to walk away from this, 17 and Mr. Dandar was using this smear campaign on the 18 Internet -- 19 THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir, "They were going to 20 walk away from this," what is "this"? 21 THE WITNESS: The agreement, the secret 22 agreement. 23 THE COURT: I guess I'm just confused. I know 24 there were some references to Mr. -- Mr. Fugate 25 wanted to talk about it in your deposition. This
429 1 was fairly well blasted all over the Internet and 2 fairly well blasted all over your deposition and 3 everything else. Now it's a secret? 4 THE WITNESS: Well, after the December 13, 2000 5 false affidavit I signed, it was secret after that. 6 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I'm jumping ahead, but I'll 7 hand it up to the Court. Mr. Minton asked if he can 8 identify it, but we'll just identify it so you have 9 it for purposes of answering that question, the 10 affidavit that he's making reference to. 11 THE COURT: I understand about the affidavit. 12 But, I mean, I guess I'm having trouble figuring out 13 Mr. Minton's business practices, and now I'm having 14 trouble figuring out his verbiage. 15 You want to talk about a secret agreement that 16 everybody knew about? 17 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, but everybody 18 backtracked on this secret agreement on one stage. 19 THE COURT: But you backtracked. 20 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think I'm the only 21 one who backtracked on it. 22 THE COURT: Well, you may not be. But you 23 backtracked on the agreement. 24 THE WITNESS: I did. I did. 25 THE COURT: Because you backtracked. And who
430 1 else. Ms. Liebreich? 2 THE WITNESS: Ms. Liebreich. 3 THE COURT: Who else? 4 THE WITNESS: Those are the two main ones. 5 Stacy Brooks backtracked on it, as well, I believe. 6 THE COURT: Was she a party to it? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, she knew about it. She was 8 there at the Ruth Chris steak house, so she knew 9 about it in that sense. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Well, whoever it was that 11 knew about it backtracked about it, but everybody 12 knew about it, but in your mind it became a secret 13 because you signed an affidavit stating it didn't 14 exist? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, there is a lot 16 more to it than that, because this -- this secret 17 agreement -- or this agreement that existed was what 18 the Church of Scientology was saying in the middle 19 part of 2001 -- or 2000 -- in the middle part of 20 2000 they started using this as an issue in this 21 case in a major way, that this was -- that this 22 showed that there was an improper purpose to the 23 litigation, that the purpose of this litigation was 24 to fund an anti-Scientology cult -- you know, 25 anti-Scientology, anticult organization, that would
431 1 be used to go after Scientology. 2 And Mr. Dandar -- you know, we both knew it was 3 okay to give money to this case. But this thing is 4 something that really concerned Mr. Dandar. 5 And by the time the case was transferred to 6 Judge Quesada, Judge Quesada seemingly questioned 7 this sweetheart deal and opened all kinds of 8 additional discovery about it. 9 So this was something that Mr. Dandar felt was 10 really compromising the case and, therefore, 11 something had to be done about it. And in December 12 of 2000, something was done about it. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q Well, sir -- 16 THE COURT: I guess all I'm trying to figure 17 out, what you're saying, the agreement was out there 18 in your deposition and out there on the Internet -- 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 THE COURT: -- but once you signed the 21 affidavit and said it didn't exist and that was a 22 lie, then you had to still have the agreement but 23 now it became secret? 24 THE WITNESS: Correct. Mr. Dandar is the one 25 who coined the phrase "secret agreement."
432 1 THE COURT: And after that time, after you 2 denied under oath it even existed, did you have any 3 further conversation with Ms. Liebreich? 4 THE WITNESS: Let's see when that was. Yes. 5 Yes. 6 THE COURT: Did you talk to her about the 7 secret agreement and whether it still existed? 8 THE WITNESS: I never talked to her in terms of 9 secret agreement, just agreement. It wasn't talked 10 about out in the open where anyone would print it in 11 the New York Times or anything. 12 THE COURT: So the conversation you had with 13 Ms. Liebreich about the agreement was after it 14 became a secret agreement? 15 THE WITNESS: Mmm, I'm trying to think. One -- 16 the one was before. One was after. And there may 17 have been another one. But one was before and one 18 was after. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: The organizational meeting of the 21 LMT was before. And the -- well, actually, the 22 other one was still before, too. 23 THE COURT: Let's see the affidavit now, this 24 so-called false affidavit. 25 MR. FUGATE: All right, your Honor. May I
433 1 approach the clerk? 2 THE COURT: Yes. 3 MR. FUGATE: I'm going to hand her the 4 affidavit of Robert Minton which will be 111, and 5 the affidavit of Ms. Liebreich which will be 112, 6 and the affidavit of Kennan G. Dandar. 7 THE CLERK: 113. 8 MR. FUGATE: I'll hand these up to your Honor. 9 I'll try not to mix them up this time. Here is 10 Ms. Liebreich's, here is a copy of Mr. Minton's, and 11 here is a copy of Mr. Dandar's. 12 Madam Clerk, for my housekeeping purposes, 13 Mr. Dandar's is Defendant's 113, is that correct? 14 THE CLERK: Let me check it. 15 MR. FUGATE: And Mr. Minton's is -- 16 THE COURT: Let the clerk tell us. 17 MR. FUGATE: All right. 18 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, this is what you do, 19 you tell us. 20 THE CLERK: Mr. Dandar's is Number 113. 21 MR. FUGATE: Ms. Liebreich's is what number? 22 THE CLERK: Liebreich's is 112. 23 THE COURT: And does that mean Minton's is 114? 24 THE CLERK: 111. 25 THE COURT: 111?
434 1 THE CLERK: Yes. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. FUGATE: Did I give you copies, Mr. Dandar? 4 MR. DANDAR: Not yet. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q All right, sir, directing your attention to the 7 copy of the affidavit that says "Affidavit of Robert 8 Minton," would you look at that, see if you can identify 9 that, sir. 10 A Yes, I can. 11 Q And how do you identify it, sir? 12 A It's got my handwriting on the first two pages and 13 my signature on the third page. And I recognize the 14 signature of the notary public. 15 MR. FUGATE: I move Defendant's 111 into 16 evidence, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Any objection? 18 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 19 THE COURT: How about 112 and 113? 20 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 21 THE COURT: They'll all three be received, and 22 you just go right on. 23 MR. FUGATE: All right. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Now, if you'll look at, sir, the date of your
435 1 affidavit, Defendant's 111, what date did you execute that? 2 A 13th of December, 2000. 3 Q If you look at Ms. Liebreich's affidavit, what 4 date does that bear as the date of execution? 5 A She's 112? 6 Q Yes. 7 A Is that right? 8 THE COURT: Is that -- oh, I thought you said 9 112. I was going to say, is that '01? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 112. 11 THE COURT: I gotcha. 12 A Oh, I see, the 20th of December, 2000. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q And Mr. Dandar's is 113. Do you see the date of 15 that? 16 A 3rd day of December, 2001 is the date it is sworn 17 and subscribed before the notary. 18 Q And prior to December 3rd -- 19 THE COURT: Is that a misprint? 20 MR. WEINBERG: It was done at a different time, 21 your Honor. 22 THE COURT: I know. But there seems to be a 23 big difference -- oh, it was a year later? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. It was for a different -- 25 THE COURT: That is the correct date?
436 1 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. That is the correct date. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. FUGATE: We'll get back to that. 4 BY MR. FUGATE: 5 Q But prior to December of 2000, which is the date 6 of your affidavit and Ms. Liebreich's affidavit -- 7 A Yes? 8 Q -- prior to that -- those two affidavits being 9 executed, you had made no secret about your funding. Is 10 that correct? 11 A No secret about my funding. No. 12 Q Had you gone on radio shows, Internet postings, 13 newspaper interviews? 14 A Yes. I did. 15 Q And after December of 2000, did you -- did you 16 continue to talk about your agreement, or did you stop 17 talking about it then? 18 A Well, I think you should clarify here, because you 19 asked me if I talked about my funding agreement -- 20 Q Right. 21 A -- first. This is concerning another agreement, 22 this affidavit, isn't it? 23 Q Your affidavit of -- let's go to your affidavit, 24 111. This is the affidavit about -- well, would you read it 25 to yourself, and I'll ask you some questions about it.
437 1 A Yeah. 2 Q Generally, have you had a chance to read through 3 it? 4 A Yes, I have. 5 Q Is that the agreement Mr. Dandar had provided you 6 and asked you to sign in December of 2000? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q And can you tell the Judge what your understanding 9 of why this affidavit was provided to you to execute? 10 A Well, to stop Scientology with regard to this 11 whole issue of the improper purpose of the litigation. You 12 know, Mr. Dandar considered this a serious threat, you know, 13 from the time sometime in mid-2000 when he said, "You have 14 to backtrack on this." 15 Q When he said, "You have to backtrack," what did 16 you understand him to mean? 17 A Mmm, well, at the time, I -- I thought it was just 18 not talking about it. 19 Q Talking about what? 20 A The -- the agreement concerning the bulk of the 21 proceeds to be given to the LMT upon the successful 22 conclusion of the case. 23 Q And was that your understanding of why you needed 24 to execute the affidavit then in December of 2000? 25 A Definitely that was the reason.
438 1 Q Now -- 2 A The reason, just to state it, so there is no 3 ambiguity here, the reason was to shut down this whole issue 4 of improper purpose of the litigation. 5 Q And what did you understand from Mr. Dandar to be 6 the improper purpose that was trying to be shut down? 7 A Mmm, the fact that there was some business deal 8 between me and the estate that was going to be used to fund 9 an anti-Scientology organization for a long time. 10 Q And, particularly, that organization at that point 11 in history was what, sir? 12 A The Lisa McPherson Trust. 13 Q And so the reference in Defendant's Exhibit 110 to 14 "There is no secret agreement," what did you understand 15 that, again, to be? 16 A Again, to protect the integrity of the case, that 17 there wasn't any secret agreement. 18 MR. FUGATE: All right, Judge, if I may, I 19 think those are the affidavits. I'm going back and 20 go in sequence with where I was. 21 THE COURT: Is that all you plan to do with 22 this affidavit? 23 MR. FUGATE: No. 24 MR. DANDAR: I move to strike the word "secret 25 agreement." "Secret agreement" does not appear in
439 1 this affidavit. 2 THE COURT: He's talking about 110, which is 3 the letter you wrote that says "secret agreement," 4 am I correct? 5 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 6 MR. DANDAR: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 7 BY MR. FUGATE: 8 Q The term "secret agreement" in that letter, the 9 letter was drafted by Mr. Dandar -- 10 THE COURT: All you need to care about is me, 11 that I understand it. I did. The fact Mr. Dandar 12 didn't, I do. 13 MR. FUGATE: Okay. Thank you, Judge. 14 BY MR. FUGATE: 15 Q Now, sir, if you'll just keep those exhibits up 16 there with you -- 17 A Yes, sir, I have got them. 18 Q -- and I want to come back. I'll ask you, if you 19 go back to your affidavit to Paragraph 11 -- 20 THE COURT: And you say you are going to come 21 back to this? 22 MR. FUGATE: Yes, Judge. You asked about it, I 23 wanted to get it in -- 24 THE COURT: Because I have more questions about 25 this agreement.
440 1 MR. FUGATE: Well, no, I will come back to it. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 BY MR. FUGATE: 4 Q In 1998, what moneys -- or what witnesses, out of 5 the moneys that you had provided to Mr. Dandar, had been 6 used to fund witnesses that were being utilized in the 7 wrongful death case? Do you know what witnesses? 8 A I didn't follow that question. 9 Q It probably -- 10 A It was too long. 11 Q You indicated that you had funded approximately 12 $400,000 through 1998 in the case, correct, in the wrongful 13 death case? 14 A Yes. Do you remember yesterday I said I 15 thought -- or I think it was yesterday, that -- 16 Q Well, it would have been last Friday? 17 A -- that I thought it was $500,000. 18 Q That the $400,000 is off by what? 19 A $100,000. 20 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what are you looking at 21 here? 22 MR. FUGATE: Paragraph 11, Judge. 23 BY MR. FUGATE: 24 Q Where you say $400,000, are you saying that is in 25 error?
