4                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
 6   Representative of the ESTATE OF
 8             Plaintiff,
 9   vs.                                     VOLUME 7
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
15   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
                         Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
     DATE:               May 23, 2002, morning session.
     PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
18                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
19   BEFORE:             Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
                         Circuit Judge.
     REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
21                       Notary Public,
                         State of Florida at large.

 3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
     Tampa, FL 33602
 4   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
     Tampa, FL 33602-4108
 7   Attorney for Plaintiff.
     1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
10   Clearwater, FL 33755
     Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
11   Organization.
12   MR. LEE FUGATE and
     101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
14   Tampa, FL 33602-5147
     Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
15   Organization.
17   740 Broadway at Astor Place
     New York, NY 10003-9518
18   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     APPEARANCES (Continued)
     Ms. Donna West
23   Mr. Rick Spector
     Ms. Sarah Heller
24   Mr. Ben Shaw
     Ms. Joyce Earl
25   Mr. Brian Asay


1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 2 PAGE LINE 3 CROSS Mr. Dandar 789 9 Recess 828 18 4 Reporter's Certificate 930 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0778
1 (The proceedings resumed at 9:03 a.m.) 2 THE COURT: Good morning. I see Mr. Lirot is 3 present today. 4 MR. LIROT: Good morning, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Good morning. 6 Well, I'm here to announce that since you all 7 didn't give me a whole slew of stuff to read last 8 night, I actually fell asleep earlier, slept late, 9 and I'm feeling like a million dollars. 10 MR. FUGATE: Can I do anything to ruin that, 11 Judge? 12 THE COURT: You probably will. 13 Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad. We'll see 14 how today goes. But in any event, I'm ready. 15 Do we have any legal matters? 16 I've read your memorandum. I'm sure that's a 17 matter to be argued at the appropriate time. 18 MR. FUGATE: And I think -- did I -- did I put 19 up there another courtesy copy of one we filed this 20 morning, maybe with the -- 21 THE COURT: You did. It's probably with all 22 the others -- 23 Oh, is this it? 24 MR. FUGATE: Yeah. I just filed that, or 25 actually Mr. Lieberman did, your Honor. 0779
1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. FUGATE: But that's obviously for a 3 separate argument. 4 There is -- 5 THE COURT: Oh, is that for argument? I'll 6 read it, of course, but I'll take it -- 7 MR. FUGATE: There is one matter, Judge, I'd 8 like to bring to the court's attention. 9 THE COURT: All right. Give me -- 10 MR. FUGATE: If you'll recall -- 11 MR. LIROT: Give me -- if you can give me just 12 a minute. 13 MR. FUGATE: Sure. 14 THE COURT: I'm not sure what to do exactly 15 with these letters from Attorney Dresher and 16 Mr. Franks and -- I mean, do I need to hold these in 17 case there's some issue on this to come up later, 18 maybe? 19 MR. DANDAR: Well, you've already made your 20 decision yesterday, so you don't need it -- 21 THE COURT: Well, should I hold them? 22 MR. DANDAR: You can hold it. 23 THE COURT: Stick them somewhere in this pile 24 of stuff. 25 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 0780
1 THE COURT: All right. Let me put this way 2 over on the left-hand side. 3 Okay. I think I'm ready. 4 MR. FUGATE: May it please the court, I do have 5 one matter to bring to the court's attention. 6 THE COURT: Right. 7 MR. FUGATE: I think the court will recall 8 giving me a five-minute clock to establish relevance 9 of the movie The Profit, Courage Productions -- 10 THE COURT: True. 11 MR. FUGATE: And at the conclusion of that time 12 clock, I asked for a break, we took a break. And at 13 that break, I noticed at the conclusion of it, 14 Ms. Brooks was -- appeared to be upset. And I asked 15 what had happened, and she said in court that 16 Mr. Emmons ran and had served her with a United 17 States District Court lawsuit on behalf of Courage 18 Productions against her and others for copyright 19 infringement -- 20 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Emmons? 21 MR. FUGATE: He's Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot's 22 private investigator. 23 THE COURT: Is this -- are you Mr. Emmons? 24 MR. SPECTOR: No, ma'am. 25 MR. FUGATE: But apparently when we broke, when 0781
1 I asked for the recess, Mr. Emmons served Ms. Brooks 2 with a lawsuit on behalf of Courage Productions, 3 filed in federal court on May 22nd. Mr. Lirot filed 4 it. And I asked if she would give me a copy of it. 5 And the thing that's interesting to me is -- 6 and I'll, at the appropriate time, ask to be able to 7 ask Mr. Minton some questions -- obviously, I've not 8 talked to him. But the attached exhibits to the 9 lawsuit show traffic between -- e-mail exhibits, 10 which I'm trying to find one here that I'm looking 11 for -- with Patricia Greenway and filing cc's of her 12 documents which are exhibits in this matter from 13 Patricia Greenway, Courage Productions. And cc'ed 14 to Dandar Law and Lirot Law as an exhibit filed in 15 this lawsuit. 16 And it -- it was served in your courtroom, as I 17 understand it, by their investigator to Ms. Brooks, 18 who is a witness. And it was done on behalf of, 19 apparently, Ms. Greenway, who is, I guess, the agent 20 for Courage. 21 And I think that the court should be aware of 22 that. I think, at the appropriate time, on 23 redirect, I'd like to ask Mr. Minton about it. 24 Because it's interesting -- we didn't get there 25 quite yesterday. It's interesting that in the -- 0782
1 the agreement that sets up and incorporates Courage 2 Productions, there are two partners, Peter Alexander 3 and Mr. Minton. He's 50 percent owner, and 4 100 percent, less $200, I think, financier of 5 Courage Productions. 6 And Mr. Lieberman was kind enough in pointing 7 out to me that it appears that before a lawsuit 8 could be filed or legal action could be taken, both 9 of the partners would have to be consulted. And I'm 10 assuming that that didn't happen. In other words, 11 Mr. Minton wasn't asked if he would authorize 12 litigation. 13 And I think frankly, Judge, that it's filed for 14 the purpose of intimidation. And I want to bring it 15 to the court's attention. 16 THE COURT: All right. Let me see it, if you 17 have an extra copy. 18 MR. FUGATE: I do, Judge. 19 THE COURT: I'm not crazy about people serving 20 lawsuits in my courtroom. People are here compelled 21 as a witness -- I don't know if she's compelled or 22 not. But there's some -- there's some old rule, 23 seems to me, that if somebody's in the courtroom 24 pursuant to some compelled attendance, they can't 25 be -- maybe they can't be arrested on a warrant. Is 0783
1 that it? Something from my old criminal law days. 2 MR. HOWIE: It's an arrest matter, but 3 service -- there are certain times when service can 4 be blocked, but I don't think this is one of them. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not crazy about 6 it, for whatever it's worth. I mean, I don't like 7 folks coming to court here and getting served with 8 lawsuits. I mean, at the very least, they can be 9 served outside, not in the courtroom. 10 Anyway, yes, I'll take a look at this. And -- 11 and you know, if you think there's something about 12 this now that makes this relevant, why, you can 13 certainly reopen that line of inquiry. 14 MR. FUGATE: Well, I will argue to your Honor 15 that it is. Because again, as I said, the hundred 16 percent funding of it was by Mr. Minton. And it 17 appears that, again, you know, his funds are in use. 18 And in this case, ironically, apparently in use in 19 litigation against him and/or Ms. Brooks. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Howie, you seem to be on your 21 feet for something. 22 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I simply want to 23 communicate with the court that I have been advised 24 of this as well, and we would object to any cross 25 examination on this point until direct -- until 0784
1 Mr. Fugate has an opportunity to perform direct on 2 this. 3 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Till what, now? 4 MR. HOWIE: We ask the court to protect 5 Mr. Minton from inquiry on points raised on this 6 until he has an opportunity to review that and allow 7 Mr. Fugate to perform direct on this before 8 Mr. Minton is cross examined on matters pertaining 9 directly to this lawsuit, since he has not -- 10 THE COURT: You're asking me to protect him 11 regarding having to answer -- 12 MR. HOWIE: Questions concerning the substance 13 of this lawsuit. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. HOWIE: Until he's had an opportunity to 16 review it. 17 THE COURT: All right. Seems fair to me. 18 But I don't know why we would get into this 19 lawsuit, except as it may be relevant to this 20 inquiry, which would be that somehow this is 21 relevant to the issue here, fraud on the court, 22 lies -- 23 But in any event -- 24 MR. HOWIE: It's just that from time to time -- 25 THE COURT: Just raise your objection if it 0785
1 gets there. I'm not sure exactly where this is 2 going to go. 3 MR. HOWIE: I just want the court to anticipate 4 the possibility -- 5 THE COURT: He was not sued, I take it. 6 MR. HOWIE: No, he is not a party. But 7 clearly, he is a witness in this case, and 8 conceivably as a potential codefendant, ultimately. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. HOWIE: We need an opportunity to review 11 that possibility. We knew nothing about this. 12 THE COURT: All right. So can I put this aside 13 for now? 14 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor. I just wanted to 15 bring it to the court's attention. And at the 16 appropriate time, I was going to look at the exhibit 17 list. My recollection is the plaintiffs put in a 18 lawsuit at the beginning of their case -- I think 19 Ms. Brooks' cross examination or -- where there had 20 been a lawsuit produced that they said they needed 21 to have in evidence to show intimidation. I want to 22 check that out. And I think, you know, if that's 23 the case, then I think this one's clearly relevant 24 as well. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll -- I'm going to 0786
1 put it aside and -- 2 MR. FUGATE: I didn't mean to take any more 3 time -- 4 MR. MOXON: We've served a subpoena to try to 5 get a copy of that film, as you've requested, so you 6 could see it, and we haven't received it. But 7 hopefully, we'll get it and we can give it to you. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 9 Are you ready for cross examination? 10 MR. DANDAR: I think so. 11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Minton, you want to 12 come up here and resume the stand, please? 13 Good morning. 14 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 15 MR. DANDAR: There are two other requests to 16 produce that were served on us by Flag. One is to 17 produce -- and you may have already talked about 18 this -- but they're both dated for today. 19 One is to produce bank checks and bank 20 statements for the estate of Lisa McPherson from 21 January 1st, 2000 to the present, bank statements 22 showing money that Dell Liebreich gave to Ken 23 Dandar, Tom Dandar or Dandar and Dandar, PA, and 24 "bank statements showing deposits of any moneys 25 given to you for any reason by Ken Dandar or Dandar 0787
1 and Dandar or any agent thereof." You may have 2 already addressed that, though. I'm not sure. 3 But this is from the Church of Scientology to 4 Dell Liebreich as a plaintiff/counterdefendant. 5 THE COURT: Let me see it. 6 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar, do you have a copy of 7 that here? 8 MR. DANDAR: No, I don't. This is what you 9 sent me. I'm sure you have a copy. 10 THE COURT: No. I don't think I've addressed 11 this, but I will. 12 Whoever wants to address this -- 13 MR. MOXON: Well, can I take a look at a copy 14 of that? We didn't bring that today, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Well, we can address it maybe -- 16 MR. MOXON: Yeah. Perhaps at lunchtime. 17 MR. DANDAR: Some other time. 18 THE COURT: Yeah. What else have you got 19 there? 20 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Moxon also filed a request for 21 the estate to produce Patricia Greenway, Dina Holmes 22 and Shirley Wilson to testify today at 9:00. 23 Number one, I have no control over these 24 people. I heard someone call Patricia Greenway my 25 trial consultant. That's a joke. She doesn't work 0788
1 for me at all. She's a person who's just interested 2 in this case. And Dina Holmes lives in Arizona. I 3 have no control over her. And Shirley Wilson, I 4 have no idea where she lives, but it's not in 5 Florida. So I can't produce any of these people. 6 THE COURT: All right. Well, if you folks want 7 to have somebody here, why, go find them and get 8 them here. 9 MR. FUGATE: I -- 10 THE COURT: I'm not going to require him to 11 bring these people under these circumstances. He 12 says that they're not parties; they're not 13 witnesses. 14 MR. DANDAR: Okay. Shall we proceed? 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I also add 17 something here? 18 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Why would 19 you -- why would you add something. There's no 20 question before you. If it's a procedural matter, 21 yes, you can, but -- 22 THE WITNESS: Well, it's -- it's a further 23 thing that Mr. Howie was not aware of concerning 24 this. 25 THE COURT: Well, then talk to Mr. Howie about 0789
1 it. You know, I can't -- 2 THE WITNESS: All right. I'll do it later. 3 THE COURT: If you want to do it now -- 4 THE WITNESS: I'll do it later. That's all 5 right. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 ___________________________________ 8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Good morning, Mr. Minton. 11 A Good morning, Mr. Dandar. 12 Q Mr. Minton, are you on any medications today? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What are they? 15 A Cough drops. 16 Q Have you been, in your lifetime, diagnosed with 17 bipolar disease? 18 A I have not. 19 Q Have you taken any -- any prescription medications 20 in your lifetime -- well, let's just say in the last couple 21 of years -- that have anything to do with any mental 22 condition? 23 A You want to define mental condition? 24 Q Well, anxiety, depression -- 25 A Yes. 0790
1 Q -- manic depressive. 2 A Yes. Depression. 3 Q Pardon me? 4 A Yes. Depression. 5 Q What type of medication is that? 6 THE COURT: Why do we need to go there? 7 MR. DANDAR: Well, I just want to ask him these 8 questions to see -- he's supposed to be on these 9 medications, and maybe he's not on these 10 medications. 11 THE COURT: Well, the truth of the matter is, 12 my understanding of the -- of course, this ought to 13 be Mr. Howie's bag and maybe I ought to just mind my 14 own business. 15 Go on ahead. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q What's the name of the medication? 18 A Celexa. 19 Q That's for depression, correct? 20 A It is. 21 Q And when's the last time you took that? 22 A Sometime around -- let me look at my calendar. 23 Q That's fine. 24 A The day after -- the day of Judge Schaeffer's 25 contempt hearing. 0791
1 Q So April 5th of 2001? 2 A Right. 3 Q Okay. Does your prescription permit you to take 4 it whenever you want to, or does it say you need to take it 5 regularly? 6 A Take it as needed. 7 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I'm just going to 8 object to the relevancy of this line of inquiry. 9 THE COURT: Well, I -- I would tend to agree, 10 but I think it's more of a matter for Mr. Howie's 11 objecting, quite frankly. 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I would point out we've 13 not reached matters privileged yet, and in good 14 faith I cannot interpose an objection based on 15 privilege. Not being a party to the motion, I'm 16 not -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. HOWIE: -- in a position to object to 19 relevance. 20 THE COURT: I understand. 21 Well, then, your relevancy objection -- my 22 understanding is drugs are relevant for a few 23 things. One, if somebody is under the influence of 24 drugs while they're testifying. That's entitled to 25 be known. Two, if somebody is fairly addicted to 0792
1 drugs where this could influence them, and that's 2 relevant. And then three, would be, I think -- I 3 think -- and I may be wrong on this -- regarding the 4 incident in question, whether somebody was on drugs, 5 you know, even if not today and even if not normal, 6 when -- when some incident occurred. 7 So just to start asking somebody about, you 8 know, drugs that they've taken and what have you 9 would seem to have no relevance. Unless you can 10 tell me what it is. You're saying that it may be 11 relevant 'cause if he should be taking it -- 12 MR. DANDAR: He should be -- 13 THE COURT: How that would influence -- 14 Well, it might influence his actions -- 15 MR. DANDAR: Right. 16 THE COURT: -- but I don't know how it would 17 influence his actions. 18 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 19 THE COURT: So I'm going to rule that it's 20 irrelevant, at least as to anything I'm -- I've not 21 observed anything unusual in his behavior, and 22 therefore I think it's irrelevant. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Mr. Minton -- 25 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, could I just say one 0793
1 more thing about the depression drugs? 2 THE COURT: Sure. 3 THE WITNESS: Just, you know, my understanding, 4 based on medical advice, is that the three types 5 of -- well, these are called SSRIs, serotonin 6 reuptake inhibitors or something, that adds 7 serotonin to the brain, which is a naturally 8 occurring drug in the body, serotonin. 9 And people who are subject to depressions have 10 periods of time in which their serotonin levels go 11 down. And the Prozac and Zoloft are two types of 12 these drugs which require a constant build-up -- 13 well, build-up at the beginning of about two weeks 14 before the serotonin reaches an optimum level. 15 Celexa, which has been in use in Europe for 20 years 16 before Zoloft and Prozac were introduced in this 17 country, is a fast-acting, immediate serotonin 18 increase, as opposed to something that needs to be 19 gradually built up. So that's why Celexa, for 20 example, is something you can take on an as-needed 21 basis as opposed to these others, which you have to 22 be on constantly. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q In the summer of 2001, were you being treated by a 0794