441 1 A I believe it is, yes. 2 Q And the correct figure should be? 3 A 500. 4 Q And since this is in your affidavit, I should ask 5 you, how is it that you come to change that from 400 to 500? 6 A Because of that check that was written on that 7 trust account where the account was closed and the bank 8 didn't produce that in the -- in the request for -- you 9 know, when the discovery of Fleet Boston and Fidelity were 10 done. 11 Q You testified to that this morning? 12 A Yes. Fleet didn't produce the check. 13 Q I confess I'm getting tired. But you said you 14 were going to get that, you thought you would still be able 15 to produce that check at some point? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Or a copy of that check? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 THE COURT: We're on Paragraph 11? 20 MR. FUGATE: Yes, Judge. 21 THE COURT: All right. Do I understand you 22 correctly here, that you are saying, "as a result of 23 this agreement to pay the proceeds of the judgment 24 to an entity I control --" 25 (A discussion was held off the record.)
442 1 THE COURT: "As a result of this agreement to 2 pay the proceeds of the judgment to an entity I 3 control and the case turned into a broad attack on 4 Scientology, I continue to provide funds." 5 I guess I'm a little confused. Maybe we're all 6 wrong to sustain an objection about an investment -- 7 I guess I need to know, if you had this deal, is 8 this what it was, you were going to get all this 9 money? 10 THE WITNESS: Not me personally, but -- but an 11 organization that I controlled. 12 THE COURT: It was an entity you controlled, 13 you could shut down as fast as you shut down LMT, 14 and take the money out as fast as you took the money 15 out of LMT. I suspect, if you got the money, you 16 would put it in your pocket. 17 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. The intention 18 was always it was going to be nonprofit. 19 THE COURT: Who was that discussed with? 20 THE WITNESS: Mr. Dandar. 21 THE COURT: Well, did you have that discussion 22 with the person you needed to have it with, which 23 was Ms. Liebreich? 24 THE WITNESS: Well, no, I never discussed that 25 with Dell Liebreich.
443 1 THE COURT: LMT sure wasn't a nonprofit. 2 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, when we set up 3 the corporation, it was set up as a for-profit 4 corporation. And at the time Mr. Dandar said, when 5 we -- when we need to disburse the proceeds, we can 6 reincorporate this as a nonprofit. 7 THE COURT: You chose this word, sir. I did 8 not. "As a result of this agreement to pay the 9 proceeds of the judgment to an entity I control." 10 I assume by that you wanted the control over 11 the money. Was this a business deal for you, 12 Mr. Minton? 13 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, it -- it was a 14 business deal, yes, but -- 15 THE COURT: Was the money -- were you trying to 16 get a hold of this money? 17 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. Other than in 18 the sense that a nonprofit entity that would be 19 going after Scientology would have enough money to 20 really go after Scientology for -- for, you know, a 21 considerable and sustained attack. This was not an 22 attempt to personally enrich myself. 23 THE COURT: It was not? 24 THE WITNESS: It was not. 25 THE COURT: Well, he calls it an investment.
444 1 Was it an investment? 2 THE WITNESS: Well, in a sense it's an 3 investment in fighting Scientology. 4 THE COURT: This wasn't an investment where you 5 pay 2 million and you get back -- 6 THE WITNESS: 50? 7 THE COURT: -- 50 million? 8 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: That wouldn't be very admirable, 10 would it? 11 THE WITNESS: No way. 12 THE COURT: So that wasn't what it was? 13 THE WITNESS: Well. It never was that. So 14 whether -- you know, whether it would be admirable 15 or not, it was never that. 16 THE COURT: I'm very confused because LMT got 17 money into it, did it not, that it turned right 18 around and stuck in your pocket? 19 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 20 THE COURT: There is $300,000 from a man in 21 Holland that came through LMT, right? 22 THE WITNESS: Sweden, I believe. 23 THE COURT: Sweden. I'm sorry. And the money 24 doesn't show up as income anywhere. So, I take it, 25 it went straight to you?
445 1 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 2 THE COURT: There was a $500,000 check over 3 there you said came from some anonymous source. Is 4 that correct? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, at the time I said it -- in 6 my deposition I said it was from an anonymous 7 source, it wasn't. 8 THE COURT: It was from you, right? 9 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor. And 10 the truth is that the money came from me. 11 THE COURT: Right. And that went into your 12 pocket. Why did you do that, by the way, send that 13 money there from some foreign bank to put in your 14 pocket? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, the whole issue of getting 16 money from other sources besides me into the LMT was 17 to try to get Scientology off on a wild goose chase, 18 basically thinking that it's either the German 19 government or the French government who were 20 supporting us. 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q Who is "us"? 23 A The LMT. 24 Q All right. 25 THE COURT: Well, let me see if I got this now.
446 1 You got a $300,000 check from some man in 2 Holland -- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, and -- 4 THE COURT: -- that you put in your pocket. 5 THE WITNESS: And that money also came from me, 6 your Honor. 7 THE COURT: That came from you, too? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, it did. 9 THE COURT: So there is $800,000 that you 10 didn't tell the truth about in your deposition and 11 you haven't recanted in your affidavit, is that 12 right? A $300,000 check -- 13 THE WITNESS: And a $500,000 check. 14 THE COURT: Is that right? 15 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: So those are lies you haven't 17 bothered to tell anybody about until now, at least 18 not me. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Howie brought this up 20 that this was an issue and that we would address it 21 here. 22 THE COURT: All right. Now, if it was that 23 easy to take that money and stick it in your pocket, 24 what was to prohibit you from taking this 25 $46 million that you hoped to receive as a reward
447 1 and sticking it right in your pocket? 2 THE WITNESS: Well, I wouldn't have done it. 3 THE COURT: Oh, I see. We're just to believe 4 you. Is that it? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I'm 6 here -- 7 THE COURT: Well, it's not in writing, is it, 8 Mr. Minton? You are asking me to believe that you 9 were going to get money into an entity that you 10 controlled and that money was not going to you, 11 aren't you? That is what you're asking me to take 12 you on good faith, right? 13 THE WITNESS: I'm asking you to do that, your 14 Honor. 15 MR. FUGATE: May I ask a question, your Honor? 16 Or -- 17 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q The incorporation of LMT was done by who, sir? 20 A Mr. Dandar. 21 Q Was there a decision as to whether LMT would be 22 for profit or not for profit when it was originally 23 incorporated? 24 A Yes, there was. 25 Q And what was the decision?
448 1 A To make it a for-profit. 2 Q And why was it decided to be a for-profit 3 corporation at its inception? 4 A So that the Church of Scientology couldn't find 5 out, through the annual reporting requirements of a 6 nonprofit, who was giving money to it. 7 Q And who participated in that decision as to how to 8 incorporate LMT? 9 A Ken Dandar, Stacy Brooks, myself, and there might 10 have been somebody else there in his office at the time this 11 was discussed but I don't remember. 12 Q And the purpose was for -- just as you described 13 it just then in your testimony? 14 A Yes, it was. 15 Q Was there any other discussion about how the 16 status of LMT would change when there was going to be a 17 conclusion in the Lisa McPherson case, whether it be 18 settlement or some sort of a verdict award? 19 A Yes, that it would be converted into a nonprofit, 20 which is a fairly simple procedure, according -- 21 Q Who -- I didn't mean to interrupt you. 22 A -- according to the information Mr. Dandar gave 23 me. 24 Q My question was who did you have that discussion 25 with and, if you can tell us, when?
449 1 A At the same time it was being incorporated, with 2 Mr. Dandar and Stacy Brooks. 3 Q And in that conversation was there any -- well, 4 what was the conversation about in terms of why it needed to 5 change from for profit to not for profit? 6 A Because the estate wasn't going to pay the money 7 into a for-profit corporation and not get the tax deduction 8 that would go to it if it was a nonprofit. 9 Q And whose decision was that, as far as you 10 understood? 11 A Mmm, well, it seemed a decision Mr. Dandar seemed 12 very comfortable with. 13 THE COURT: You are telling me, sir, all these 14 decisions are about a corporation you controlled to 15 the point where you could take the money, put it in, 16 take it out, put it in your pocket, and Mr. Dandar 17 was making these decisions? Come on, Mr. Minton. 18 THE WITNESS: That wasn't the question, your 19 Honor. 20 The question was who was going to make the 21 decision as to where the estate would put it, 22 whether into a profit or nonprofit. And it was 23 Mr. Dandar who communicated to me the estate would 24 put it in a nonprofit. 25
450 1 BY MR. FUGATE: 2 Q Did you have discussions with Mr. Dandar about any 3 purpose or rationale for you wanting it to be not for profit 4 once the conversion to settlement proceeds took place? 5 A I'm sorry, could you ask that again? 6 Q Yes. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Dandar 7 about your wishes for conversion to not for profit once the 8 settlement -- or, I guess, at or about the time the 9 settlement or verdict was going to be placed in LMT? 10 A Well, that that would be the right thing to do. 11 Q Okay. And can you explain to the Judge what your 12 thoughts were there at that juncture? 13 A Well, it was obvious that the estate wasn't going 14 to pay it without getting a deduction for it. And they 15 wouldn't get a deduction if they paid it into a for-profit 16 corporation. 17 Q And if it was a not-for-profit corporation under 18 your control, would you still be able to, in your judgment, 19 get benefit from that not-for-profit corporation? 20 A Yes, the benefit to the extent of it would further 21 my goals of attacking Scientology. 22 Q And up to -- well, as a not-for-profit 23 corporation, the moneys that went into LMT came from who, 24 sir? 25 THE COURT: Well, there is -- does the estate
451 1 pay tax on -- are we kidding each other here? You 2 don't pay taxes on a lawsuit judgment. 3 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have to say I don't know 4 the answer to that. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I am involved 6 in a lawsuit which has just had $8.7 million paid 7 into it. And there are substantial tax issues for 8 the person who won the judgment. 9 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 10 BY MR. FUGATE: 11 Q That would be the Wollersheim case? 12 A That would be the Wollersheim case. 13 Q And in that case, the money was paid into the 14 registry of the court, or into the court itself? 15 A I think the term that was used was interpleaded 16 into the court or something. But, yes, there was money 17 deposited in the court for 8.7 million. 18 Q Are there creditor lists, as far as you know, as 19 to who-all has first dibs on that money? 20 A Yes, there are at least 9 or 10 creditors who will 21 have to fight about who gets what part of the money. 22 Q Just so -- 23 THE COURT: I don't really much care about 24 that. 25 But I do care about this. I mean, I'm kind of
452 1 interested how Ms. Liebreich would know and 2 Mr. Dandar would know some fairly complicated 3 matter, that they would need a nonprofit -- I'm only 4 assuming the only benefit would be some charitable 5 deduction, so the only reason for a charitable 6 deduction into a nonprofit, I would assume, is if 7 the estate is to be taxed on the proceeds from the 8 lawsuit. I don't know if they are or not, to tell 9 you the truth. I never did estate work in the IRS. 10 MR. FUGATE: Neither did I, Judge. 11 BY MR. FUGATE: 12 Q So let me ask you, did you have some discussion 13 with Mr. Dandar as to why this conversion from for profit to 14 not for profit was being discussed? 15 A Well, Mr. Dandar said that there would be tax 16 liabilities to the estate. 17 Q Did you ever on your own go and research that? Or 18 did you take his word for it? 19 A I took his word for it. 20 Q As far as you were concerned -- you, Robert 21 Minton -- did you have any problems with converting it from 22 for profit to not for profit when and if there was an award? 23 A No, I didn't have any problems with it. That was 24 my intention. 25 Q And as far as the money that you had personally
453 1 put into the litigation, was that to come back to you before 2 moneys went into the not for profit -- 3 THE COURT: That has been covered a lot of 4 times. 5 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. 7 THE COURT: I said I think that has been 8 covered a lot of time. The money was to -- first 9 the contingency fee was to be paid. He was to be 10 paid back what he loaned. Then he was to get the 11 bulk of, vast amount of, or substantial amount of 12 whatever was left over after, I assume, the estate 13 got something. What, of course, we don't know. But 14 something. Whatever, I guess, satisfied them. 15 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't 16 hear, the contingency fee, then the loan? 17 THE COURT: Then the loan. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for your 20 edification, I'm not a tax expert but, for example, 21 if there was a punitive damage award, I believe that 22 is taxable, you know. So if somebody gets a big 23 award like that, and receives the money, I believe 24 you have to pay tax on it, so -- and not every 25 aspect of a judgment, even compensatory, would be
454 1 free of taxes, is my understanding. 2 THE COURT: Well, then the estate would have to 3 pay taxes on it, no matter what they did. So I 4 assume that -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 6 THE COURT: But if you get the money and you 7 have to pay taxes on it, then you have to pay taxes 8 on it. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Hypothetically -- 10 hypothetically, if the estate were able to make a 11 donation to a charitable organization, they would 12 get a tax deduction that would -- that would reduce 13 the amount of taxes they would otherwise have to 14 pay. And that is -- that is the hypothetical. 15 THE COURT: I won't take it you are an expert. 16 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not an expert. 17 THE COURT: It matters, I suppose, what 18 Mr. Minton thought. The long and short of it, what 19 we all know, however, is until that thing became a 20 nonprofit or whatever it became, if he controlled 21 it, he could take the money and stick it right in 22 his pocket. And he's asking me, as he just said, to 23 take his word for it that he won't do that. 24 BY MR. FUGATE: 25 Q Is that accurate?