 1   medical doctor at all for any reason?
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Who was that?
 4        A    I don't remember his name.  I went into the
 5   hospital with pneumonia, as I recall.
 6        Q    What month was that?
 7        A    It was August, late August, just before the Labor
 8   Day weekend.
 9             Other than that doctor, I think the last time that
10   I saw any other doctor was a couple of years before that.
11        Q    Okay.  In fact, you and I would always talk about
12   you should be getting a checkup, a physical examination.
13   And you were asking me in the years '98, '99, 2000, 2001, to
14   find you a doctor here that would be a good doctor for a
15   physical examination, is that right?
16        A    That's not correct.
17        Q    Okay.  What is correct?
18        A    What is correct is after your heart attack, or you
19   know, open heart surgery, the quadruple bypass thing --
20        Q    Quintuple.
21        A    Okay.  You had just gotten very religious on the
22   subject of medical care; suggested that this was something I
23   really needed to do.  And you know -- so I think your -- the
24   time period that you talked about went back much further
25   than when you had that operation.

1 Q All right. Now, in the summer of 2001, did you 2 receive any treatment by a psychologist or a psychiatrist? 3 A Not that I remember. 4 Q Okay. In the summer of 2001, were you -- were you 5 being treated by a mental health therapist? 6 A Yes. I had talks with a mental health therapist. 7 Q And what's that person's name? 8 A Diane Palermo. 9 Q When did you talk to Diane Palermo. 10 MR. HOWIE: Objection. Privilege. 11 THE COURT: Is she a psychiatrist, psychologist 12 or a -- someone in that area that allows a 13 privilege, or is she just a -- I mean, I don't even 14 know who she is. Is she a psychiatrist? 15 MR. DANDAR: I think Mr. Minton answered that 16 question. 17 THE COURT: Is she a psychiatrist? 18 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what she is, your 19 Honor. I don't think she's a psychiatrist, though. 20 THE COURT: Is she a psychologist? 21 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. 22 THE COURT: What is she? 23 THE WITNESS: She's a -- she's -- she's a 24 social worker in New York. 25 THE COURT: Social worker. There is no 0796
1 privilege about social work, I don't believe; 2 talking to a social worker. 3 MR. HOWIE: I would -- I am not sure whether 4 the laws of New York would apply in making that 5 decision, your Honor. 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I don't pretend to 7 speak with knowledge certain, but I do believe that 8 social workers do practice psychotherapy and are 9 covered under the New York privilege. I'm not 10 certain. 11 THE COURT: Well, run up to my library and find 12 out, because I'm certain we have the New York laws 13 up there. This could be relevant. I have already 14 heard about this through Ms. Brooks' testimony. 15 MR. DANDAR: Even if there was a privilege, 16 which I'm sure there is not for this person, 17 Palermo, it's been waived, because this telephone 18 conference was used as Mr. Minton's excuse before 19 Judge Baird under an affidavit by -- 20 THE COURT: Ms. Brooks. 21 MR. DANDAR: -- Stacy Brooks, and I believe 22 perhaps even his testimony -- I could be wrong on 23 that part -- that this therapist was the reason why 24 he didn't show up on August 3rd for his deposition 25 last summer. 0797
1 THE COURT: I think that's true. So to -- I 2 mean, I think he can inquire now. As to whether he 3 can inquire as to what was said, I don't know that 4 he's asked that yet. 5 MR. DANDAR: Not yet. 6 THE COURT: So when we get to that, why, we'll 7 determine whether or not there's a privilege. 8 And somebody needs to go up to the library. 9 Because if somebody can't show me that there's a 10 privilege, there is no privilege that I know of in 11 the state of Florida, which is where we are, that 12 deals with a social worker as being a privilege 13 under some psychotherapy privilege, that I'm aware 14 of. I don't deal with this every day, so I may be 15 wrong even under Florida law. 16 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, my response to this 17 waiver of privilege argument is that I do not 18 believe the contents of any communication with Diane 19 Palermo was revealed. Only then would there be a 20 waiver of privilege. Merely to reveal a contact 21 with a therapist is not a waiver of content 22 communication. 23 THE COURT: Thus far I don't think we're into a 24 privileged area, number one. Number two, I'll deal 25 with the waiver and I'll deal with whether there is 0798
1 a privilege if in fact he asks what he talked to her 2 about. He has not asked that. So your objection's 3 overruled. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Could I get Mr. Minton some 5 water? 6 THE COURT: I thought -- 7 THE WITNESS: No, I got some from Ms. Brooks. 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: Oh, so she just -- okay. 9 THE WITNESS: She'd like hers back, I believe. 10 She doesn't like that kind of water. 11 Could we switch? 12 MR. WEINBERG: I was just the middleman. 13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: Continue. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Mr. Minton, how did you know Diane Palermo? 17 A She was introduced to me by David Cecere. 18 Q In Clearwater? 19 A I believe so, yeah. 20 Q And she's a former Scientologist, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And she came to the Lisa McPherson Trust -- 23 A Yes. I believe, yes. 24 Q And she came to the Lisa McPherson Trust seeking 25 assistance of some kind, correct? 0799
1 A Not that I know of. 2 Q Okay. Did you meet her in person? 3 A You know, the only time I ever met Diane Palermo 4 was less than two minutes. 5 Q In Clearwater. 6 A I think it was, yes. 7 Q When? 8 A Sometime around one of the annual pickets. 9 Q So was it in -- 10 A It was either '99 or 2000. 11 Q Okay. 12 A In December of those years. To the best of my 13 recollection. 14 Q And -- 15 A It wasn't both years. It was just one of those 16 years. 17 Q And it was just a brief introduction. 18 A Yes. 19 Q All right. 20 A She was a -- she was introduced to me as, I 21 thought, David Cecere's girlfriend. 22 Q Okay. And David Cecere, was he working for the 23 Lisa McPherson Trust at the time? 24 A I'm not sure. Because if it was at the end of 25 2000, he wouldn't have been. If it was in '99, he would 0800

 1   have been.  And I don't remember --
 2        Q    Okay.
 3        A    -- which year it was.
 4        Q    And did he -- he or she describe to you what she
 5   does for a living?
 6        A    No.
 7        Q    Okay.  When's the next time you had contact with
 8   Diane Palermo?
 9        A    Sometime in 2001, after she made some post on the
10   Internet.
11        Q    And when she made some post on the Internet, you
12   responded to that post in a rather negative fashion, is that
13   right?
14        A    No.  I responded to that post in a fashion that
15   suggested that if she was going to come out and tell her
16   story, she ought to be telling all of it.
17        Q    And how did you know she didn't tell all of it?
18        A    Based on what she had told Stacy or Jesse.
19        Q    Okay.
20        A    Or what David Cecere had told me.  I don't
21   remember how.  But I knew there was a lot more to the story.
22        Q    Okay.  And so you responded to her with an e-mail
23   or a posting on ARS?  Which one?
24        A    I responded with a post on ARS.  I might have
25   copied her by e-mail on the post.  I don't remember.