455 1 THE COURT: Well, he said that. 2 A Well, not only is it accurate, the estate wouldn't 3 have paid it to be a for-profit corporation based on what 4 Mr. Dandar said; namely, that, you know, they needed -- in 5 order to deal with their tax matters, they would have to 6 donate it to a nonprofit. 7 THE COURT: And, of course, this is not 8 something you discussed with the person that you had 9 the agreement with. You just -- this was the 10 discussion between you and Mr. Dandar? 11 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 12 THE COURT: Ms. Liebreich, you don't think, 13 would quite have understood all this? Or you think 14 she would have? 15 THE WITNESS: I believe that was up to 16 Mr. Dandar to deal with Ms. Liebreich on this. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q You had no discussions with her about these 20 intricacies we just talked about? 21 A No. 22 Q Now, my question was on Paragraph 11 there is an 23 indication about the money to date -- we corrected the 24 amount -- was to be used for witnesses in the wrongful death 25 case.
456 1 And my question is in 1998 do you have a 2 recollection of what witnesses that would have encompassed? 3 A Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, and Vaughn Young 4 through Stacy Brooks. 5 Q Do you -- 6 A And -- 7 Q -- know a Margery Wakefield? 8 A Yes, Margery Wakefield. I'm not sure I had given 9 Margery Wakefield any money at that time. There was a time, 10 but I don't believe it was in '98. 11 Q Do you recall when you gave Margery Wakefield 12 money? 13 A I believe it was in the year 2000. 14 Q Were you -- 15 A Or late 1999. 16 Q Were you aware that Margery Wakefield is listed as 17 a witness in the wrongful death case? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Were you aware that Stacy Brooks had been listed 20 as a witness in the wrongful death case? 21 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Move to strike. It's 22 not in the record anywhere. 23 THE COURT: Well, I guess the question is what 24 he thought. I don't know if she was or wasn't. 25 Wasn't she a consultant?
457 1 MR. FUGATE: She was -- 2 MR. MOXON: She was identified as a witness, in 3 his interrogatories, absolutely. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 BY MR. FUGATE: 6 Q And Gerry Armstrong, were you aware Gerry 7 Armstrong -- 8 THE COURT: Do you know, the truth of the 9 matter is you asked him a question. You had two. 10 Now you asked him about a third one that he 11 apparently doesn't remember until you tell him, and 12 another one. 13 I don't know what is happening here. He's 14 talking about Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince. Are these 15 other people listed witnesses? 16 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. FUGATE: 19 Q Mr. Armstrong -- were you aware Mr. Dandar used 20 Mr. Armstrong as a witness in the wrongful death case? 21 A Yes. 22 THE WITNESS: The reason I'm hesitating here, 23 your Honor, is because he's talking about through 24 1998. 25 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
458 1 THE WITNESS: These other people he's talking 2 about are after 1998, I believe. I don't know 3 whether I had given Gerry Armstrong -- by the end of 4 1998. I know it was after that, for sure. But -- 5 MR. FUGATE: Judge, really, for the sake of 6 Defendant's Exhibit old 81, which has the LMT folks, 7 I'm just going to try to identify folks and I'm 8 going to ask questions about that, if I might. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Margery Wakefield, was she also on the LMT 11 advisory board, advisory committee? 12 A Yes, she was. 13 Q Is that the same Margery Wakefield that you 14 provided funding to? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And is that the -- 17 THE COURT: Have you ever seen her listed on 18 anything that said she was a witness in this case? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: All right. What is it? Because I 21 don't know that I ever have and never heard of the 22 lady. 23 THE WITNESS: I have seen witnesses -- 24 MR. MOXON: Judge -- 25 THE COURT: No, I want to know what he has
459 1 seen. 2 THE WITNESS: I have seen witness lists. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar's witness lists? 4 THE WITNESS: Both. 5 THE COURT: Both sides' witness lists? 6 THE WITNESS: The reason I had seen them is 7 because there was always this big issue about 8 Scientology added a lot of people from the LMT onto 9 their witness list, and that is how, you know, some 10 of these depositions came about, and that is how I 11 saw the witness list, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 BY MR. FUGATE: 14 Q Well, let's ask you -- 15 THE COURT: Well, I have never seen it, because 16 I have never seen these witness lists. I am taking, 17 I guess, his word that he has seen a list, there 18 must be a witness list that shows these people are 19 witnesses. These are not fact witnesses, I assume. 20 They are either -- well -- 21 MR. FUGATE: Well -- 22 THE COURT: -- they couldn't be fact witnesses 23 unless these people were there. Were these people 24 there? 25 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I think Mr. Armstrong was
460 1 listed as a fact witness. 2 THE COURT: Well, was he there at the Church of 3 Scientology when Lisa McPherson died? 4 MR. FUGATE: No, your Honor, he was not. 5 THE COURT: Then he can't be a fact witness, 6 can he? 7 MR. FUGATE: You are asking the wrong person. 8 He's listed on the plaintiff's witness list as a 9 fact witness, as I understood. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Let me see. 11 MR. DANDAR: I ask the Court to look for Stacy 12 Brooks' name on the witness list that is being 13 handed to you. 14 THE COURT: All these people say "video." I 15 don't even know what that means. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, what happened was 17 Mr. Dandar, for example, with Gerry Armstrong, took 18 his deposition and took a video. 19 THE COURT: That means by video? 20 MR. WEINBERG: He was going to do it by video. 21 THE COURT: Oh, I got you. Okay. Thank you. 22 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I would just let you 23 know I have never seen this witness list because 24 this is dated April 24, 2002. 25 THE COURT: Okay.
461 1 THE WITNESS: But, you know, I have seen other 2 witness lists, and the -- a witness list at some 3 point was even posted on the Internet. 4 MR. DANDAR: This is April of 2000. 5 MR. FUGATE: This is the latest list. 6 THE COURT: This is the 17th day of April, 2000 7 is the one I have got. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, maybe I should put -- 9 this says 2002. Oh, no, no, sorry. I looked at the 10 wrong page. 11 It says: "Hereby certified, true and correct 12 copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. 13 mail this 24th day of April, 2002." I'm sorry, I 14 looked at the wrong -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I think there is more than one 16 witness list. 17 MR. FUGATE: Judge, let me make sure what we 18 have got here. This should be a composite of all of 19 the lists. I'm sorry. 20 THE COURT: No, I want to see the one he saw. 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, can I pass it over to 22 you? 23 THE COURT: Sure. 24 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what I have even got 25 here. But the date -- I looked at the back to see
462 1 for a date. It says 2002. 2 THE COURT: You didn't see this one, obviously. 3 THE WITNESS: No, that is -- 4 THE COURT: That is what he was saying. He 5 didn't see this one. 6 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry, Judge. Now I'm not 7 sure what "this one" is. 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, April 24, 2002. 9 MR. FUGATE: That is the current one, I think, 10 Judge, of the plaintiff. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 MR. FUGATE: The one he saw, just so I know for 13 the record so I can ask questions about -- 14 THE COURT: Well, you can ask the questions 15 about whatever he saw. Apparently, there is some 16 issue as to whether or not Stacy Brooks was listed 17 on a witness list. 18 MR. MOXON: The issue wasn't whether she was on 19 the witness list. Mr. Dandar gave us interrogatory 20 responses saying she was going to testify. He 21 didn't put her on his witness list, per se. 22 THE COURT: He said the money was used, in 23 part, to pay witnesses to be used in the wrongful 24 death litigation. 25 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar told us in writing she's
463 1 going to be his witness. Okay. 2 THE COURT: Did he see those interrogatories? 3 MR. MOXON: I don't know. 4 THE COURT: Did you ever see any 5 interrogatories -- 6 MR. MOXON: We did supply witness lists of -- 7 the defendant's witness list that was attached to 8 his subpoena when he was -- when he was doing the 9 search through LMT records for all of the witnesses. 10 And Ms. Brooks was identified even as a witness 11 on our list, because we were going to use her in the 12 defense. 13 THE COURT: Did you ever see any 14 interrogatories? 15 THE WITNESS: Not about witnesses. I have seen 16 interrogatories, but not about witnesses. 17 THE COURT: Did you -- you said you saw a 18 witness list with Ms. Brooks' name on it. And I'm 19 saying somebody get it up here so I can see it. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I may 21 have said that, but I don't know for sure I said 22 that. I said, you know, I knew she was going to be 23 a witness. I don't think -- you know, I have seen 24 witness lists in this case. You know -- 25 THE COURT: She was a witness, but something
464 1 other than a testifying witness? She was a 2 consultant, was she, then? 3 THE WITNESS: Well, I know she was a 4 consultant. But my impression was she was going to 5 be a testifying witness, as well. 6 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, may I clarify this 7 witness issue? 8 THE COURT: You really can't because it is 9 something he needs to do. 10 MR. MOXON: Okay. 11 MR. FUGATE: Judge, may I approach and just see 12 which one he's talking about -- 13 THE COURT: Right. 14 MR. FUGATE: -- so we're all on the same page? 15 THE WITNESS: This (indicating). I'm sorry. 16 MR. FUGATE: 17th day of April? 17 THE COURT: I mean, I know Ms. Brooks was a 18 consultant to -- I mean, I know that without any 19 question, I mean, I think it is agreed to by 20 everybody, I know Mr. -- I know -- 21 THE WITNESS: That was the last page -- 22 THE COURT: Pardon me while he chatters on 23 while I am trying to -- 24 MR. FUGATE: Let's let the Judge -- 25 THE COURT: I guess it doesn't matter.
465 1 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 2 THE COURT: I know that we all are in accord 3 Ms. Brooks was a consultant. 4 I also know that Mr. Prince was both a 5 consultant, and at one time, at the very least, he 6 was on the witness list as -- either on a witness 7 list, or certainly was to be called as an expert 8 witness on the Church practices, for lack of better 9 word, by -- he would be called by the plaintiff. 10 I know he was later withdrawn as a witness, 11 then he was back on and off. And now I don't know 12 whether he's on or off. 13 But these other people that now I'm being told 14 about, like Gerald Armstrong, and Kurt Persson and 15 Mike Pattinson. I really haven't heard about them 16 so I don't know what they are. 17 MR. FUGATE: Judge, what I was doing is not -- 18 I apologize, I ask to approach -- was asking him to 19 show me which witness list he recognized. And I was 20 going to ask him about the folks in highlighting on 21 those. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I mean, what 23 happened in this period of time was, for whatever 24 reason, whether you call them fact witnesses or 25 expert witnesses, Mr. Dandar subpoenaed and took the
466 1 depositions of several people and asked them about 2 their experiences in Scientology. This is beyond 3 Jesse Prince or Stacy Brooks or Vaughn Young. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. WEINBERG: One of them was Gerry Armstrong. 6 He brought him here. Mr. Dandar spent a day, we 7 spent a day cross-examining him. It was all about 8 their experiences in Scientology, and supposedly it 9 had something to do with all these allegations in 10 the complaint. 11 So when you say no, they weren't fact witnesses 12 of what happened in '95, in Mr. Dandar's mind, I 13 think he thought they were witnesses that had to do 14 with these other accusations in the complaint about 15 the make-up of Scientology. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. WEINBERG: That is what these people like 18 Margery Wakefield, Gerry Armstrong and some of these 19 other folks that I think Mr. Fugate was going to ask 20 Mr. Minton about -- 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MR. FUGATE: The way we got to the list is I 23 think you asked, was there a list. And I was trying 24 to hand up the ones I have. 25 I think, for the record, he identified the 17th
467 1 of April, 2000 list, is that correct? 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I haven't 4 identified anything. 5 MR. FUGATE: Oh, okay. Sorry. 6 THE WITNESS: What I'm trying to do here is to 7 say, first of all, if I can get rid of this one 8 dated the 24th day of April, 2002 -- 9 MR. FUGATE: May I approach, your Honor? 10 THE WITNESS: -- I have never seen that. 11 THE COURT: You may. 12 MR. FUGATE: Let's take that one out. 13 THE WITNESS: This other one that says 14 "Plaintiff's Notice of Removal from Witness List," I 15 haven't seen that, either. 16 MR. FUGATE: All right, let's take that away. 17 THE WITNESS: All right. "Notice of Filing 18 Supplemental Witness List," I don't think I have 19 ever seen that. 20 MR. FUGATE: That is dated June 8 of 2000. 21 THE COURT: I'll throw these two out. 22 MR. FUGATE: Fine. 23 THE COURT: Pitch them. 24 MR. FUGATE: Here, if I can hand these to you 25 to throw out, as well.
468 1 THE COURT: All right, I'll throw them all out. 2 Here is another one dated the 24th of April, 2002. 3 MR. FUGATE: That is a throw-out? 4 THE WITNESS: That is a throw-out. 5 THE COURT: All right, so I'm left up here with 6 one witness list that seems to be dated the 17th of 7 April, 2000. That is all I have left. 8 MR. DANDAR: That is the one. That is it. 9 THE WITNESS: That is all I have left, too, 10 your Honor. 11 THE COURT: That is the one you have seen, by 12 process of elimination? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 THE COURT: The other ones are the ones you 15 didn't see? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. Just to be clear, I saw 17 this in conjunction with the Church of Scientology's 18 witness list. But, yes. 19 BY MR. FUGATE: 20 Q Well, so we're complete on the record, at some 21 points in time did you get subpoenas to go through LMT 22 records to identify whether you had documents relating to 23 witnesses in the case? 24 A Yes. And that would include both plaintiff's 25 witnesses and defendant's witnesses.
469 1 Q And so you would have seen defendant's witness 2 lists, plaintiff's witness lists, for the purpose of 3 identifying and complying with the subpoenas, is that 4 correct, to the LMT? 5 A That is right. 6 Q Now, Number 10, we see Gerald Armstrong on the 7 plaintiff's witness list. Is that the same Gerald Armstrong 8 that is on the advisory board of LMT? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q The same Gerald Armstrong that you provided 11 funding to? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And, to your knowledge, he was, in fact, used as a 14 witness, whatever it be -- 15 A Whatever form. Yes. 16 Q Michael Pattinson, Number 27, did you know 17 Mr. Pattinson? 18 A I have never met him. I have talked with him. 19 Q Did you provide any funding to him? 20 A Not that I know of. 21 Q Kurt Persson -- or Persson? 22 A I'm not sure who he is. 23 Q All right. Well, that saves that. 24 31, Jesse Prince? 25 A Yes.
470 1 Q And he's on the staff of LMT? 2 A He was. Yes. 3 Q And he also is somebody you funded for a number of 4 years? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q And he is also, to your knowledge -- 7 THE COURT: We heard all about Mr. Prince. 8 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 9 BY MR. FUGATE: 10 Q Robert Young -- 11 A Yes, as I testified -- 12 THE COURT: Was he on the staff of LMT? 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 MR. FUGATE: I don't know. 15 THE WITNESS: No, he wasn't, your Honor. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q Number 33? 18 THE COURT: Whoa. Did you pay him, while he 19 was working on this case, from LMT funds? 20 THE WITNESS: No. These were my personal funds 21 through Ms. Brooks, as I said. 22 THE COURT: During what period of time? 23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, starting in 1997 sometime. 24 THE COURT: Well, you gave money to Ms. Brooks 25 and she shared it with her husband? Is that how it
471 1 worked? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. She's the one who dealt 3 with the finances. 4 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you are trying to 5 say here. Are you trying to say that the money that 6 you gave to Ms. Brooks that she shared with her 7 husband is somehow or another -- 8 MR. FUGATE: I'm just asking about witnesses he 9 knows that he provided funding to, and if they also 10 are on the LMT, which Mr. Young does not -- is not, 11 as I understood his answer. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 14 THE COURT: So Mr. Young is not one of the ones 15 we are talking about. Okay. 16 BY MR. FUGATE: 17 Q Number 34, Margery Wakefield, I think you just 18 testified about her a moment ago. 19 A Yes. That is correct. 20 Q And she is -- or was on the advisory committee of 21 the LMT? 22 A That is right. 23 THE COURT: And so you paid her as a member of 24 LMT? 25 THE WITNESS: Not as a member of LMT.
472 1 THE COURT: I'm sorry, as an employee or 2 whatever she was? Or -- 3 THE WITNESS: Just helped her out financially. 4 THE COURT: I just never heard of this woman. 5 I have no clue who she is. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Who is Margery Wakefield, to your knowledge? 8 A Margery Wakefield is a former Scientologist who 9 has -- I can't remember whether she's provided an affidavit 10 in this case. I know she has written a bunch of affidavits 11 in the past. 12 Q Has she written affidavits in conjunction with 13 other litigation you have been involved in? 14 A I'm not sure whether she has or not. 15 Q How did you come to know her? 16 A Through FACTNet. She lived in Boulder, Colorado 17 where one of the founders of FACTNet lived, a fellow named 18 Robert Penny. And she attended some FACTNet meetings while 19 I was there. 20 Q Do you know, sir, how she came to be a witness for 21 Mr. Dandar? 22 A I don't. 23 Q All right. Do you know if you funded her with any 24 funds in the year 2000 when she's listed here as a witness? 25 A Well, I believe it was the year 2000. It could
473 1 have been late '99, but I think it was the year 2000. 2 Q Do you recall how much funding you gave her and 3 what it was for? 4 A Mmm, it was for a car. I don't remember the 5 amount of money. 6 Q Ball park figure? 7 THE COURT: You gave a woman a loan, or gave 8 her some money to get a car? Are you now suggesting 9 it was because she did something on this lawsuit? 10 Or is it were you just a nice man that gave a lady 11 that needed some money, money for a car? I mean, I 12 don't know what you are saying. 13 THE WITNESS: I'm not saying anything about it 14 one way or another. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm just saying the woman needed 17 help and I gave her help. I was a nice guy. 18 THE COURT: So that doesn't have anything to do 19 with this. 20 BY MR. FUGATE: 21 Q Hannah Whitfield? 22 A Well, I have never given any money directly to 23 Hannah Whitfield. You know, I have given it to a person who 24 was a client of hers who paid her with it. 25 Q Who is that person?
474 1 A Mmm, a man -- a man in Boston who had a son that 2 Hannah Whitfield was working for. 3 THE COURT: She sure sounds kind of remote in 4 this case. 5 MR. FUGATE: I'll move on. 6 BY MR. FUGATE: 7 Q Teresa Summers, 65 on the list there. 8 A Right. 9 Q And was she an employee of LMT? 10 A She was. 11 Q Okay. And was she somebody that you provided 12 funding to through LMT? 13 A Through LMT and directly. 14 Q And did you know she was also a witness in the 15 wrongful death case? 16 A I did. 17 THE COURT: Ms. Brooks testified -- she seemed 18 to be quite insistent on this when she was on the 19 stand -- that Teresa Summers was quite a valuable 20 employee at LMT, worked real hard there. 21 THE WITNESS: She did. 22 THE COURT: So, I mean, was she paid money 23 because she was an employee and did a good job and 24 worked hard? Or was she paid because she was doing 25 work for Mr. Dandar?
475 1 THE WITNESS: Well, I gave her a few thousand 2 dollars on occasion that were over and above her LMT 3 pay. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Because she was working with 5 Mr. Dandar? 6 THE WITNESS: Mmm, well, at that time she had 7 already testified for Mr. Dandar. This was not 8 before she testified. This was after. You know, I 9 was just being a nice -- 10 THE COURT: Was this another -- was this 11 another good guy payment? In other words, were you 12 just trying to help this lady out? 13 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm glad you are seeing it 14 is possible for me to be a good guy, but -- 15 THE COURT: I have no doubt it is possible. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what it is, your 17 Honor. 18 THE COURT: So that is not related to this case 19 then. The good guy payments don't count. 20 We've already talked about Mr. Leipold. 21 MR. FUGATE: Yes, we have, Judge. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q You see 69 -- Number 69, Stephen Kent, professor, 24 department of sociology. Do you know him? 25 A Yes, I do.
476 1 Q How did you know him? 2 A Well, Dr. Kent is a sociologist who has been 3 pretty vigorous in his writings on the Church of 4 Scientology. 5 And, you know, I met him a number of times here in 6 the United States at various anti-cult meetings. I have 7 traveled with him in Germany. You know, through the LMT we 8 funded summer projects for his anti-Scientology -- or 9 Scientology material archive, you know, funded students to 10 work for him during the course of the summers to basically 11 keep his archive in good shape. 12 Q Was he somebody you would consider to be 13 supportive of your views, anti-Scientology views? 14 A He's -- yes. Yes. Definitely. 15 Q Okay. And was he someone that -- to your 16 knowledge, that Mr. Dandar was going to use as an expert in 17 the wrongful death case? 18 A Absolutely. 19 Q Now, would the same be true for Hannah Whitfield? 20 Did you know why she was going to be a witness in the case? 21 A Well, you know, I didn't know why she was a 22 witness on this witness list. You know, when Mr. Dandar was 23 up in New Hampshire in February, he asked Stacy Brooks and I 24 to help get Hannah Whitfield to be his expert witness in 25 this case because Jesse dropped out. You know, Stacy is
477 1 much closer with Hannah Whitfield than I am, and we kind of 2 focused the discussion toward Stacy being the one. 3 Then later I think Stacy Brooks advised Mr. Dandar 4 that -- well, actually, she advised Dr. Garko that it was 5 probably better that Mr. Dandar make this approach to Hannah 6 Whitfield to -- to soothe over any problems that might 7 exist, rather than Stacy doing it. 8 Q In your supplying funds to the Lisa McPherson 9 case, was your understanding that the -- some of the funds 10 would be used to pay witnesses, expert witnesses? 11 A Supplying funds to who? 12 Q The Lisa McPherson case, the wrongful death case? 13 A The funds that I provided to the estate? 14 Q Uh-huh. 15 A Yes. Yeah. That was -- there was never any doubt 16 about it. 17 THE COURT: That is what it was all to be used 18 for, according to you? 19 THE WITNESS: Well, costs and expenses 20 associated -- 21 THE COURT: Right? 22 THE WITNESS: -- with the case. 23 THE COURT: So if, in fact, she was a witness 24 and this money you loaned was to a witness, that is 25 exactly what you gave the money for?