1 Q Okay. Now, when people come to the Lisa McPherson 2 Trust to seek help of whatever kind, being a former 3 Scientologist or even a current Scientologist, do they have 4 an understanding that whatever they tell people inside the 5 Lisa McPherson Trust is confidential? 6 A That is understood, I believe. I'm not -- there's 7 no -- there's no document that we sign with anybody and 8 says -- you know, it's no confidentiality agreement entered 9 into, but the idea is that it's confidential. 10 Q And when -- and when someone tells you something 11 in confidence, do you honor that? 12 A Yeah. I'd say so, generally. 13 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I just found in Earhart 14 the answer that you were looking for in the library. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we don't need to deal 16 with it unless we get to what they talked about. So 17 you've got it, and that's good. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q All right. So she posted something on ARS, 20 alt.religion.scientology, and you responded with another 21 post, correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q All right. And then when is the next time you had 24 contact with her? 25 A We had some e-mail communications after that. 0802
1 Q And what's the general subject matter of those 2 e-mail communications? 3 MR. FUGATE: I'm just going to object to 4 relevance. 5 THE COURT: I think I see the relevance. 6 Overruled. Or I see the potential relevance. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q What was the subject matter? 9 A Her situation in Scientology. 10 Q Was she still in Scientology? 11 A It was a little bit unclear to me at that time. 12 I'm not sure. 13 Q Okay. 14 A She was still in close communication with somebody 15 who was still in Scientology, and so I'm not sure whether 16 she still was in or not. 17 Q Is that Mr. Carmichael? 18 A That's who I understood it to be. 19 Q And he's still in Scientology, correct? 20 A He is. He's the man who was talked about here in 21 terms of the New York Times article. 22 Q He's in OSA, in New York, correct? 23 A I believe he's in the Office of Special Affairs. 24 He's the public relations head of the Church of Scientology 25 in New York, and that would, to my knowledge, would be an 0803

 1   office -- office of Special Affairs job.
 2        Q    When's the first time you ever talked to
 3   Ms. Palermo about yourself?
 4        A    At about the time of this whole matter regarding
 5   Judge Baird.
 6        Q    That was the first time you talked to her about
 7   yourself, correct?
 8        A    I believe it was.
 9        Q    And that was the day before your scheduled
10   deposition of August 3rd, 2001 --
11        A    Yes.
12        Q    -- correct?
13             And you talked to her because --
14        A    The day before or the day before that.
15        Q    Okay.  And you talked to her because you had just
16   seen what Scientology posted about your doctors or your
17   family's and children's doctors up on the Internet, correct?
18        A    There weren't anything about doctors.  There
19   were -- there was information about a psychologist or
20   psychiatrist that might have been seen by either my children
21   or my wife or me.
22        Q    Why do you say might have?
23        A    Because they were wrong on one of them.
24        Q    Why not -- how many?
25             THE COURT:  I'm curious as to why you said they

1 weren't doctors. Psychiatrists and psychologists 2 are doctors, or at least a psychiatrist is an MD, 3 and most psychologists are PhDs and therefore -- 4 THE WITNESS: Right. 5 THE COURT: -- have a right to be called 6 doctors. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, because I'm not sure which 8 of the ones who were on there are psychiatrists or 9 psychologists. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q Were there any -- 13 THE COURT: When you said they were not 14 doctors, you were meaning in the term of medical 15 doctors. 16 THE WITNESS: Right. Right. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q All right. So there weren't any medical doctors 20 who practiced medicine, outside of psychiatry. 21 A Or psychology. 22 Q All right. Weren't any pediatricians or family 23 doctors posted, were there? 24 A No. 25 Q How many doctors were posted, or how many names? 0805
1 A You'd have to show me the post. I can't remember. 2 Q Okay. And this caused you great anxiety or 3 depression, correct? 4 A It didn't bring on any bout of depression, but I 5 was not happy about it. 6 Q Okay. And who was the first person that you 7 called? 8 A Well, I think I talked to Stacy Brooks. I talked 9 to John Merrett. I talked to Diane Palermo at some stage. 10 Q You talk to me? 11 A I don't remember whether I talked to you. 12 Q How long did you talk to Diane Palermo? 13 A Probably a couple of hours. 14 Q Okay. 15 A And she subsequently had other conversations with 16 Merrett and Stacy Brooks. 17 Q And did you ask her to write a note or an 18 affidavit so that you could hand it to -- use it in some 19 fashion with Judge Baird to excuse you from the deposition? 20 A I did not. 21 Q Did Stacy Brooks do that? 22 A No. 23 Q Did anyone do that? 24 A I believe John Merrett asked her to. 25 Q You sure it wasn't Stacy Brooks? 0806
1 A I believe it was John Merrett. 2 Q Okay. 3 A You know, I wasn't there. They were in Florida, I 4 was in New Hampshire. 5 Q And did -- 6 A And they -- they told me about that they had asked 7 her to do that. And I said, "There's no way you're going to 8 ask her to do that." 9 Q And why is that? 10 A Because she didn't want her name revealed. 11 Q And isn't it also true she wasn't your mental 12 health therapist? 13 A At that moment, she -- she was. 14 Q Did she agree to treat you on the phone as a 15 mental health therapist? 16 A She did it in a fashion that a mental health 17 therapist would do it. And we didn't discuss whether we're 18 going to agree to set up some client relationship. We never 19 discussed that. 20 Q And you -- 21 A She had been -- she had been communicating -- just 22 to go back here, there were some people in your stable of 23 friends, Patricia Greenway and Dina Holmes, who took the 24 message -- and Shirley Wilson, the people who were talked 25 about this morning -- who took the post that I made about 0807

 1   Diane Palermo and made this as something nasty.  A nasty
 2   post about Diane Palermo.
 3             Well, Diane Palermo and I had numerous e-mail
 4   communications on the subject of that post.  And she
 5   subsequently posted on the Internet that there was no reason
 6   for anybody to be upset with me, that she was totally fine
 7   with everything that had happened.  And then Diane Palermo
 8   and I were in close contact by e-mail.  And maybe we had
 9   talked on the phone once before, I'm not sure.  But I think
10   it was just by e-mail.
11        Q    Whatever Ms. Palermo was asked to do, she refused
12   to do it, is that correct?  In reference to any kind of
13   communication to Judge Baird.
14        A    I have no idea, because I wasn't there.  But I
15   told them that -- and I told her that -- subsequent to that,
16   that she was not required to do anything, and that I would
17   do everything I could to keep her name out of this.
18        Q    Did you talk to any mental health professional,
19   before August 3rd of 2001, about this posting and your --
20   your reaction to it?
21        A    Not that I'm -- not besides her.
22        Q    So you never talked to Steve Hassan, correct?
23        A    I don't believe I did.
24        Q    Did someone talk to him on your behalf to request
25   a note from him?

1 A That's possible. 2 Q Who? 3 A Might have been Stacy or John Merrett. 4 Q And he refused as well, correct? 5 A I don't know. 6 Q All right. 7 A You know, just understand that this note was 8 important to John Merrett. It wasn't important to me. 9 Which is why I had nothing to do with it. 10 Q Did you ever receive any information that, when I 11 found about this, I suggested you immediately go to 12 Wellspring and see a real professional in the mental health 13 field? 14 A You made that suggestion to who? 15 Q Either John Merrett or Stacy Brooks or yourself. 16 A Well, you didn't make it to me and nobody 17 communicated that to me. 18 Q All right. Now, Mr. Minton, have you ever 19 experienced any Scientology auditing? 20 A No. Other than a demonstration version of it in 21 the offices of Courage Productions. 22 Q And how long ago was that? 23 A It was either in -- I think it was in the year 24 2000. 25 Q Well, didn't you have experience with that with 0809

 1   Stacy Brooks?
 2        A    Yes.  She was the one who was conducting our
 3   demonstration.
 4             MR. FUGATE:  Your Honor, I would object to the
 5        form, then, of the question, because it would not be
 6        Scientology auditing if it took place outside of the
 7        Church of Scientology by someone who's not a
 8        Scientology auditor.
 9             THE COURT:  I don't know the -- I don't know
10        the rules of Scientology.  If it's once an auditor,
11        always an auditor, or what, but Ms. Brooks has
12        testified these was a Scientology auditor.
13             MR. MOXON:  No, your Honor, it's not once a
14        auditor, always an auditor.  If you lose your
15        certificate to audit, your license, you can't
16        audit --
17             THE COURT:  But --
18             MR. MOXON:  -- your Honor.
19             THE COURT:  But if you've learned to audit as a
20        Scientologist, I don't know why you couldn't do the
21        same thing when you're not a Scientologist.  So --
22             MR. MOXON:  Well --
23             THE COURT:  So I understand your
24        characterization.  And I will sustain the objection
25        as to the characterization.  Just call it

1 "auditing." 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Have you visited the Ft. Harrison Hotel, inside 4 the hotel? 5 A I don't think I've ever been inside. I certainly 6 have not been inside anytime recently. I might have stepped 7 in the front door one time in the year 1998 or '9, not 8 more -- 9 Q How about -- 10 A -- than a foot in -- 11 Q -- 2000 --- 12 A -- or something like that. 13 Q How about 2002? 14 A No. 15 Q Okay. 16 A You know, I -- I didn't believe the story about 17 being picked up in a limo and taken to the Ft. Harrison 18 Hotel and have six CR people carry in the baggage. 19 Q Did you see that? 20 A Yeah. That's -- that's -- you know, that's where 21 this question comes from. And you know, if you read -- if 22 you believe everything you see on the Internet -- 23 Q Okay. 24 A But I haven't been in there. 25 Q Well, I just had to ask the question. 0811
1 A It was a good question. 2 Q All right. Now, when you got involved with 3 becoming vocal on the Internet about Scientology, that was 4 because you saw Scientology had removed someone's Web site 5 all by themselves, correct? That got you infuriated. 6 A No. That had nothing to do with it. 7 Q Why did you become involved in people who are 8 critical of Scientology? 9 A Well, when I first -- you're not asking a question 10 that's going to get you an answer, but I will give you the 11 answer that you're trying to get to -- 12 THE COURT: I don't know, because I -- I've 13 heard why you got annoyed with Scientology, and I 14 thought it had to do with exactly what he just asked 15 you. So I think he's going to get there sooner or 16 later -- 17 A Yeah. I'll just help you on this one. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Go ahead. Tell us. 20 A No. What happened in January of 1995 was that an 21 attorney for the Church of Scientology -- at least this was 22 the way it was portrayed at the time -- tried to illegally 23 cancel a newsgroup called alt.religion.scientology, as 24 opposed to a Web site. 25 Q Okay. 0812
1 A You had asked about Web site. 2 Q All right. 3 A This was Helena Kobrin. 4 You know, a few years later -- actually, I've seen 5 the letter or e-mail that she sent. And it wasn't any 6 illegal attempt to cancel the newsgroup. It was in fact a 7 request to take it down because it was established by 8 somebody who falsely used David Miscavige's name to set it 9 up. And that was the basis for it. But at the time, it was 10 totally portrayed as an illegal attempt to close down this 11 group, where people who came -- who were former 12 Scientologists, by and large, came to talk about their 13 experiences and things related to Scientology. 14 Q Was it -- was it actually taken down for a while? 15 A Not to my knowledge. 16 THE COURT: What's that again? I've seen it a 17 lot of times. Alt Scientology what? 18 THE WITNESS: Alt.religion.scientology. ARS 19 for short. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q You have called -- in the courtroom, you have 23 called FACTNet an anti-Scientology Web site, is that right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And when did you start using the description 0813

 1   anti-Scientology?
 2        A    Well, I've used it a long time.
 3        Q    Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that FACTNet is simply
 4   a clearinghouse of documents?
 5        A    No.  It's absolutely untrue.
 6        Q    Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that FACTNet doesn't
 7   just deal with Scientology; it deals with other coercive
 8   cults?
 9        A    After Stacy Brooks and I left, because of the
10   prohibitions in terms of the settlement agreement that we
11   had with the Church of Scientology as FACTNet, FACTNet
12   substantially reduced its Scientology -- it's overt
13   Scientology attacks -- because it was focused exclusively on
14   Scientology up until then -- and started putting more stuff
15   on their Web sites, as the LMT has done -- we have stuff
16   about many other organizations besides Scientology on there.
17   And so from the time we settled with Scientology, the
18   content concerning Scientology became a smaller percentage
19   of FACTNet's Web site.  But it is still by far the dominant
20   part of what their Web site consists of.
21        Q    Is Operation Clambake an anti -- as you say,
22   anti-Scientology Web site?
23        A    Yes.  I would characterize it that way.
24        Q    Well --
25        A    I don't see anything on there pro-Scientology.