478 1 THE WITNESS: Not loaned to the witness. 2 THE COURT: I'm sorry, if you loaned the money 3 to the estate or Mr. Dandar, depending upon who I 4 end up believing here, no matter who you loaned the 5 money to, the purpose of the money, according to 6 you, was to be used to pay the expenses of the 7 lawsuit? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what the 9 difference is. But the cost and expenses, whatever 10 that means. 11 THE COURT: Cost and expenses. Okay. So I 12 don't know either, and I'm sure there may well be 13 one. But cost and expenses of the lawsuit. 14 If, in fact, money was paid to Ms. Whitfield as 15 an expert, when she was an expert, and I do recall 16 she was listed as an expert at one point in time, or 17 as a consultant or whatever in the world she was, 18 this was being used then for the purpose -- 19 THE WITNESS: For which it was intended. 20 THE COURT: -- for which it was intended? 21 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor. 22 BY MR. FUGATE: 23 Q Sir, to your knowledge were Ms. Brooks and Mr. 24 Prince looking for witnesses to be utilized in the wrongful 25 death case?
479 1 A Yes. They were. 2 Q And did you have any input into that seeking of 3 witnesses to get into the wrongful death case? 4 A Yes. Caroline Letkeman was the last example that 5 I can remember. You know, after Jesse Prince dropped out as 6 an expert witness, I had suggested to Mr. Dandar Caroline 7 Letkeman. 8 THE COURT: Can you spell her last name for me? 9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, L-E-T-K-E-M-A-N. 10 Letkeman. L-E-T-K-E-M-A-N. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: And, you know, Mr. Dandar's first 13 question was, "Have you paid her any money?" because 14 he was having a hard time finding anybody that 15 hadn't gotten some money from me. 16 And I said that she won this essay contest -- 17 not won, but she received an award in an LMT essay 18 contest and she got paid a few thousand dollars. I 19 said, "You know, but the real problem is she lives 20 with Gerry Armstrong." 21 BY MR. FUGATE: 22 Q Do you know if Mr. Dandar listed Caroline Letkeman 23 as a witness at one time? 24 A I believe he did. 25 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I hate to ask you
480 1 this, but could I have a break? 2 THE COURT: Yes, we could all have a comfort 3 break for the night. 4 MR. FUGATE: Fine with me, Judge. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't mean to cut you off. 6 THE COURT: No, I don't mind. It is 5 o'clock. 7 I don't mind going late, but I don't mind stopping 8 at 5 o'clock, either. 9 MR. FUGATE: I wouldn't mind stopping, Judge. 10 THE COURT: I'll give you a comfort break, and 11 all of us. And we'll be in recess until tomorrow 12 morning at 9 o'clock. 13 Mr. Minton, you know the rules. You're not to 14 talk about the matter because you are on the stand. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand. 16 THE COURT: You want to go ahead -- you all can 17 be seated. My bailiff was real anxious to have me 18 get up and get out. 19 THE BAILIFF: I'm not trying to kick you out. 20 THE COURT: That is all right. I understand. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Dandar gave you an article 22 on the tax thing. And here is another New York 23 Times article -- 24 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 25 MR. WEINBERG: -- which is a later one, 1997.
481 1 THE COURT: I was just trying to figure out 2 what this man was talking about. 3 MR. WEINBERG: It explains a little bit. 4 THE COURT: I have seen a lot of articles in 5 this case from -- different sundry things, but I 6 didn't know what he was talking about. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 8 THE COURT: Well, I'll just take these two 9 articles home and read them. 10 Okay, let's see here. Let's take up -- we'll 11 wait for Mr. Minton to come back. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry, what I handed you was 13 an advertisement. 14 THE COURT: It was an advertisement? 15 MR. WEINBERG: You know, it was an 16 advertisement which -- which is correcting what the 17 Church believed -- it ran in the New York Times, 18 what the Church believed were the inaccuracies in 19 the articles that Mr. Franks wrote back in 1993 or 20 whatever. 21 THE COURT: In other words, this was an ad 22 taken out and paid for by the Church to make 23 corrections -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 25 THE COURT: -- to the other articles?
482 1 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 2 THE COURT: I understand. 3 Mr. Dandar, let me take this protective order 4 home tonight and look at it myself. This was on my 5 order and my suggestion, I suppose, of sorts, and 6 I'll look at it and see exactly how I want it to 7 read. 8 MR. DANDAR: All right. 9 THE COURT: And I will take it home and I 10 will -- this will be my order, so I'll just sign it. 11 MR. DANDAR: Judge, one of the things I wanted 12 to bring up, actually this morning, was we had 13 mentioned to the Court that we had subpoenaed Bill 14 Franks to come in and testify in this hearing. 15 THE COURT: Bill Franks? 16 MR. DANDAR: As an expert, former high-ranking 17 Scientologist. 18 THE COURT: All right. 19 MR. DANDAR: And I received a letter from Mr. 20 Drescher, who represents the Church of Scientology, 21 telling me I can't do that because I'm violating an 22 agreement he signed, and threatened to sue me and 23 the estate if we brought him into this court. 24 I asked Mr. Drescher -- and I filed a motion to 25 compel with the defendant to produce this so-called
483 1 agreement that prevents me from subpoenaing a 2 witness. And I have yet to receive that agreement. 3 And I need to bring it to your attention 4 because we have no intention of violating an 5 agreement with the Church of Scientology. 6 THE COURT: How can you violate an agreement 7 between two people that you are not party to? 8 MR. DANDAR: I have no idea. 9 THE COURT: I don't, either. What are you 10 talking about? I don't know who Mr. Drescher is, 11 either. 12 MR. DANDAR: He's the attorney for Mr. Rinder 13 and the mother church in Los Angeles. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me see the letter. 15 MR. DANDAR: Oh, well -- 16 THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking 17 about. 18 MR. DANDAR: I don't have that letter, but -- 19 THE COURT: How can Mr. Dandar be sued for 20 calling a witness to court to testify on a case 21 where somebody from the Church is accusing him of 22 perjury and suborning perjury? 23 MR. WEINBERG: No. No. I mean, what this -- 24 this was, this was Mr. Dandar's fourth or fifth 25 attempt at an expert.
484 1 Remember, first it was Stacy Brooks. Then it 2 was Jesse Prince. And we've gone through this line 3 of people, Hannah Whitfield, then this Carol 4 Letkeman. Then recently, when this hearing started, 5 he notified us there would be a new expert witness 6 to the wrongful death case, and that was this man 7 named Franks. 8 When the Church of Scientology International, 9 which is the organization out in California, learned 10 that, they put Mr. Franks on notice that that would 11 violate the agreement, confidential agreement, 12 which -- which Mr. Franks had, as I understand it, 13 with the Church of Scientology International when he 14 reached a settlement agreement with the church 15, 15 16, 17 years ago, whatever year it was. 16 And -- and Mr. Franks then sent back a letter 17 to Mr. Drescher, which I think you saw at the 18 beginning of this hearing, which was this 19 handwritten letter that said, "Dear Mr. Drescher." 20 THE COURT: I don't think I ever saw any 21 letter. I don't know who Mr. Drescher is. And I 22 would have probably asked at that time. 23 MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, Mr. Drescher is a lawyer 24 for the Church of Scientology International out in 25 California, not Flag, which is the entity that is
485 1 here. 2 And the letter essentially said somebody must 3 be just trying to pull your chain, though I think 4 this agreement is worthless, speaking about the 5 confidential agreement that Mr. Franks entered into 6 whenever it was, fifteen years ago. 7 THE COURT: When was it? I would be curious, 8 myself. 9 MR. WEINBERG: 1986, December 5, 1986, "I have 10 no knowledge --" he said, "I have no knowledge 11 testifying for the benefit of Lisa McPherson." That 12 was the correspondence we got. 13 After this correspondence, we were -- I mean, 14 prior -- I mean prior to the correspondence we were 15 notified by Mr. Dandar that Mr. Franks was going to 16 be a witness. 17 The Church of Scientology International 18 contacted Mr. Franks. He said, "I don't know 19 anything about it." 20 THE COURT: What do you mean, didn't know 21 anything about the agreement -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: About him testifying. He knows 23 about the agreement. He signed the agreement. It 24 was a settlement agreement. 25 The other day, Mr. Dandar came into court and
486 1 said that, lo and behold, Mr. Franks somehow was in 2 Tampa, by chance in the International Mall, and 3 Mr. Spector I think told us -- he told us I think 4 Mr. Spector served him with a subpoena in the 5 presence of Patricia Greenway and, therefore, 6 Mr. Dandar wanted to call him out of order and put 7 him in this hearing. 8 Now -- now, as -- I don't know -- and so that 9 is where we are. So the problem is there is a 10 confidential agreement. The agreement itself, which 11 I haven't seen, I understand it has a 12 confidentiality provision. And it's not an 13 agreement between the Church of Scientology Flag 14 Service Organization, it's an agreement between 15 Mr. Franks and CSI in California. 16 THE COURT: I want to -- I want to see the 17 letter sent by the Church of Scientology to 18 Mr. Dandar. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Okay, I have it right here, to 20 Mr. Franks. 21 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was to 22 Mr. Dandar. 23 MR. DANDAR: I got one yesterday from Mr. 24 Drescher. So did Luke Lirot. 25 MR. WEINBERG: I haven't seen the one that he
487 1 got yesterday. 2 THE COURT: Well, bring it in tomorrow. I want 3 to see it. 4 MR. DANDAR: I will. I will. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Here is the one to Mr. Franks 6 from Mr. Drescher. And here is Mr. Franks' response 7 to Mr. Drescher. And, actually, I have a copy of 8 the one, just to make the record -- I don't have my 9 glasses, but whatever this date says, Mr. Drescher 10 to Mr. Dandar. 11 And then prior to all this Mr. Fugate had -- 12 had written Mr. Dandar a letter dated April 16, 2002 13 with regard to the subject. 14 THE COURT: Well, this is too much for me to 15 read tonight. I don't want to just sit here at 16 5:05, after an exhausting day, and try to make sense 17 out of all this. I'll take it home and look at it 18 tomorrow. 19 MR. DANDAR: I would like them to produce this 20 agreement, too. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Well, the problem -- 22 THE COURT: Tell me -- you started to say 23 something, and I thought it would be a simple matter 24 but I should have known better. Nothing is simple. 25 MR. DANDAR: Well, I subpoenaed the man. I'm
488 1 not party to the agreement. I get threatened to be 2 sued. And I want the Court to look at this and 3 order Mr. Franks to appear pursuant to subpoena so I 4 don't get sued, because I'm not party to this 5 agreement that they won't produce -- 6 THE COURT: Let me read this overnight and -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: We'll talk about it. 8 THE COURT: -- with other legal matters, maybe 9 we can take it up in the morning. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Fine. 11 THE COURT: I'll take this home and try to make 12 sense of it. Do I have what I need to make sense of 13 it? 14 MR. WEINBERG: I think so. 15 MR. MOXON: Yes. Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: But there is quite a difference in 17 an agreement not -- I mean, I don't know what the 18 deal was between this man and the settlement 19 agreement. But there is quite a difference in 20 somebody coming in and providing expert testimony 21 and what have you, and coming in and offering 22 testimony in this particular hearing, whatever it 23 is, which -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: Well, except -- 25 THE COURT: I don't know what he was to be --
489 1 MR. WEINBERG: Obviously, Mr. Franks has no 2 knowledge that has anything to do with this hearing. 3 He left the Church of Scientology in the mid-'80's. 4 MR. FUGATE: Early. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Early '80's. 6 THE COURT: I can see we'll not come to accord 7 on this. We'll deal with it tomorrow. 8 Now, Mr. Moxon? 9 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor -- 10 MR. MOXON: Yes, there was this other issue 11 with respect to the protective order Mr. Dandar 12 provided to you. 13 THE COURT: Yes, I'll take that home and do it 14 myself tonight. 15 MR. MOXON: Okay. May I just make a couple of 16 comments -- 17 THE COURT: You can. 18 MR. MOXON: -- with respect to that? 19 THE COURT: Frankly, I know how to do an order 20 to have it say exactly what I mean it to say. I 21 don't need your help or his. It is only when 22 you-all provide me things that I have to worry about 23 it. When you see my orders I won't care what you 24 think about it or he thinks about it because they'll 25 be my orders.