1 Q Well, don't they simply disclose Scientology's own 2 documents on the Web site? 3 A Well, if they're doing that, then they're 4 violating the copyrights of the Church of Scientology, but 5 because they're in Norway, they're outside of the 6 jurisdiction of the courts and -- 7 But by and large, they have some Scientology 8 documents on there, but the vast majority of the material 9 they have is not Scientology documents. 10 THE COURT: Is that what Operation Clambake is, 11 a Web site? 12 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 13 THE COURT: It is not a corporation or a -- 14 it's just a site, a Web site. 15 THE WITNESS: It is a corporation. 16 MR. DANDAR: I -- I only know it as -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. DANDAR: -- as a Web site. I don't know 19 what the -- 20 THE WITNESS: It became a corporation in the 21 beginning of 2001 sometime. January, February, or 22 March. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Do you have a financial interest in Operation 25 Clambake? 0815
1 A No. 2 Q I mean have you ever had a financial stake in 3 Operation Clambake? 4 A No. 5 Q Okay. Who does, as far as you know? 6 A I don't think anybody has a financial stake in it. 7 Q All right. So I'm using the wrong word then. 8 A Mr. Heldal-Lund is the person who put together the 9 Web site. I believe he's the sole shareholder of the 10 Operation Clambake, you know, limited company or whatever 11 its equivalent is in Norway. 12 Q Did you ever help him financially to operate the 13 Web site? 14 A No, I didn't. 15 Q Did you ever help him financially to -- as a 16 personal loan or gift or donation? 17 A No. 18 Q Now, you have given money to attorney Dan Leipold, 19 correct? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And when you gave money to attorney Dan Leipold, 22 did you just send him a check or did you make him sign legal 23 documents? 24 A When we first started, there -- I think you've 25 seen it in evidence here -- there was a loan agreement when 0816

 1   he set up his law firm, Leipold Donohue and Shipe.
 2        Q    And when you sent those checks of the documents
 3   that we show, that -- those documents only show a $180,000
 4   loan to Mr. Leipold, correct, and his partner?
 5        A    To Mr. Leipold and his two partners, that's
 6   correct.
 7        Q    And you've given him or loaned him more than that,
 8   correct?
 9        A    Correct.
10        Q    All right.  Do you have any documents for that?
11        A    Other than cancelled checks, no.
12        Q    You have any letters?
13        A    No.
14        Q    And when you sent him more checks over and above
15   the $180,000, is it because he asked you for it?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    And is all those checks that you sent included in
18   this contract of 180,000 or is it just a verbal agreement to
19   repay?
20        A    I believe that's some sort of privilege involved
21   there.
22        Q    Not when you introduced the loan documents.
23             MR. DANDAR:  I -- I would object to that and
24        I'd say --
25             THE COURT:  Me too.  Overruled.  If that's an

1 objection coming from him. 2 THE WITNESS: Well -- 3 THE COURT: I'm not used to having objections 4 from witnesses, but if it's necessary, I'll overrule 5 it. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, I just was following in 7 Mr. Dandar's -- he objects, and I just assumed it 8 was okay for everybody, but -- 9 And I'm not talking about the loan agreement, 10 your Honor, I'm talking about -- 11 THE COURT: Sir -- 12 THE WITNESS: -- the substance -- 13 THE COURT: -- you've got the lawyers here. If 14 there's an objection to be made, it'll be made by 15 them. You're not a lawyer. Answer the question 16 unless I tell you you don't have to. 17 A What was the question? 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q I'll try it -- 20 The checks that you sent, over and above the 21 $180,000 to Mr. Leipold, is that based upon a verbal 22 agreement for him to repay those? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Okay. Are you charging interest on that? 25 A I believe our verbal agreement relates to the same 0818

 1   interest rate that was on the other loan.
 2        Q    Okay.
 3        A    Which I don't remember what it was.
 4        Q    10 percent sound right?
 5        A    I don't remember whether it was 6, 8, 10.
 6        Q    Okay.  Did you loan money to Mr. Wollersheim, who
 7   is Mr. Leipold's client?
 8        A    Yes, I did.
 9        Q    And how much did you loan him?
10        A    Somewhere between 4- and 500,000.
11        Q    It's not $750,000?
12        A    Well, he owes me $700,000.  697,500.
13        Q    And is that interest?
14        A    It includes interest and other payments.
15        Q    Is there a loan document for that?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    Does that loan document reflect the total amount
18   that you just said on the record?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    And what's that total amount?
21        A    697,500.  I only know that exact figure because it
22   was just -- just had to calculate it a few days ago.
23        Q    Oh, okay.  I was going to ask you how you
24   remembered that.
25             Now, how much of that is interest?

1 A A couple hundred thousand, approximately. I don't 2 know. 3 Q So it's been a long time since you've sent him 4 money? 5 A Yeah. It was a long time ago when I loaned him 6 this money, right. 7 Q Okay. Did you loan him money -- 8 Now, he was in -- he was in -- your partner or 9 co-shareholder in FactNet, right? 10 A There weren't any shareholders in FactNet. And 11 no, he wasn't at that time, because this was in 1996 and 12 1997. 13 Q Okay. Why did you send -- or loan him money? 14 A To enable him to have funds to try and succeed in 15 the strategy that Leipold had come up with to prove alter 16 ego in his case relating to this judgment that he won 20 17 years ago against the Church of Scientology. And there 18 wasn't any money to -- the party that he won the judgment 19 against no longer had any money because it had spent it all 20 in litigation over the years. 21 Q Well, Mr. Wollersheim is not an attorney, correct? 22 A No. 23 Q All right. So why would you -- 24 THE COURT: Wait a second, now. That's one of 25 those things where the record is bad. 0820
1 "Mr. Wollersheim is not an attorney, correct." 2 And you said, "No." The real answer to that is, 3 "That is correct," right? 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Wollersheim is 5 not an attorney. 6 MR. DANDAR: Got to watch myself. 7 THE COURT: You have to watch, Counselor, 8 because what happens, the person's answering your 9 question, not that "correct" on the end. That's 10 why, if you start, "isn't it true that," then 11 that -- at least at the end they know what the 12 question is. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q Okay. So Mr. Wollersheim's not an attorney. Why 15 would you send him money to pursue collection of his 16 judgment against the Church of Scientology rather than his 17 attorney? 18 A Well, first of all, I didn't know any of his 19 attorneys when this -- you know, I met them all on the 20 phone. All of his attorneys, of which there were umpteen 21 hundreds of them, it seemed to me, who had been involved in 22 this litigation for a long time, we had a conference call 23 that included at least five or six of Mr. Wollersheim's 24 attorneys; Mr. Wollersheim, me and I believe Arnie Lerma was 25 involved in the phone call as well. 0821
1 And you know, Wollersheim -- you know, Wollersheim 2 is a -- sort of a strange individual in many respects, to 3 say the least. And he was introduced to me by Arnie Lerma, 4 who was, in fact, on the board of directors of FACTNet with 5 Wollersheim at that time. And they came up to see me, I 6 think, in the fall of 1996, and I agreed to loan him money 7 to be used for this litigation of -- concerning this 8 strategy of finding an alter ego, so that he had somebody to 9 claim against. Because the Church of Scientology of 10 California didn't have money to pay his judgment. 11 Q Yeah. They bankrupted the mother church after he 12 obtained his judgment, didn't they, so he couldn't collect. 13 A To -- based on knowledge that I've learned since 14 then, no, that's not true. 15 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I object. That's not 16 in evidence, and I object to that characterization. 17 THE COURT: Overruled. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q At the time you loaned Mr. Wollersheim money, he 20 had not been able to collect on his judgment because the 21 mother church, at that time, in California, had no assets 22 any longer, is that correct? 23 A At the time that he -- 24 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I just would ask for a 25 foundation, if he's -- 0822
1 THE COURT: This -- this hearing deals with 2 what's going on with this man -- 3 MR. FUGATE: I understand. 4 THE COURT: -- and his state of mind. 5 I'm not -- you'll recall, when Ms. Brooks was 6 testifying, oftentimes I said, "There's a lot of 7 testimony that comes into this hearing that may in 8 fact not be true." But if what's -- 9 MR. FUGATE: Judge -- 10 THE COURT: -- going on in the heads of these 11 people that are testifying, as to what their motives 12 were, what their motives were then, and what their 13 motives are now, and whether they were lying then or 14 whether they're lying now -- and the only way to get 15 to some of that stuff is to know what was in their 16 mind? What did they think? 17 So I don't have a clue -- 18 MR. FUGATE: I recall -- 19 THE COURT: -- whether the church has money or 20 whether the church didn't have money or whether they 21 bankrupted itself, and I don't care, quite frankly. 22 What I care about is what did he think, when he 23 was loaning this money, as to how that relates to 24 this? So please, when I overrule your objection, 25 I'm not suggesting that I'm taking this as true. 0823
1 Because I don't think it matters, okay? 2 MR. FUGATE: I appreciate that, Judge, and I 3 will refrain from -- 4 THE COURT: And please understand that that's 5 true on a lot of this stuff; you know, that I may 6 not -- there may be stuff that's coming into this 7 hearing that is factually -- I would assume there 8 is -- that is factually incorrect. But it doesn't 9 matter as to this hearing. 10 So -- 11 MR. FUGATE: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: -- please remember that. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q Wasn't that your understanding as to why 15 Mr. Wollersheim, prevailing against the mother church, could 16 not collect on his judgment, is because the mother church 17 had removed its assets and there was nothing to collect 18 from? 19 A Are you asking me on the basis of what I know now 20 or -- 21 THE COURT: No. 22 A -- what I knew then or -- 23 THE COURT: No, no. When you loaned the money. 24 A Okay. Well, at the time, Mr. Wollersheim had 25 described to me that -- that there wasn't any money in the 0824

 1   Church of Scientology of California, who was the person --
 2   who was the entity against which his judgment was entered.
 4        Q    And his attorneys confirmed that, correct?
 5        A    I presume that came up.  I don't remember exactly.
 6   But I presume it did.  Yeah.  I mean, that was the whole
 7   purpose, was to find somebody who had money.
 8             So the implication is that the party who was --
 9             THE COURT:  Some entity within the -- the
10        religious or within the --
11             THE WITNESS:  Scientology empire.
12             THE COURT:  -- structure.
13             THE WITNESS:  Somewhere in the structure.
14             THE COURT:  Scientology structure.
15             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.
16             THE COURT:  That he could collect his judgment
17        on.
18             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  Anybody who had money
19        because Church of Scientology California didn't.
21        Q    Okay.  And when you loaned Mr. Wollersheim this
22   money, was it one check?
23        A    There were -- there were two -- two disbursements,
24   one in '96 and one in '97 sometime.
25        Q    And when you loaned him these two checks, did you

 1   first have him sign a document, a loan document?
 2        A    For each -- each amount, there were loan
 3   documents.
 4        Q    What was the first amount?
 5        A    I believe it was 250,000 or something less, and
 6   then the second one was 250 --
 7             I'm not a hundred percent sure.
 8        Q    Okay.  And on the loan document, did it describe
 9   how the money was to be used?
10        A    I believe it did.
11        Q    And how -- what did it say about how it would be
12   used?
13        A    It said it would be used for this litigation and
14   other personal expenses of Larry Wollersheim.
15        Q    Okay.  And did the second check -- was that
16   covered by the one loan document?
17        A    No.  There was a separate loan document for that.
18        Q    Did the terms change for the second loan document?
19        A    No.  It was the same document.
20        Q    And did you file a UCC filing form in California
21   to protect your security interest in this loan?
22        A    That's correct.
23        Q    Okay.  When you loaned money to Mr. Leipold, you
24   did tell him to go to Mr. Wollersheim and -- since he had
25   the $500,000, and get the money from him to pay the attorney

 1   fees?
 2        A    You want to --
 3        Q    Is that a bad question?  I'll do it again.
 4        A    You want to explain that again?
 5        Q    All right.  Did Mr. Leipold use any of that
 6   $500,000 that you loaned to Mr. Wollersheim to pay attorney
 7   fees and costs, if you know?
 8        A    No.  Mr. -- Mr. Wollersheim did.
 9        Q    Okay.  And was Mr. Leipold his attorney at the
10   time you loaned the money in '96 and '97?
11        A    He was one of his attorneys.  He was not his main
12   attorney at that time.  I believe there was a guy named
13   Craig Stein.  And you know, Leipold -- there were several
14   attorneys working for Wollersheim.  And you know, I believe
15   they had some sort of joint arrangement.  But as I recall, a
16   guy in Colorado, who I think is Craig Stein, was the
17   principal.
18             THE COURT:  Can I ask something?  Sometimes I
19        write and my brain is listening to what's ahead and
20        I'm trying to write what's behind, and I --
21             Did you indicate that the money you had loaned
22        him in these loan documents, it said that it was be
23        used to help him collect the judgment and for his
24        personal needs or personal use?
25             THE WITNESS:  And for other -- I forget what

1 the loan document said, but it also covered some 2 element for the -- his personal -- 3 The guy was broke, you know. 4 THE COURT: Personal -- I'm trying to look for 5 the last word you said. Did you say personal needs, 6 personal use -- 7 THE WITNESS: Personal needs. 8 THE COURT: Needs. 9 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: The guy was broke. I mean, there 12 wasn't any question about it. 13 THE COURT: I got you. 14 Okay. Thank you. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q So when -- when you loaned money to 17 Mr. Wollersheim, was he already involved in FACTNet? 18 A Yes. 19 And just to clarify here, you know, in the 20 discussions with his attorneys, you know, the attorneys were 21 clearly looking to get this money. I mean, you know, that's 22 what the whole thing was about. 23 THE COURT: Which money? The money -- 24 THE WITNESS: The money that I loaned 25 Wollersheim. Because you know, they were -- I mean, 0828
1 the reason they were even taking the time to talk to 2 me on the phone is because they wanted to pursue 3 this litigation or collection of the judgment. 4 THE COURT: And presumably, if you loaned him 5 some money to collect a judgment, that may be one 6 way he could get it, is to give it to lawyers who 7 knew perhaps better how to get it, is that -- 8 THE WITNESS: I mean, they were already his 9 lawyers, and you know, they were charging him -- 10 charging him -- 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: -- for doing the work. I mean, 13 these were not -- 14 THE COURT: I have an urgent matter that I need 15 to take care of. It's 10:00. We'll take 15 16 minutes, okay? 17 18 (A recess was taken at 10:01 a.m.) 19 (The proceedings were resumed at 10:17 a.m.) 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q When you loaned the money to Mr. Wollersheim -- 22 excuse me -- Mr. Leipold, were there any restrictions on how 23 he used the money? 24 A No. They were loans to he and his two partners. 25 Q Okay. And -- 0829
1 A You know, the only restriction was his own self--- 2 self-stated goal of what the money was for. 3 Q Was Mr. Leipold representing Mr. Wollersheim at 4 the time you loaned Mr. Wollersheim $180,000 to set up his 5 own law firm? 6 A I'm sorry. I didn't -- I don't think that was -- 7 I think you got some names wrong there, so could you ask 8 that again? 9 Q All right. All right. I'll start over again. 10 The money you loaned Mr. Leipold -- 11 A Right, right. 12 Q -- $180,000 -- 13 A Right. 14 Q -- was that so Mr. Leipold could set up his own 15 law firm? 16 A It was. 17 Q Okay. And was that because Mr. Leipold -- 18 Leipold's partners, senior partners were upset with the lack 19 of income he was generating representing Mr. Wollersheim? 20 A I think there were other litigations that he was 21 involved in, involving Scientology, that -- that weren't 22 producing income. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Including Mr. Wollersheim. 25 Q Did part of the money that you loaned to 0830

 1   Mr. Wollersheim go to defending FACTNet in the suit brought
 2   against FACTNet by RTC?
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    Okay.
 5        A    And how do I know that is because FACTNet had
 6   fortuitously purchased a -- an insurance policy to protect
 7   them against copyright infringement claims just prior to
 8   them infringing Scientology's copyrights and being sued.
 9        Q    So because of that purchase of the insurance
10   policy by FACTNet, FACTNet's insurance company retained the
11   services of Graham Berry to represent and defend FACTNet by
12   the suit brought by RTC.
13        A    I don't know whether Berry was involved in that or
14   not.
15        Q    In the FACTNet litigation?
16        A    I don't.
17        Q    Okay.  All right.  And --
18        A    He wasn't involved in it when I got involved in
19   it.
20        Q    Okay.  So you don't know about the insurance
21   policy limits being exhausted in the lawsuit brought by RTC
22   against FACTNet and then Mr. Leipold stepped in.
23        A    I don't know --
24        Q    Okay.
25        A    I don't know for sure.

1 Q All right. 2 A I know that there was enough insurance money -- I 3 believe the first case that was litigated in that -- as a 4 result of that copyright infringement at FACTNet was the 5 Lerma case in DC, in front of Judge Brincova (phonetic), 6 that was RTC versus Lerma, maybe Lerma, stroke, FACTNet. 7 I'm not sure. But that was the first case that was 8 litigated. That happened fairly quickly. So they didn't 9 run out of money, for sure, by the end of that one, I'm -- 10 Q Okay. 11 A -- reasonably positive. 12 Q Now, Mr. Leipold said that the first loan you gave 13 him and his partners was $20,000, and there's a document 14 that covers only a $20,000 loan. Do you recall that? Is 15 there such a thing? 16 A No. 17 Q Okay. The loan document that's in evidence, is 18 that the only loan document you have with Mr. Leipold and 19 his partners? 20 A As far as I know. 21 Q Okay. Has Mr. Wollersheim paid you back his loan? 22 A The -- as I testified about, I think, yesterday or 23 the day before, the Church of Scientology has paid, I think, 24 roughly $8.7 million into the Los Angeles Superior Court and 25 have filed some sort of interpleader action. And I'm not 0832

 1   sure about the terminology, but I know the word
 2   "interpleader," which is a kind of a cool word, and I don't
 3   understand it yet --
 4             They've paid it in and the -- Mr. Wollersheim
 5   has -- which -- which is -- the problem as to why
 6   Scientology could never settle with Wollersheim is now more
 7   apparent and more clear because --
 8             THE COURT:  Is the answer to the question yes
 9        or no?  And then you can explain.  Is the answer no,
10        you don't have your money back?
11             THE WITNESS:  Right.  But I'm going to explain
12        the facts, okay, your Honor?
13             THE COURT:  But we need an answer.  In other
14        words what happens, we get on these big
15        explanations --
16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
17             THE COURT:  And the question never gets
18        answered.
19             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Well, the answer is, I
20        don't have my money back.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22             THE WITNESS:  But just to continue to explain,
23        Wollersheim, sort of like the movie and the play The
24        Producers, has more creditors than he has judgment.
25        And therefore, the money that's been put into the

1 court by the Church of Scientology of California is 2 to be -- the matter is either to be resolved among 3 the parties, the creditors, or by the court if the 4 parties can't resolve it among themselves. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q Do you have any idea whatsoever as to how the 7 defunct mother church, the Church of Scientology of 8 California, which Mr. Wollersheim had a judgment against for 9 over 20 years and couldn't collect on, came up with 10 $8.6 million to put into the registry of the court? 11 A Nobody's ever told me how that happened. 12 Q Did you contribute or promise to contribute any 13 money whatsoever to the payment of the Wollersheim judgment? 14 A Absolutely not. That's another Internet posting, 15 that you just had to ask the question. 16 Q I just had to ask. 17 Did you hear from anyone, who has any connections 18 with the Church of Scientology, as to where that money came 19 from? 20 A No, I didn't. 21 Q All right. 22 A The only knowledge I know about it is -- are the 23 court documents that I've been given. 24 Q Okay. I take it you're still on the Internet 25 every day looking at the postings on ARS? 0834
1 A Not every day. Things are a little busy right 2 now. 3 Q Okay. 4 A I get my e-mail every day. You know, lawyers are 5 sending me documents and stuff from that -- that case out 6 there. 7 Q Okay. 8 THE COURT: Interpleader, for whatever it's 9 worth, is just simply a -- somebody says, "Here. 10 You all figure it out. Just interplead the money," 11 to be sure that whoever has -- whoever has claims to 12 it. 13 THE WITNESS: Just to sort of get them out of 14 any future problems with it -- 15 THE COURT: So that they're not in a problem. 16 They're saying, "This is -- this is the judgment. 17 We're paying it. We're interpleading it into the 18 court. You all either work it out or the court's 19 going to figure it out." 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 21 THE COURT: Sort of. If that makes any sense 22 to you. 23 THE WITNESS: It does. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q All right. Mr. Minton, the first time I ever had 0835

 1   any conversation with you was in late September, early
 2   October of 1997, is that correct?  Yes or no?
 3        A    It's the first time you ever had any conversation
 4   of substance.  It's not the first conversation.
 5        Q    All right.  When was our first conversation?
 6        A    Well, as I've testified at this --
 7             THE COURT:  Now, understand this.  This is
 8        cross examination.  So just because you've testified
 9        about something on direct doesn't mean that he can't
10        ask you about it again.
11             THE WITNESS:  Oh, okay.
12             THE COURT:  He's allowed to test your memory.
13        He's allowed to test a lot of things.  So you really
14        don't have to say that.  Just answer his question.
15             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
16             THE COURT:  If he asks too many times, I'll
17        jump in.
18             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
19             THE COURT:  But that's what happens on cross
20        examination.
22        Q    So is there -- are you referring to the time in
23   Clearwater at the motel on U.S. 19 when I met Jeff Jacobsen
24   and Larry Wollersheim and some of the other, quote, critics
25   of Scientology, end quote?