490 1 MR. MOXON: Well -- 2 THE COURT: You may make an observation or two 3 if you like. But when I say I'll take it home and 4 do it, that is what I'm going to do. 5 MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff would request you 6 include Mr. Minton on that protective order, since 7 he now apparently wants to obtain things that the 2d 8 DCA said can't be obtained. 9 THE COURT: Go ahead. What did you want to 10 tell me about the protective order I'm taking home? 11 MR. MOXON: Just a couple points. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. MOXON: One is that Mr. Dandar has this 14 kind of broadly worded to include all Church of 15 Scientology or anybody related in any actions or any 16 case whatsoever. And obviously, as you know, there 17 is another case where the Religious Technology 18 Center has a judgment in Texas. And he apparently 19 wants to have an order broad enough that will, in 20 fact, stop any efforts to collect that judgment. 21 THE COURT: I don't know who that judgment is 22 against. Who is it against? 23 MR. MOXON: It is against the estate. 24 THE COURT: Against the estate? 25 MR. MOXON: Right.
491 1 THE COURT: Then why would you need to get in 2 to Mr. Dandar's account? 3 MR. MOXON: We don't. Anyway, it is RTC's 4 matter, anyway. It is -- the 2d DCA decision goes 5 only to money that goes to Mr. Dandar. He has very 6 broad -- 7 THE COURT: Do you know what is some concern of 8 mine is that the Second -- the Second District had a 9 concern it would be unfair and inappropriate for the 10 Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, 11 Inc. in this case to know how much money Mr. Dandar 12 had left. 13 MR. MOXON: Got it. 14 THE COURT: And they said, if you-all know 15 this, this is them talking, I mean, I read the 16 opinion, that you-all, in essence, will do exactly 17 what I guess is written in a pleading that I didn't 18 see, but it was what -- you'll run him out of money, 19 in essence. That is sort of what they said. They 20 maybe said it more artfully than that. But I don't 21 know that they did. It was kind of quoted -- 22 MR. MOXON: It was a quote from Mr. Dandar -- 23 THE COURT: Right. But then it became a quote 24 in their opinion. So obviously this is what they 25 meant. Right?
492 1 MR. MOXON: Well -- 2 THE COURT: Now, all I can say, I'm just 3 flabbergasted because if you keep trying to get 4 this, it seems as if the Second District is 5 absolutely right, you have some reason to want to 6 know how much money Mr. Dandar has left to litigate 7 this case. 8 MR. MOXON: We're not asking for that. 9 THE COURT: Then what do you care what kind of 10 protective order I enter? 11 MR. MOXON: Because it is so broad as to 12 everything. 13 THE COURT: Why would you care if you're not 14 going to try to get it? All I want to do is protect 15 him from having to reveal how much money he has 16 left. 17 MR. MOXON: Well, you know, there is another 18 matter pending, too, before Judge Greer, as you 19 know, in the probate case. 20 Judge Greer indicated there had never been an 21 accounting by the estate. And he was going to ask 22 the estate for the accounting. 23 THE COURT: That is the estate. That is not 24 Mr. Dandar. I'm trying to give good -- I mean, the 25 Second District says Mr. Dandar doesn't have to tell
493 1 you how much money he has left. 2 MR. MOXON: I know. Just as you say, your 3 Honor -- 4 THE COURT: It really -- it really looks kind 5 of like you-all are doing just exactly what the 6 Second District says. You have got to find out how 7 much money he has. Why don't you stop? 8 MR. MOXON: We're not asking for how much -- 9 THE COURT: Then what do you care what kind of 10 protective order I enter? 11 MR. MOXON: Judge, here is why I care. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. MOXON: Now -- 14 THE COURT: I mean, another judge, as you say, 15 in Texas Federal Court isn't going to care. 16 What I am concerned about is when Mr. Dandar 17 goes -- and I have got somebody out there who is, in 18 essence, an arm of me, that is Judge Beach, and I 19 read some of the depositions where Judge Beach 20 didn't know exactly what the order had said. 21 I want to make it real clear. I want 22 Mr. Dandar to be able to say, "Judge Schaeffer said 23 you don't -- they don't get to ask these questions." 24 Now, he shouldn't have to do that because you 25 shouldn't be asking them.
494 1 MR. MOXON: We're not asking how much money he 2 has left. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 MR. MOXON: We don't intend to ask that. 5 Absolutely no problem with that. 6 THE COURT: Good. Well then -- 7 MR. MOXON: It is just there are some other 8 aspects -- 9 MR. DANDAR: He just requested -- 10 THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Dandar. 11 THE BAILIFF: Excuse me. One at a time. 12 THE COURT: Go ahead. 13 MR. MOXON: As you know, one of the other 14 aspects, he's asking for anything concerning any 15 finances whatsoever from him, Ms. Liebreich, the 16 estate and anybody, anything concerning any finances 17 being prohibited. And that is not what the 2d DCA 18 ordered. 19 In fact, in the 2d DCA decision, they made 20 reference to supporting evidence, there was no 21 supporting evidence in the very deposition in which 22 Mr. Minton perjured himself, the very testimony that 23 was relied upon by the 2d DCA in making this 24 decision, saying it was speculative as to whether or 25 not Mr. Dandar -- Mr. Minton was controlling the
495 1 litigation, or whether or not money was provided for 2 controlling this litigation. 3 THE COURT: Well, it still is. That is why 4 we're having this hearing. But you-all raised this 5 with the Second District. Maybe you care. They did 6 another order after you advised them of all this. 7 MR. MOXON: No, we had just a little bit. We 8 didn't have the declarations, we didn't have the 9 testimony. We had a little bit of information but 10 not very much. We just had the very first day of 11 the first recanting statement from Mr. -- 12 THE COURT: You certainly provided the Second 13 District with enough information where they could 14 get the gist of it that what you were saying was 15 that there was some false information that had been 16 provided to the Court. 17 MR. MOXON: Well, didn't have evidence. In 18 fact, the perjured -- apparently, the perjured 19 testimony from Mr. Minton, which he admitted is 20 perjury, is the very central evidence that Mr. 21 Dandar provided to the 2d DCA upon which this is 22 based. 23 We'll go back to the 2d DCA when all this is 24 over and we have a full record and see if we can 25 correct this.
496 1 THE COURT: Fine. But like I said the other 2 day, what I have is now three orders, two directed 3 to Judge Beach who was entering orders in this case, 4 and I'm going to ask you-all in the future that 5 really and truly, the trial resolution judge ought 6 to be doing whatever it is he's doing, ought not to 7 be entering orders that are now going up. In other 8 words, you got matters you want orders entered in, 9 bring them to me. Okay? 10 MR. MOXON: Okay. We'll do that. 11 THE COURT: And that is my purpose here is I 12 want Mr. Dandar to have the benefit of the orders 13 that he has from the Court. 14 Clearly, you-all can take whatever it is you 15 want to the Court after you had your full record or 16 whatever. And if they reverse themselves he will no 17 longer have the benefit of that order. 18 But I don't like it when I see another judge 19 saying, "Well, let's see, that wasn't in my case, 20 that was in another case." And I can understand the 21 judges saying that. 22 But what I can't understand is another lawyer 23 for the Church trying to get the information that 24 they have to know the Second District has said you 25 can't get.
497 1 MR. MOXON: You are referring to Judge Baird? 2 THE COURT: I am referring to your lawyer in 3 that case -- not yours, but this Mr. whoever it is 4 that isn't a member of the Florida Bar. 5 MR. DANDAR: Rosen. 6 THE COURT: Mr. Rosen. And I don't -- you 7 know, I think it's unfair, I think it makes the 8 Church look bad. I think they ought to stop. And I 9 think whatever it is he has left, he ought to leave 10 it alone until the Second District said you get to 11 know that information. 12 You know why? Because otherwise it makes it 13 look like what he has said is exactly true and you 14 somehow have got to get that information so you can 15 run him out of money so he can't bring his witnesses 16 and his experts in, in the event I don't dismiss 17 this case. That is not going to make the Church 18 look good, it really isn't appropriate, and you 19 ought to back off. 20 MR. MOXON: Judge, it is absolutely false, too. 21 I just want to let you know that assertion is an 22 absolute falsehood. That is not the reason. The 23 reason is because we had strong evidence of perjured 24 statements and perjured statements made to this 25 Court, and we do intend to bring that to the Court's
498 1 attention, we will bring it to the Bar's attention, 2 we will bring it to the 2d DCA's attention. That 3 shouldn't happen. And that is why we're doing it. 4 THE COURT: I understand, counselor. I'm not 5 talking about what you're doing here. 6 MR. MOXON: Well, we're talking about our 7 intentions. I just want to make it clear to your 8 Honor -- 9 THE COURT: No, I want to make it real clear. 10 I'm talking about your intentions and your continued 11 attempt to find out how much money he has left. And 12 you haven't stopped yet. 13 And you are still fighting over this protective 14 order, which tells me that somehow or another you 15 want to find out how much money he has got left -- 16 MR. MOXON: No, it's not. 17 THE COURT: -- to run him out of money. 18 MR. MOXON: We don't want that. We don't want 19 that. That is not -- 20 THE COURT: Good. Then let me do the 21 protective order. 22 MR. MOXON: Very good. 23 THE COURT: Thank you. 24 MR. DANDAR: I do have, Judge -- 25 THE COURT: Now, let's see what Mr. Robert
499 1 Minton wants to use the Court for. 2 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, may I be excused? My 3 daughter came home from school, and that is why I 4 stood up a little bit ago, for -- 5 THE COURT: Absolutely, you may be excused. 6 MR. FUGATE: Thank you. 7 THE COURT: All right. This is Mr. Minton's 8 first request to produce to the plaintiff, the 9 plaintiff being the estate. Okay. He's on the same 10 side here in the counterclaim, I take it. He's 11 counterclaim defendant, but so is the plaintiff 12 counter -- counterclaim defendant, I take it? 13 Right? I'm just trying to figure out who he's -- 14 MR. HOWIE: That would be correct, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Well now, is this an 16 attempt -- is Mr. Minton trying to help out the 17 Church here? 18 MR. HOWIE: No, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Was Mr. Minton asked to do this by 20 the Church? 21 MR. HOWIE: No, your Honor. He was not. 22 THE COURT: I'm sure he will be asked about 23 that under oath. Are you trying to get this 24 information for the Church, Mr. Howie? 25 MR. HOWIE: No, your Honor, I am not. As a
500 1 matter of fact, we would accept the restrictions or 2 the protective orders the Court made which were 3 issued concerning the use of this information. 4 THE COURT: What in the world are you trying to 5 get it for? 6 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, Mr. Minton stands in a 7 different position than the Church does in the use 8 of this information. 9 THE COURT: Well, yes, I guess he stands in a 10 position of having a summary judgment entered 11 against him in this. Right? 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor -- 13 THE COURT: Based on his testimony? 14 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, obviously, Mr. Minton's 15 credibility is greatly at issue in this case. If 16 the information shows -- were to show, in an 17 accounting of these moneys that Mr. Minton gave to 18 Mr. Dandar were to show -- that, in fact, these 19 moneys were legitimately used or legitimately 20 reserved for costs in connection with this 21 litigation, I would agree that they were not 22 relevant. 23 If, on the other hand, an accounting were to 24 show that this money was not properly used for the 25 purpose intended when Mr. Minton gave it to
501 1 Mr. Dandar, then several issues arise which would 2 assist in corroborating Mr. Minton's testimony and 3 supporting Mr. Minton's credibility. 4 Among those are the issue of who controlled who 5 in this case? What were Mr. Dandar's motivations in 6 repeatedly contacting Mr. Minton for purposes of 7 securing more and more funds as the case went along? 8 Were these representations by Mr. Dandar to 9 Mr. Minton for purposes of securing these funds in 10 fact true, or were they false? If, in fact, they 11 were false, then it enhances or improves 12 Mr. Minton's credibility in his testimony before 13 this Court. 14 THE COURT: Well, you shouldn't care about 15 that. If his credibility before this Court is 16 determined to be true, I plan to turn right around 17 and enter a -- I mean, he's a party to this now. 18 They've asked, that as part of their remedy, that -- 19 what is it -- be entered, a default -- a -- that a 20 judgment be entered in their favor on the 21 counterclaim. 22 So if I hold that what Mr. Minton is saying is 23 true, there is no question that a judgment against 24 Mr. Minton needs to be entered immediately, no 25 matter what I think about Mr. Dandar or the estate.