1 A I wasn't aware of Jeff Jacobsen, but that was -- 2 that was March 9th, 1997. I believe that's a Sunday. 3 Q And you have a recollection that you and I spoke 4 in that motel room? 5 A We did speak. 6 Q What did we say? 7 A We said hello to each other. You know, I thanked 8 you for the bagels and the coffee that you brought. You 9 know, that was about it. That wasn't a conversation of 10 substance. 11 Q Okay. 12 A You just asked me -- it was a conversation. 13 Q All right. And I had -- 14 A We also -- we also spoke about that article, 15 the -- I mean -- the article in the New York Times that 16 morning. That's -- 17 Q Okay. 18 A It was a big article. 19 Q My conversations of substance was with 20 Mr. Wollersheim, correct? 21 A At that meeting, yes, your -- your principal 22 conversation of substance during that meeting was with 23 Wollersheim. 24 Q And Mr. Wollersheim was also accompanied at that 25 time by a Mr. Lerma, correct? 0837
1 A I don't remember Mr. Lerma being there -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A -- but he might have been. I just don't remember. 4 Q And you recall the -- the -- outside in the 5 parking lot was a white van that had a few Scientologists 6 from the Office of Special Affairs in it, with cameras? 7 A I'm not aware that there was one then, but there 8 was one that weekend there that had a person whose name, I 9 believe was David Lee or David Laubagh (phonetic) -- 10 Q Okay. 11 A -- who is a private investigator. And he had an 12 Arnie Lerma mask on sometime that afternoon. 13 Q Now, Mr. Minton, the first time you ever talked to 14 me concerning anything of substance was when you telephoned 15 me in September -- late September or early October of '97, 16 is that correct? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q All right. And you telephoned me because 19 Mr. Abelson, the general counsel for the Church of 20 Scientology in California, had called you up and wanted to 21 know if you had given me a hundred thousand dollars. 22 A No. That's not completely accurate. 23 Q All right. Make it accurate. 24 A Mr. Abelson had called me and he said that he 25 understood I was funding the McPherson case. 0838
1 Q Anything else? 2 A About the McPherson case? 3 Q No. Anything else that he said in that call. 4 A You know, he was -- it was generally an 5 intimidation type call, to say that, you know, a guy like 6 you basically shouldn't be getting -- be messing around with 7 things based on information that is totally false. And I 8 think he offered some information about some things that he 9 thought I was misinformed about. You know, I don't remember 10 the specifics of it. 11 But then I believe he accused me -- oh, well, he 12 accused me, obviously, of funding Wollersheim, because he 13 knew about it, I guess, because of the UCC1 filing, that 14 being a public document. You know, anybody has access to 15 that. And he also said that -- that I was funding the 16 McPherson case. 17 Q Did he also threaten you -- 18 THE COURT: And you were not, at that time. 19 THE WITNESS: I was not. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Did he also threaten you in that conversation by 23 warning you that if you did, you would be sued for RICO? 24 A That never came up. 25 Q Did he threaten you at all? 0839
1 A Well, you know, I took it as a threat. I mean, 2 you know it wasn't an outright threat, but it was -- there 3 were subtle messages sent that, basically, you know, you 4 shouldn't be getting yourself involved in stuff that could 5 cause you problems. 6 Q Did you feel intimidated by that call? 7 A Well, I think I felt so intimidated that I called 8 you up and asked you if you needed some money. 9 Q In fact, when you called me up, you said, "If 10 Mr. Abelson thinks this is such a bad idea for me to give 11 you money, I'm going to send you money." 12 A No. I said, "It must be a good idea if 13 Mr. Abelson thinks it's -- something wrong with it." 14 Q That's what I meant to say. Thanks. 15 Now, did Mr. Abelson tell you he -- he knew you 16 were in Clearwater in March of '97? 17 A No, he didn't say it. 18 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Abelson? Is he -- 19 MR. DANDAR: In-house counsel for -- 20 THE COURT: In-house counsel? 21 MR. DANDAR: Yeah. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. MOXON: I object to Mr. Dandar's 24 representation. He's not an in-house counsel. 25 THE COURT: Well, who is he? 0840
1 MR. MOXON: He's an attorney that works for 2 Church of Scientology International. 3 THE COURT: Is he a Scientologist or outside 4 Scientology lawyer? 5 MR. MOXON: He's an outside lawyer. 6 I don't know why that matters. 7 THE COURT: It doesn't. I just thought inside 8 counsel meant a Scientology lawyer as opposed to -- 9 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar keeps using this term 10 "in-house counsel," but it's not true. He's an 11 outside attorney, and he's an attorney who works for 12 the Scientology International. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. DANDAR: I believe that's his only client, 15 but I might be wrong. Mr. Moxon probably knows more 16 than I do about that. 17 MR. MOXON: He's wrong. 18 THE COURT: He is a lawyer who works for the 19 Church of Scientology. 20 MR. MOXON: Yes. 21 THE COURT: All right. Has the authority to 22 make calls on behalf of the Church of Scientology? 23 MR. MOXON: Scientology International. 24 THE COURT: International. Okay. 25 0841

 2        Q    Church of Scientology International is the mother
 3   church, correct, as far as you know, Mr. Minton?
 4        A    You know, I don't know that.
 5        Q    Okay.  All right.  Now --
 6        A    It might be.  I just don't know that.
 7             THE COURT:  Well, maybe the deal is, is when he
 8        called you on the telephone, what did he tell you?
 9        Who did he tell you he was calling on behalf of?
10             THE WITNESS:  I believe he said he was an
11        attorney for the Church of Scientology.
12             THE COURT:  And did you believe that?
13             THE WITNESS:  I had no reason to doubt it.
14             THE COURT:  Okay.  So you --
15             THE WITNESS:  And it's --
16             THE COURT:  -- assumed he had the authority to
17        make this call and talk to you about whatever he
18        talked to you about.
19             THE WITNESS:  Right.
20             And I may have seen his name in connection with
21        Church of Scientology before.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
24        Q    At that point in time, summer of '97, September of
25   '97, were you already involved with FACTNet?

1 A How do you mean involved? I wasn't on the board 2 or anything like that. 3 Q Had you given any money to FACTNet? 4 A Yes. 5 Q How much? 6 MR. WEINBERG: As of what period of time are we 7 talking about? 8 MR. DANDAR: Summer, September of '97. 9 A You mean up to that time? 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Right. 12 A You know, I'm not sure. 50,000, 20,000. 13 Somewhere in that kind of range. 14 Q Do you have a loan document for that? 15 A It's a -- it was a 501C3 corporation. It was a 16 donation. 17 Q Do you have a receipt? 18 A I probably did at one stage. I may still have it. 19 I don't know. I haven't looked for it. 20 THE COURT: Was it done by check? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: You have a check? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think it was done by 24 check. 25 THE COURT: That -- for most of us, if we write 0843
1 a check to a 501C3 corporation, that's good enough 2 for a receipt, isn't it? 3 THE WITNESS: Right. 4 But there was a -- you know, there was a change 5 of regulations and they started being required to 6 send out letters. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know when that started. 9 So I might have the check or I might have a letter 10 or I might have both. 11 THE COURT: Is that why I get -- when I make 12 these little bitty donations -- 13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 14 MR. DANDAR: I get some -- 15 THE COURT: Am I supposed to save those? 16 THE CLERK: Yes. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 18 THE COURT: Oh, thank you all. 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: If you ever get audited, they 20 won't accept the check. 21 THE COURT: Well, I just threw something out. 22 "Why are these people writing me? I gave $25 --" 23 I haven't been with the IRS since 1964. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Now, are you knocking on wood 25 right now? 0844
1 THE COURT: I'm not going to worry about it, my 2 little $25 contribution. If they want to challenge 3 it, they can go ahead. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Mr. Minton, when did you become a -- more involved 6 in FACTNet as a board of director member? 7 A I believe it was December 15th, 1997, when I was 8 officially a board member. The board meeting authorizing it 9 had happened earlier, and so it was with effect from 10 December 15th, I believe. 11 Q And were you -- 12 A Wait a minute. 13 Q The only -- 14 A Which year did I say? 15 THE COURT: '97. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q '97. 18 A I think that's right. 19 Q Were you the largest supporter of FACTNet 20 financially? 21 A At that time? 22 Q Yes. 23 A Well, up until that time, other than the moneys 24 that I'd given to FACTNet -- you know, I didn't know who 25 else had given moneys to FACTNet. I may have been, I may 0845

 1   not have been.  I also, you know, sort of did a challenge
 2   one time on the Internet, a sort of a matching challenge,
 3   where, you know, whatever people would put up, I would match
 4   it for FACTNet.  And -- so you know, I don't know --
 5        Q    Okay.
 6        A    -- for sure.
 7        Q    And after you sent this hundred thousand dollars
 8   to me, are you aware that the Church of Scientology, just
 9   prior to that, had sent me interrogatories asking about you
10   and how much money you had given to me?
11        A    I was --
12        Q    Before you ever even called me up on the phone.
13        A    I wasn't aware of that.
14        Q    Okay.
15        A    But obviously, if Mr. Elliott Abelson thought
16   that, that's probably why they did it.
17        Q    Now, Elliott Abelson's out in California.  Did he
18   call you up and tell you that he represented the Church of
19   Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. in Clearwater?
20        A    As far as I remember, he just said, you know, "I
21   represent the Church of Scientology," you know, without
22   being specific as to which one or anything.
23        Q    Okay.  Now, Mr. Minton, shortly after you sent
24   that check for a hundred thousand dollars, you were deposed.
25   Do you remember that, in January of '98?