502 1 He's the one testifying to all this, right? 2 MR. HOWIE: Right. 3 THE COURT: He just dug himself into a huge 4 judgment, I take it. But I am sure you and he 5 discussed this. Unless, of course, there was a 6 deal. 7 But if there wasn't a deal and I believe him, 8 he's going to have to pay a lot of money on this 9 counterclaim. 10 MR. HOWIE: I can assure the Court the request 11 for discovery was an independent decision. 12 THE COURT: I look at this document, Mr. Howie, 13 as an attempt to get the information that the Second 14 District has said that the Church of Scientology is 15 not entitled to. 16 The position I see your client in right now and 17 the Church of Scientology is in right now are as 18 somehow or another not plaintiff and defendant in 19 the counterclaim. I don't know what the 20 relationship is. And I'll try to determine that 21 before it's over. 22 But, for right now, to allow Mr. Minton to have 23 the information that the Second District says the 24 Church can't have would seem to me to be something 25 that he would want for some other lawsuit that he
503 1 might want to file. But as it relates to this case, 2 it would seem to be something that the Church of 3 Scientology is trying to get for whatever reason. 4 So for now, until I can sort this out, 5 Mr. Dandar does not have to produce this to 6 Mr. Minton. And, quite frankly, I didn't understand 7 anything you said as to why this would help his 8 credibility. It isn't his credibility he needs to 9 worry about. What he needs to worry about is the 10 judgment that the Church of Scientology is going to 11 have against him once his testimony is over if he 12 has credibility. 13 Whatever went on between Mr. Minton and 14 Mr. Dandar, and how Mr. Dandar spent this money, is 15 a matter between Mr. Minton and Mr. Dandar and the 16 Florida Bar or what have you. 17 But I -- I don't see right now, probably 18 because it is 5:20 in the afternoon and I'm tired, I 19 don't see how this would enhance or not enhance his 20 credibility. 21 But if you are trying to enhance his 22 credibility -- I must -- I must ask you, this is not 23 his motion, is it? Are you trying to help the 24 Church out by enhancing his credibility? 25 MR. HOWIE: This is not his motion. And, quite
504 1 frankly, we have no -- if you are referring to the 2 motion to disqualify and the motion to dismiss -- 3 THE COURT: Motion to dismiss. 4 MR. HOWIE: We're disinterested. 5 THE COURT: Then why do you care whether his 6 credibility is enhanced or not? 7 MR. HOWIE: Because he is a counter-defendant 8 in this case. This, after all, is a request for 9 production -- 10 THE COURT: That would be for a jury trial, not 11 for a hearing before the Court. 12 I guess what you are saying is, what, that 13 maybe I wouldn't be inclined to enter a judgment 14 against him? 15 MR. HOWIE: What I'm saying -- 16 THE COURT: What is it you-all asked for in 17 your request for relief? 18 One of the things you asked for in your request 19 for relief was I enter -- not a default on the 20 counterclaim -- but that I enter, what? 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, in effect, a default. 22 THE COURT: So, obviously, you are now 23 requesting that same default be entered against Mr. 24 Minton, since he's a party. 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Against all counter-defendants.
505 1 THE COURT: Absolutely. As I said, all I can 2 assume here is that Mr. Minton is subjecting 3 himself, by his testimony, to a large judgment 4 against him by the Church. That, in and of itself, 5 I suppose, enhances his credibility. And I assume 6 that is -- you know, that is the only relevance 7 here. 8 I'm not getting it, Mr. Howie. As I said, 9 probably I'm not getting it because now it is 5:25. 10 MR. HOWIE: Well, unfortunately, that is the 11 best I can do. 12 THE COURT: I'll take this home and I'm going 13 to look it over. For me, right now, it looks like 14 Mr. Minton thinks he has a lawsuit against 15 Mr. Dandar if, in fact, Mr. Dandar spent some of the 16 money for some purpose other than what Mr. Minton 17 intended. And if that is the case, then he needs to 18 file a lawsuit. And if he files a lawsuit that will 19 withstand a motion to dismiss based on their -- 20 whatever it was -- verbal understanding, then I 21 assume -- or even before that, I assume he has the 22 right to take certain discovery. 23 I assume if he takes that certain discovery and 24 the lawsuit is filed, Mr. Dandar will go back to the 25 Second District and say, "Look what is happening
506 1 now." Then the Second District will have to decide 2 in that lawsuit whether their previous order has any 3 bearing. 4 I'm just involved in this lawsuit. And this 5 looks, to me, like an attempt by Mr. Minton, for 6 whatever reason, to help himself in another lawsuit, 7 or perhaps to help himself in the lawsuit that he's 8 now involved in, which I'm not inclined to do either 9 one, quite frankly. But I'll take it home and look 10 at it again now. 11 MR. HOWIE: May I just direct the Court's 12 attention to our motion for production of documents 13 sent to us on Friday afternoon? 14 THE COURT: Yes. Let's look at that. "Robert 15 Minton's Response to Plaintiff's Request to Produce 16 --" am I looking at the right one? 17 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Okay, I have read it. Now I 19 suppose I should hear from Mr. Dandar. 20 MR. DANDAR: Judge -- 21 THE COURT: I don't know whether there is such 22 a person as Operation Clambake, apart from 23 Mr. Minton. He testified today those moneys were 24 really from him. 25 MR. HOWIE: These concern payments, I
507 1 presume -- although the request is not entirely 2 clear, I presume these are requests for checks or 3 drafts or other transfers from Mr. Minton to these 4 entities. 5 THE COURT: Oh. Okay. What is the relevance 6 of these? 7 MR. DANDAR: The only evidence we have that the 8 UBS bank checks are Mr. Minton's money or the 9 Clambake money is Mr. Minton's money is Mr. Minton's 10 testimony. 11 I want Mr. Minton -- and I'm telling the Court 12 now that this is the crux of why we're going through 13 this hearing is Mr. Minton was pressured to try to 14 protect his resources in Europe. And that is why 15 all of the lies were told by him and Ms. Brooks in 16 their depositions about where this anonymous money 17 came to the LMT, where the Clambake money came from 18 and where the May of 2000 check money came from he 19 gave to me. 20 It all comes from some secret accounts he has. 21 And now he's pleading the Fifth Amendment. And I'm 22 supposed to be subject to a disciplinary -- or a 23 dismissal in this case or disqualification, and he 24 gets on the stand and pleads the Fifth Amendment. 25 I'm requesting the Court order him to produce
508 1 all these checks that went to Clambake and the 2 source of the money that went to Clambake, the 3 $300,000, the source of the money that went to the 4 LMT, $500,000, and the source of the money that came 5 to me on -- in May of 2000 for $500,000, and 6 $250,000 in March of 2002, because all we have is 7 his testimony that is his money. 8 Make him prove it's his money and let's see 9 what accounts these came out of, because I believe 10 that is where the Church of Scientology found his 11 money, which caused him to go into this spiral and 12 do this 180-degree turn and start saying that he 13 lied under oath in his deposition, and so did Stacy 14 Brooks. Make them prove that. 15 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Howie, he said it 16 is relevant because it goes to the crux of what 17 we're here for. Sounds relevant to me. 18 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'm not sure how 19 payments by Mr. Minton to Operation Clambake or any 20 of these other entities would pertain to this case. 21 THE COURT: Well, it is kind of true, isn't it? 22 I can't look at this check for $500,000, and this 23 check for -- of $250,000 -- Mr. Minton -- and a 24 check that I don't even have but I assume if I did 25 have it would be much the same, paid to LMT in the
509 1 amount of $300,000 from Operation Clambake, or for 2 Hans, whoever it is, that now he has testified today 3 was really from him, and a check in the amount of 4 $500,000 that he has testified was from an anonymous 5 source in Europe, which Mr. Dandar has testified 6 it's the same thing he told him about $500,000 in 7 this case. 8 I don't know who that money came from. Maybe 9 it did come from an anonymous source in Europe. I 10 don't know. I can't look at the check, as I 11 normally can with a check, and see where it came 12 from. 13 So it seems to me that Mr. Minton, who -- who 14 is an admitted perjurer, who claims the Fifth 15 Amendment, who, while he wasn't held in contempt, he 16 was ordered to bring things in, he shreds them, 17 destroys them, on and on. All these things, I'm 18 supposed to believe -- oh, and who has these 19 agreements and what have you on the shake of a hand, 20 millions and millions of dollars, that I'm supposed 21 to take his word for it. 22 So I think it is highly relevant. And -- and 23 I'm going to require that he bring something to show 24 us that these moneys are from his account. 25 MR. HOWIE: Then that leads us to the other
510 1 portion of the motion for protective order, which is 2 the fact that I received this request on late Friday 3 afternoon, did not become aware of it before this 4 weekend, during which time Mr. Minton was in Atlanta 5 and returned yesterday, and Mr. Minton has not been 6 back to his residence. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll -- 8 MR. HOWIE: There is a practical concern in 9 obtaining these documents. 10 THE COURT: Well, how much time does he need? 11 Can't he get on the phone? I can get on the phone 12 and call my bank and tell them, "I'm right in the 13 middle of a situation here and I need some records, 14 would you fax them to me?" So I assume he can get 15 on the phone and call this bank, whatever bank it is 16 where he has the money, and say, "Send the records." 17 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I need the Court's 18 permission to confer with my client on that. 19 THE COURT: Well, do it. He's here. 20 MR. HOWIE: If we may step outside. 21 (WHEREUPON, Mr. Howie and Mr. Minton excuse 22 themselves from the courtroom.) 23 THE COURT: I can't say this because -- I guess 24 I can because Mr. Howie is out of the room and we'll 25 just wait.
511 1 I thought Operation Clambake was some outfit 2 run by some fellow named Hans something or another 3 who -- I don't want to hear anything from you-all 4 because this is for Mr. Howie -- but I thought 5 Operation Clambake was some anti-Scientology 6 website, sort of, that -- 7 MR. MOXON: That's right. 8 THE COURT: I can't remember the name of the 9 man, but it was some foreign-sounding name. 10 MR. DANDAR: Andreas. 11 MR. MOXON: Heldal-Lund. 12 THE COURT: That is right. I know my court 13 reporter doesn't know how to spell that, so if you 14 can tell her later. 15 And that is where we got that very nice letter 16 that was sent to me from whoever. 17 MR. MOXON: Norwegian authorities. 18 THE COURT: Now, did that turn out -- what did 19 that turn out to say? 20 MR. MOXON: We're still translating it. We 21 have had to find somebody to translate it. 22 THE COURT: You must admit, it is kind of odd, 23 Operation Clambake. 24 MR. MOXON: It is more than a little odd, yes. 25 You are right, it is an anti-Scientology website
512 1 from this fellow in Norway that has been part of 2 this -- 3 THE COURT: But as I said -- 4 MR. MOXON: -- community. 5 THE COURT: -- the testimony I heard today, 6 that $300,000 check wasn't from Operation Clambake, 7 it was from Mr. Minton himself. 8 MR. WEINBERG: What he said, he was the source 9 of the funds. The funds came from Operation 10 Clambake, but he was the source of. That is what he 11 said on the stand. 12 (WHEREUPON, Mr. Howie and Mr. Minton are now 13 present in the courtroom.) 14 THE COURT: Mr. Howie, I was just making a 15 remark. I said I probably shouldn't discuss this 16 before you came back in, but I was trying to go 17 through in my head what I thought I knew before 18 today's testimony. And what I thought I knew was 19 Operation Clambake was nothing more -- at least this 20 is what I thought, Operation Clambake was some 21 website or something, it was another one of these 22 anti-Scientology -- I don't know the difference, 23 honestly, in a website and in whatever else there 24 is, you know. I have heard a lot in this case that 25 some things are -- some things are websites and some
513 1 things you go post on and what have you. 2 Anyway, whatever it was, it was something by 3 some fellow that lived somewhere overseas. 4 MR. HOWIE: Andreas Heldal-Lund. 5 THE COURT: Pardon me? That is the man. 6 MR. HOWIE: The fellow that designed the 7 letters submitted to the Court the other day. 8 THE COURT: Right. And that he ran that 9 Operation Clambake. And I thought that he had 10 submitted a $300,000 check to LMT, and really only 11 learned today that -- that that money was 12 Mr. Minton's money. 13 Now, what was it -- I'm trying to bring you up 14 to what we said. I said I really shouldn't even 15 talk about it without you being in the room. I was 16 just trying to see if I had what I thought I knew 17 from the past was correct. 18 What was it you said, counselor? 19 MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. In other 20 words, testimony from Mr. Minton was -- is that the 21 funds came from Operation Clambake, but Mr. Minton 22 was the source of the funds. That is what he said 23 on the stand. 24 THE COURT: Which, in and of itself, is fairly 25 weird to me. Somebody by the name of Hans owned
514 1 something, Hans sent a check, it is not really Hans' 2 check, it is Mr. Minton's money. 3 MR. WEINBERG: That is what he said. 4 THE COURT: So, I mean, all of that is fairly 5 odd for me to understand. And -- and so for that 6 reason, too, that he said "That is my money" and I 7 thought it was Hans' money, it was somehow sent over 8 to LMT, I believe that is what Ms. Brooks said, 9 too -- I don't know, I'll have to go back and review 10 her testimony -- for that reason, as well, I'm very 11 confused about this money. 12 Now, you had a chance to speak with your 13 client. I didn't mean to go over that, I was trying 14 to see if my memory was -- Operation Clambake was a 15 fairly odd thing, so I thought I remembered what it 16 was all about. And they confirmed. I had sort of a 17 vague recollection of what it was. 18 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, the $500,000 check from 19 from UBS is already in evidence. Mr. Minton has no 20 other documentation at his residence. 21 However, he does have the ability to generate 22 information from UBS concerning the wire transfer. 23 He has to be in contact with UBS. Obviously, there 24 are time zone concerns and differences. We would 25 request 48 hours in which to respond to the Court
515 1 by which -- concerning by which time Mr. Minton can 2 actually obtain these documents that have to be 3 generated from another entity. He has to contact 4 UBS or, alternatively, a representative in 5 Switzerland. 6 THE COURT: Okay. In essence, what you are 7 asking for is a 48-hour delay in the -- 8 MR. HOWIE: We are asking for 48 hours in which 9 to provide the Court and parties with information on 10 how soon he can respond. 11 Obviously, these are all documents in the 12 control or custody of other entities. And he needs 13 to contact those entities sometime within the next 14 48 hours to find out how soon those entities can 15 respond so that he, in turn, can comply with the 16 request. 17 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I understand that -- from 18 my understanding, there is a multiple series of 19 transactions from different accounts in different 20 banks. And I would request they produce all those 21 account transactions that culminated in these three 22 checks -- four checks. 23 THE COURT: Four checks. 24 MR. DANDAR: Four checks. 25 THE COURT: Okay. That is -- however it is
516 1 that we can get to where we understand that -- I 2 mean, now we're talking here all of a sudden about 3 two $500,000 checks, a $300,000 check, and a 4 $250,000 check. We are talking about $1,525,000 5 that Mr. Minton says, "Well, that is all from me." 6 So however it is that Mr. Minton can prove to 7 us that is all his money and it all came from him is 8 I think what this request to produce is. So if you 9 are requesting a delay for 48 hours, I think that is 10 fair. That will be granted. And if you learn that 11 you can't produce it -- I assume then Mr. Minton is 12 waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege so inquiry can 13 be made. Correct? 14 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, the production of 15 documents itself constitutes a statement to the 16 extent he knows the source of these documents, 17 location of the documents, for purposes of 18 production he's waiving his Fifth Amendment 19 privileges. 20 However, if -- if further inquiry is made into 21 the source of these funds, other than the fact they 22 were originally in his control and custody before 23 they were paid over to LMT, Mmm, we would maintain 24 the Fifth Amendment privilege. 25 THE COURT: Is this account, this UBS check in
517 1 the amount of $500,000, and there is another one, in 2 Mr. Minton's account? 3 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, that is from UBS's 4 account. 5 THE COURT: Right. 6 MR. HOWIE: However, it is just like any other 7 certified check. I go into a bank, I have a bunch 8 of money, I hand it to them, they give me a 9 certified check. The certified check is actually 10 drawn on their account. I paid them for the check. 11 THE COURT: Right. That is where we want to 12 know where the money came from. 13 MR. HOWIE: Likewise, it is my understanding we 14 are required to prove that the money that was spent 15 for the certified check or UBS drew for the 16 certified check originally came from Mr. Minton. 17 THE COURT: Right. 18 MR. HOWIE: And any documentation we can 19 provide to that extent we'll provide. 20 My point is that the act of production can 21 constitute a statement which normally can be 22 protected by Fifth Amendment privilege. To the 23 extent that he is producing these documents, we 24 would waive the Fifth Amendment privilege to answer 25 the Court's question.
518 1 THE COURT: Okay. I understand. And I guess 2 what I'll have to do is just see whether -- whatever 3 it is clears up my question. I still can't look at 4 these two checks, in my own stupidity -- and I'm 5 sure it is because I don't deal in these kinds of 6 transactions -- and look at these and say either one 7 of these checks, this being 31I -- I'm sorry, 93I 8 and 93G, that those checks Mr. Minton says now came 9 from him came from him. I have no way to look at 10 those and know that. The only way I know that is 11 because Mr. Minton says so. 12 MR. HOWIE: That is correct. 13 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar has testified that 14 Mr. Minton said this $500,000 check -- I don't know 15 what he said exactly because he hasn't testified 16 here -- but my recollection is, in reading it, 17 something about it, he said it came from -- 18 Mr. Minton -- Mr. Minton said it came from some 19 anonymous source in Europe, which is what I read in 20 the deposition, that he said another $500,000 check 21 came from an anonymous source in Europe. 22 So I don't know, he said two different things. 23 One, he said it came from somebody else, and one he 24 said it came from him. And now he's saying, "Well, 25 trust me on this one."
519 1 Well, you know, I'm just not willing to do 2 that. 3 MR. HOWIE: We'll provide sufficient 4 documentation to show these funds were originally 5 Mr. Minton's. 6 THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think a 7 48-hour delay is -- is more than appropriate. So I 8 will grant that delay. 9 I do expect if he is done and off the stand, 10 which for his sake and mine and everybody else's I 11 hope that he is, I will expect him to return the 12 documents -- or produce them so those questions can 13 be asked. 14 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. One other matter. 15 I request permission of the Court to communicate to 16 Mr. Minton on a regular basis so I can assist him on 17 this issue. 18 THE COURT: Okay. This issue meaning these -- 19 MR. HOWIE: Production -- 20 THE COURT: The UBS checks? 21 MR. HOWIE: Any matter relating to production 22 of documents and his efforts to obtain them. 23 THE COURT: You may continue to discuss that 24 with him even while he's on the stand. 25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, thank you.
520 1 THE COURT: But you understand that is 2 regarding these checks and all those things, that is 3 not about his other testimony. 4 MR. HOWIE: Correct. 5 THE COURT: But you may have permission to 6 speak to him, as his counsel, regarding this whole 7 thing, this whole area of the money. 8 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. 9 THE COURT: Okay? So the response to 10 plaintiff's request to produce and for protective 11 order is denied to the extent -- but granted to the 12 extent that I found that you have not produced it 13 today -- he could not have done that. I will give 14 him 48 hours after which he will produce it to the 15 extent that he's agreed to produce it. 16 And I haven't seen this, this is Mr. Minton -- 17 "Robert Minton further raises the privilege against 18 production of the Operation Clambake records and of 19 any records relating to Gerry Armstrong, apart from 20 the loan to Gerry Armstrong in the amount of 21 $100,000, on the basis of Fifth Amendment, United 22 States Constitution." 23 Is he now withdrawing that? 24 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, he's already testified 25 to a payment to Gerry Armstrong in the amount of
521 1 $100,000. And we recognize -- 2 THE COURT: Right. And that was accepted here. 3 MR. HOWIE: Right. 4 MR. DANDAR: But there is also testimony, I 5 believe, from Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that Gerry 6 Armstrong, a man who has no job, paid him back 7 $100,000. I want the source of those funds, as 8 well. 9 MR. HOWIE: I -- 10 MR. DANDAR: That is what -- 11 THE COURT: I guess all I'm asking you, as I'm 12 looking at this, as I got down to the end, I see 13 that he is raising some privilege on the basis of 14 the Fifth Amendment of the United States 15 Constitution which I have recognized and we all 16 recognize is a right that he has. 17 Is he withdrawing his request to rely on the 18 Fifth Amendment as to these things that you have 19 talked about in his response? 20 MR. HOWIE: Again, to the extent that he is 21 producing the documents, the production of documents 22 constitutes a statement, yes, he's waiving. 23 THE COURT: Okay. As to any questions about 24 those, we'll just have to wait and see. Is that -- 25 do I read this correctly?
522 1 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. We need to find 2 out how soon he can produce those, as well. 3 THE COURT: I'm sorry? 4 MR. HOWIE: How soon he can produce those, as 5 well. 6 THE COURT: All right. So that takes care of 7 that. I don't have to take that one home with me. 8 I have dealt with Mr. Minton's first request to 9 produce to plaintiff. I'll take that home -- did I 10 say I would take that home? I said for now I would 11 hold off on it, right? 12 MR. HOWIE: I believe you said that, yes, until 13 you made any final ruling. 14 THE COURT: No, my final ruling on that is I -- 15 have you filed a protective order on that? What 16 have you filed? Anything? 17 MR. DANDAR: I haven't filed anything yet. I'm 18 just -- 19 THE COURT: That is the one you stood up this 20 morning and said you are trying -- 21 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 22 THE COURT: -- to get around the order again? 23 MR. DANDAR: Right. 24 THE COURT: That is the one you said, "We'll 25 rely on any order you might want to enter"?
523 1 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: For now, I am going to state until 3 I have the opportunity to think this thing through, 4 I am not going to require Mr. Dandar to produce 5 those documents, because those seem to be those same 6 documents that are at issue and the Second District 7 said he shouldn't have to produce, and I'm having a 8 hard time figuring out why exactly Mr. Minton wants 9 them produced. Okay? So for now, Mr. Dandar -- 10 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 11 THE COURT: -- you don't have to produce them. 12 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 13 THE COURT: But I may change my mind. 14 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 15 THE COURT: Okay? 16 MR. DANDAR: All right. 17 THE COURT: So I don't need to do anything on 18 this for now. Is that right? 19 MR. HOWIE: Other than take it under 20 advisement. 21 THE COURT: Okay. And the other thing I'm 22 taking home is the protective order which I'm going 23 to work on, these letters, this article. And I have 24 a fairly short stack. This is a good night. All 25 right.
524 1 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I do have signed 2 declarations of Stacy Brooks, if you would like to 3 take those home. 4 THE COURT: No, I would not. Not tonight. 5 MR. DANDAR: But we'll introduce them and 6 substitute them with the unsigned ones that are 7 marked by the clerk. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. DANDAR: We'll do it tomorrow. 10 THE COURT: Save that for another day. Save 11 that for some weekend reading. 12 MR. DANDAR: All right. 13 THE COURT: All right, we'll be in recess. 14 (WHEREUPON, Court stands adjourned for the 15 evening.) 16 _______________________________________________ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
525 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 21st day of May, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index