1 A January 13th, '98. 2 Q And you didn't want to be deposed, did you? 3 A Well, I thought it was unusual. That's, you know, 4 based on what my counsel had told me in Boston. But you 5 know, he said, you know, "You don't have much choice, 6 really." 7 Q And I thought it was out of line for them to 8 depose you too, didn't I? 9 A I think you did. 10 Q In fact, I filed a motion to stop it. Do you 11 recall that? 12 A I wouldn't be surprised. 13 Q In your deposition of January of '98, did you tell 14 the truth? 15 A I believe I did. 16 Q Is there anything you want to recant now to this 17 court in your deposition of January, '98? 18 A No. 19 Q I have an excerpt -- 20 Well, let me keep going on. 21 May of 2000 was your next deposition, is that 22 correct? 23 A You have the documents. And I'm not sure, but I 24 think there was one in May, 2000. I don't know whether that 25 was the next one or not. 0847
1 Q Okay. 2 A I think that was one -- it was -- 3 THE COURT: I'll tell what you what I have, 4 okay? Just to help you out here. Because I've been 5 provided what purports to be all your depositions 6 not only in this case but in sort of the related -- 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: -- Clearwater case. Do you know 9 what case I'm talking about? 10 THE WITNESS: The breach case. 11 THE COURT: The breach case. 12 I show you were deposed January 13th of '98, 13 May 24th of 2000; 9-18-01; October the 11th and 12th 14 of 01; and then I have a deposition 4-8-02. If 15 there are more than that, I don't have them. That's 16 what I've got. 17 MR. DANDAR: You're right, Judge. 18 THE COURT: So if that's of any help -- 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 20 THE COURT: You want to write that down? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I wrote those down. 22 THE COURT: January 13th, '98 -- 23 THE WITNESS: May -- 24 THE COURT: 24th, 2000. 25 THE WITNESS: 9-18-01 -- 0848
1 THE COURT: 9 -- I want to -- I want to make 2 sure, because these tabs are not -- one of them 3 wasn't correct, so let me look on the front of it. 4 September 18th, 2001 -- 5 Is that correct? 6 MR. MOXON: Actually, your Honor, the 18th just 7 was the start of the deposition. Went over to the 8 19th. Was primarily on the 19th of September of 9 2001. 10 THE COURT: Okay. And then I have one showing 11 October -- this one shows October 11th and 12th, 12 2001. And then I show one April the 9th of 2002. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I've got it all 14 down here. 15 THE COURT: Like I said, if there are more, I 16 don't have them. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. 18 THE COURT: We'll assume I have them. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q When you met with the Church of Scientology in 21 2002, Mr. Minton, here in Clearwater, did they -- out of all 22 the documents they brought over for you to look at, did you 23 look at your January, '98 deposition? 24 A You're talking about any time that I met with 25 them. 0849
1 Q Right. 2 A I think the excerpts -- some excerpts from it 3 might have been brought. I don't -- I don't think the whole 4 thing was, but it might have been. 5 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Minton, when you sent the first 6 check for a hundred thousand dollars in October, '97, you 7 accompanied it by the note that -- a handwritten note that 8 the judge has, that I mistakenly refer to as -- 9 A As the Kleenex box. 10 Q -- the Kleenex box note. 11 A Right. 12 Q But it was like a hard cover paper? 13 A It was a piece of -- I think -- well, it was a 14 piece of stationery card. 15 Q It was a card, though. It wasn't a piece of 16 paper, right? 17 A Well -- 18 THE COURT: It was thick -- it was -- was it 19 something that was more thick than your usual piece 20 of paper? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was thick -- I think it 22 was Crane stationery, if that helps; thick Crane 23 card. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q Okay. And it had been torn off on the bottom? 0850
1 A No. 2 Q No? 3 A It hadn't been torn off on the bottom. You know, 4 it -- it -- it's a card that fits into an envelope -- 5 Q All right. Had your name printed on the top 6 though, didn't it? 7 A Right. It was engraved. 8 Q Why I said Kleenex box, I'll never know. 9 But anyway, when you first talked to me, you said, 10 "I'll show you I'm for real. I'll send you a check for a 11 hundred thousand dollars." Do you recall that? 12 A I think you were asking if I'm for real, and I 13 said, "You know, you want to find out, you know, cash the 14 check." 15 Q And I told you that first call, I said, you know, 16 I had no recollection of meeting you, correct? 17 A I think you did. 18 Q And you had to remind me -- 19 THE COURT: You think he did have a 20 recollection or you think -- 21 THE WITNESS: No. I think I did say that -- 22 or -- no, I think he did say that he didn't have a 23 recollection of -- 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: -- meeting me, is what I meant. 0851
1 MR. DANDAR: My fault again. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q And you reminded me about the meeting inside the 4 U.S. 19 hotel -- 5 A The Howard Johnson. 6 Q -- with Wollersheim. 7 A Right. 8 Q Okay. All right. And so you sent the check for a 9 hundred thousand dollars, correct? 10 THE COURT: Is the date on that October 6th? 11 I'm looking. 12 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q And your conditions were there weren't any 17 conditions except -- unless the estate recovered, correct? 18 A You know, you need to characterize what all of the 19 conditions were. 20 Q Okay. It was a nonrecourse, interest-free loan, 21 correct? 22 A The subject of nonrecourse never came up. But it 23 was an interest-free loan to the estate that would only 24 be -- that would only have to be repaid if the estate 25 recovered moneys. So if they didn't recover money in this 0852

 1   case, either through settlement or at trial, you know, the
 2   estate didn't have to pay it back.
 3        Q    From the moment you first talked to me on the
 4   telephone about sending the hundred-thousand-dollar check,
 5   to your deposition in Boston with your two attorneys
 6   representing you at that deposition, Mr. Jonas and Kathy
 7   Shipe from Mr. Leipold's office, did you and I sit down and
 8   prepare you for that deposition in January of '98?
 9        A    We didn't sit down.  I think we talked about it.
10        Q    Okay.  When did we talk about getting you prepared
11   for your deposition in Boston in January of '98?
12        A    Well, we talked about it on the phone sometime
13   before it.
14        Q    What did -- what did we discuss?
15        A    That, you know, this is not a big deal; this is a
16   pretty routine thing.  You know, there's nothing to be
17   concerned about here.  You know, I mean, you were just sort
18   of giving general advice as to a deposition, because you had
19   had some experience with depositions involving Scientology
20   at that stage.
21        Q    Had you had any experience in any kind of
22   deposition up to that point in time?
23        A    I'd never been involved in any litigation before,
24   and had no experience in it.
25        Q    How many times did we talk on the phone where I

 1   told you, "It's no big deal.  They just want to know who you
 2   are and why you sent me a hundred thousand dollars"?  I
 3   mean --
 4        A    I don't know.  We talked several times during that
 5   time period.  So you know, I don't know particularly how
 6   many.
 7        Q    Was there a vigil in December of '97 before your
 8   Boston deposition?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Did I go to that?
11        A    You know, I don't know for sure.  I think you
12   were.
13        Q    Did -- did you go to that?
14        A    I -- if I was here, I probably did.
15        Q    Did Dell Liebreich and her sisters come to that?
16        A    I don't think -- I think that was the first sort
17   of anniversary picket, stroke, vigil.  I don't think they
18   came to the first one.
19        Q    And who organized that?
20        A    Jeff Jacobsen from Arizona.
21        Q    Okay.
22             THE COURT:  So is the answer you believe that
23        you were there, Mr. Dandar was there, but you do not
24        recall that Ms. Liebreich or the sisters were there?
25             THE WITNESS:  I don't recall anybody from the

1 family at that first one. 2 THE COURT: But you do recall that you and 3 Mr. Dandar were there. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe Mr. Dandar was 5 there. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q You're not -- 8 A I'm not -- 9 Q You're not certain about that, are you? 10 A Huh -- no. The thing I remember about that one is 11 that was where -- you know, I remember Gabe Cazares being 12 there, for example; I remember -- I think that was the one 13 where the candles were blown out. I'm a little hazy as to 14 which one. 15 Q And Mr. Minton, did you participate in a picket in 16 the daytime outside of the night vigil? 17 A Well, if I was here for the picketing, I'm sure I 18 did. 19 Q Did I participate in a picket Mr. -- 20 A No. Wait a minute, Mr. Dandar. You know, I'm not 21 sure. There was a -- I think the -- the first picket here 22 was March, '96. The next picket was March, '97. And I 23 believe the first picket that was focused on Lisa McPherson 24 was December, '97. You know -- 25 Q I think you're right. I don't know. 0855
1 A I mean -- that's what I -- that's what my 2 recollection is. 3 Q I certainly don't know -- 4 A I mean, if I was here, you know, I was 5 undoubtedly, at some stage, participating in the pickets. 6 Q Okay. Did I participate in the picket with you or 7 anyone in December of '97? 8 A If you were there -- 9 Well, I don't know whether you participated in a 10 picket. 11 Q Okay. 12 A I don't -- 13 Q Okay. 14 A -- know whether you were even there. 15 Well, in fact, you probably would have been there. 16 Because I remember at that time -- that was the time that 17 Dennis Ehrlich came -- maybe -- I think it is the time that 18 Dennis Ehrlich came. And there was a -- although I could be 19 confusing that with the March, '97. But a time that Dennis 20 Ehrlich came, you were there to represent him because you 21 were concerned -- you and Dennis Ehrlich were concerned 22 about him being served some injunction. And there was a 23 time -- there were a couple of times he was there. And he 24 had to stay a hundred feet away from various Scientology 25 buildings, including the Ft. Harrison and -- 0856
1 THE COURT: Seems like this is way beyond -- 2 MR. DANDAR: Yeah, it is. 3 THE COURT: -- where we need to be. 4 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to stop. 5 THE COURT: Move on. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to see -- 7 THE COURT: The question was, was he there; 8 were you there? And if you know, you've told us. 9 And if you don't, you don't. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 THE COURT: And that probably isn't important. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Outside of the -- outside of your note that 14 accompanied your first check of a hundred thousand dollars, 15 did you, back then, ever tell me, "Oh, by the way, I'm 16 sending you this money and you've got to run the lawsuit the 17 way I tell you to run it? 18 A No, I didn't. 19 Q In fact, isn't it true I told you that you 20 couldn't have any involvement in running the lawsuit, nor 21 would you be able to get any confidential information that's 22 between my client and myself? 23 A You -- I don't think you ever said that. What you 24 said was what you said in your letter. 25 I mean, at that stage you were, contrary to what 0857

 1   you had said, you might have been suspicious.  I don't know.
 2   But you were very happy to find somebody who could give you
 3   some money.  And you put in the letter, based on what you
 4   talked to the Florida Bar about, what you understood that
 5   the Florida Bar required.
 6        Q    Okay.  Now, those letters, which are already in
 7   evidence used the word "donation" rather than "loan,"
 8   correct?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    And did you ever write a letter back and say,
11   "Hey, wait a minute.  This isn't what my understanding is;
12   this is what my understanding is"?
13        A    No, I didn't.
14        Q    Did you ever write a letter to me and say,
15   "Come -- you know, you have to do a legal document like you
16   did for Wollersheim"?  Did you ever do that?
17        A    No, I didn't.
18        Q    Or the kind you had Mr. Leipold create for his
19   loans?
20        A    You know, at the time, I didn't think you were as
21   sane as Wollersheim was, and I didn't require it.
22        Q    As sane or insane?
23        A    Insane.
24        Q    Okay.
25             Now, since I just talked to you generally about

 1   your upcoming deposition in January, '98, you did meet,
 2   however, with your personal attorney, Mr. Jonas, to prepare
 3   for your deposition, correct?
 4        A    I did.
 5        Q    And you also met with Kathy Shipe to prepare for
 6   your deposition?
 7        A    Very briefly before the deposition.
 8        Q    Now, you paid her to fly all the way from
 9   California to Boston for your deposition, right?
10        A    Yes.  I paid, you know, the firm that she was
11   with.
12        Q    And that's because she was familiar with
13   litigating with Scientology.
14        A    Well, clearly at that time, you weren't.
15        Q    No.  She --
16        A    She was, yeah.  Yeah.
17        Q    Yeah.  I wasn't.  Right?
18        A    That's right.
19        Q    Okay.  And certainly, Mr. Jonas had no prior
20   experience --
21        A    No, he hadn't.
22        Q    Are you aware, as of January, '98, how many
23   depositions I had participated in taking in the Lisa
24   McPherson case?
25        A    I'm not aware.

1 Q Okay. 2 THE COURT: So Mr. -- if I understand this 3 correctly -- as we're going through here I might 4 stop -- 5 But at that particular deposition, that early 6 January deposition, Mr. Jonas -- neither Mr. Jonas 7 nor Mr. Dandar had Scientology litigation experience 8 up to that time, but Ms. Shipe did, and therefore 9 you asked her to come just in case there was some 10 need for her -- 11 THE WITNESS: Well -- 12 THE COURT: -- assistance? 13 THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, Mr. Dandar 14 obviously had some experience in Scientology 15 litigation, because the suit had been filed, you 16 know, earlier that year; you know, earlier the year 17 before. 18 THE COURT: Depositions. If -- if he was 19 familiar -- 20 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know whether -- 21 THE COURT: Why did you -- 22 Well, let's put it this way. Why did you 23 invite Ms. Shipe to come if you already had two 24 lawyers there? 25 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, that may touch on 0860
1 privilege. 2 THE COURT: Well, it may, but I'm asking him 3 his mental process, not what he told the lawyer. 4 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, because clearly -- well, 6 actually, I wanted Dan Leipold to be there, but he 7 was going to be in trial or something that period of 8 time. And so Kathy Shipe, who also had substantial 9 experience with Mr. Leipold vis-a-vis Scientology -- 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: -- was the person who came. 12 THE COURT: So you didn't think Mr. Dandar had 13 significant experience in Scientology litigation, I 14 guess. 15 THE WITNESS: Well -- 16 THE COURT: Or did you want your own lawyer? 17 I don't know why you asked this lady when 18 Mr. Dandar was there and when Mr. Jonas was there. 19 Was it because you felt like she could better 20 protect you or could better advise you -- 21 THE WITNESS: Well, because she knew more about 22 Scientology, the whole -- I mean, she'd been through 23 lots of Scientology depositions. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 THE WITNESS: And you know, based on, you know, 0861
1 what -- what I believed at the time about 2 Scientology, you know that all kinds of tricky stuff 3 could come up in a deposition, you know -- I just 4 didn't know. But I wanted to make sure that there 5 was somebody there who at least had some experience 6 in this. And Jonas didn't have any experience. 7 It wasn't a question of whether Mr. Dandar had 8 any experience in it or not. But I wanted somebody 9 there who had experience that was -- 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: -- that was, you know, that was 12 sitting on my side of the table, representing me. 13 THE COURT: I got you. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q And I was not representing you at that deposition, 16 correct? 17 A That's right. You weren't. 18 Q Now, when you sent the first check for a hundred 19 thousand dollars, isn't it true that you had no restrictions 20 placed on that check as to how -- 21 A You mean -- 22 Q -- that it could be spent? 23 A -- the bank didn't place any restrictions how it 24 could be spent? 25 Q No. You. 0862
1 A Yes, there were restrictions. 2 Q What were the restrictions? 3 A It was for this case, the wrongful death case. 4 The cost and expenses of the wrongful death case. 5 Q Do you have your deposition of January, '98 with 6 you? 7 A Not unless it's one of these documents. 8 MR. DANDAR: Judge, if I could, I'd like to use 9 the Elmo. That way -- 10 THE COURT: You may. 11 MR. DANDAR: -- he can see it and I can see it. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q On page 43 -- this is your January, '98 14 deposition -- as soon as I bring it into focus -- page 43, 15 beginning at line 12, the question was, "Are there any 16 restrictions on how the funds should be used?" 17 And your answer is, "Well they're to be used on 18 the McPherson case. 19 "Question: For example -- 20 "Answer: And there are no restrictions put on by 21 me." 22 Was that a truthful statement? 23 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I really do object. I 24 mean, I know what happens after this, since I was 25 the one asking the questions. There's all kinds of 0863
1 stuff that goes on. 2 MR. DANDAR: I'm not finished. 3 THE COURT: Well, you know what? That's a 4 problem in this case. And that is done by both 5 sides. That is done by your side too, which is why 6 I've had to ask for the depositions. So you know 7 what? You play by those rules, you get those rules 8 in return. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I want -- 10 THE COURT: So your objection is overruled. 11 You can bring it up -- 12 I don't like it, but I don't like it when you 13 all do it. But you all do it with great regularity. 14 So it's -- now it's going to hit you in the face, 15 and you're not going to like it. 16 And is it right? No, it really isn't. 17 MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm not done. I mean -- I'm 18 going on to the next page as well. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q And then they say, "Question: Could Mr. Dandar 21 buy a car with them?" 22 And you answered, "That would hardly facilitate 23 the Lisa McPherson case. 24 "Question: I'm not being facetious. I'm asking a 25 question that I would ask you to answer. 0864
1 "Can these funds be used by Mr. Dandar for 2 himself? Yes or no? 3 "Answer: No." 4 So far, Mr. Minton, these are all truthful answers 5 to the questions, right? 6 A Well, when it says up there, "And there are no 7 restrictions put on me," you have to -- what is that? 8 Q By me. 9 A Oh. No restrictions put on me -- talking about 10 me, right? 11 Q Right. 12 A Yes. These are truthful answers. 13 Q Okay. 14 A They're to be used for the Lisa McPherson case. 15 They're not to be used for Mr. Dandar's personal use. 16 Q Right. Okay. 17 And then on line 24 -- and we'll continue on page 18 44, at the bottom of line -- of 43, "Question: Can these 19 funds be used by Mr. Dandar for personal use of Mr. Dandar? 20 "Answer: Can I perhaps ask you to re-ask the 21 question before, which was are these funds to be used in the 22 Lisa McPherson case? 23 "Question," and he says, "It'll go quicker if you 24 just let me ask the question." 25 The answer, "No. They're not to be used by 0865

 1   Mr. Dandar for his personal use.  That's nothing to do with
 2   it."
 3             That's a truthful answer by you, correct?
 4        A    That's right.
 5        Q    Okay.  And then line 15, "Is there anything in
 6   writing that says that?
 7             "Answer:  Anything other than what's on my check
 8   or the letter?  No."
 9             That's -- that's true too, isn't it, Mr. Minton?
10   Your check and that letter.  That was it.
11        A    In writing, yes, that's right.
12        Q    Okay.  "Question:  There's no legal agreement that
13   has been drawn up, is that correct?"
14             Your answer, "Correct.  This would be as close to
15   it as you would get.
16             "Question:  Did you have any communication with
17   the family of Lisa McPherson?
18             "Answer:  No."
19             January, '98, that's a truthful statement,
20   correct?
21        A    Yes.
22             You know, I relied on what you said you had
23   discussed with the family about these checks, about this
24   money, the first money.
25             THE COURT:  You're being asked a specific

1 question about your deposition and whether they're 2 truthful answers or not. If you would restrict 3 yourself to that, that's fine. They'll have their 4 turn. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Page 45, line 19, do you remember this question 8 and this answer? 9 "Question: Did you ask for an accounting as to 10 how the funds were used? 11 "Answer: No." 12 Is that a correct answer, Mr. Minton? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q In fact as you sit here today, Mr. Minton, you 15 have never asked for an accounting, have you? 16 A Not yet. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he goes on, 18 could -- this doesn't appear to be impeachment. I 19 mean, Mr. Dandar asked -- 20 THE COURT: I agree. 21 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, so I don't understand 22 what the exercise -- 23 THE COURT: Well, there isn't. The only thing 24 I could remotely see that's impeachment is the 25 "there are no restrictions put on by me." 0867
1 MR. WEINBERG: But I mean, I think -- it just 2 seems to me that's exactly -- what he's done is 3 exactly corroborated the questions that he'd already 4 asked Mr. Minton on the stand. 5 THE COURT: I think that's true. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Now, Mr. Minton, the reason why you never asked 8 for an accounting from me is because you trusted me, 9 correct? 10 A I used to, Mr. Dandar. 11 Q Well, in January, '98, you trusted me, correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q In June of 2001 you trusted me, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, Mr. Minton, isn't it true that the money you 16 had sent to me up till January of '98 was a loan or a 17 donation to me, not to the estate. 18 A That's not correct. 19 Q Well, let's turn to page 46 of your deposition of 20 January, '98. 21 Do you recall this question, beginning at line 20? 22 "Question: My question is, was this hundred 23 thousand dollars a loan to Mr. Dandar? 24 "Answer: It was." 25 A I see that. 0868
1 Q Was that a truthful, correct statement, 2 Mr. Minton? 3 A It's true to the extent that you said that you 4 were the attorney for the estate and you would handle the 5 estate's funds for this -- for this purpose of this case. 6 Q Well, let's continue on. Line 23. 7 "Question: Or a gift to Mr. Dandar? 8 "Answer: It requires a little bit of thought, 9 because it could be either, depending on what happens in the 10 case. 11 "Question: Can you explain that? 12 "Answer: What I have said and what he has said is 13 that if they -- they, being the estate of Lisa McPherson -- 14 are successful in getting money back over and above their 15 legal expense in this case, and they had a hundred thousand 16 dollars left to pay me, I would get paid back my hundred 17 thousand dollars. If they do not succeed in this case, 18 they're under no obligation to pay me back." 19 A Yeah. 20 Q "From my standpoint, there would be a question of 21 whether it's a gift or a loan." 22 A Yeah. The question is whether it's a gift or a 23 loan to the estate -- 24 Q All right. 25 A -- if they don't pay it back. 0869
1 Q Here, on the prior page that we just read, page 2 46, you certainly had an opportunity, when asked a question 3 if it was a loan to Mr. Dandar, you said it was -- you could 4 have and you certainly had the opportunity, did you not, to 5 explain, well, it's not really to Mr. Dandar; it's to the 6 estate through Mr. Dandar. 7 A As I said, there was no muzzle. That's the answer 8 I gave. 9 Q All right. Let's just stay on this subject 10 matter, if we could. 11 Now -- 12 A Just to make note, I'm taking some more 13 medication. 14 Q Cough drop? 15 A Yup. 16 Q I'll take a sip of water, then. 17 Now, Mr. Minton, the next deposition was May 24th 18 of 2000, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And this time, Mr. Moxon had entered the picture, 21 correct? He was now deposing you rather than Mr. Weinberg. 22 A Right. 23 Q How many lies did you tell in your May 24th, 2000 24 deposition? 25 A I don't know. 0870
1 Q Did you tell any lies? 2 A I don't know. 3 Q Isn't it true, sir, that you did not lie in your 4 May 24th, 2000 deposition? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object. Shouldn't 6 he at least show him the deposition so that he can 7 orient himself? I mean -- 8 THE COURT: I think he should if Mr. Minton 9 says he needs it. For all I know, he's been through 10 it and can tell us 2, 4, 10 or none. Or if he can't 11 says, "I want to see it," and then certainly he 12 would have to show it to him. 13 I don't know what preparation he's done for 14 this, is what I'm suggesting. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Simple question. Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, just 17 like your January, '98 deposition and your May 24, 2000 18 deposition, you did not lie under oath? 19 A The only -- the reason I have a doubt is because 20 if there is a question about money at that stage -- you 21 know, there had already been the $500,000 check, so -- 22 THE COURT: Is that -- I believe that's the 23 deposition where it's -- it's alleged that he did 24 not disclose the $500,000. 25 MR. DANDAR: That's where it is alleged. 0871
1 THE COURT: Well, yes. But I mean -- so 2 that -- for your information, I believe -- that's 3 why I asked you all to give me a piece of paper. 4 Nobody has yet. Thank you very much -- 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: It's coming this afternoon, 6 your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Okay. But remember, I said I 8 can't -- don't know where it is Mr. Minton has said 9 about these moneys. I've read these depositions. 10 There's probably one question in the midst of 11 thousands of pages, and could you help me out here? 12 Nobody has, but thank you. 13 But I think what they're saying is that in 14 the -- I think -- in the May deposition, which was 15 May 24th of 2000, you had given the 500,000 and 16 didn't disclose it. 17 THE WITNESS: Well -- 18 THE COURT: So that I presume was what you're 19 saying is -- according to your affidavit, is a lie 20 in that deposition. 21 THE WITNESS: Right. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q In that deposition, you were represented by John 24 Merrett, correct, the May 24th, 2000? 25 A Is that the one where we had to -- Mr. Moxon might 0872

 1   be able to help you.  Was this the one where we had to leave
 2   early because Stacy Brooks and I were flying to Europe?
 3        Q    Yes.
 4        A    Yeah.  That was Mr. Merrett.
 5        Q    And Mr. Merrett -- when did you retain Mr. Merrett
 6   to represent you?
 7        A    I don't know.
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'm going to hand you
 9        excerpts, and I'm handing to counsel, of
10        Mr. Minton's depositions that I'm going to be
11        addressing.
12             THE COURT:  All right.  But to tell you the
13        truth, if you'll just tell me page and line, I have
14        that book up here --
15             MR. DANDAR:  Oh.
16             THE COURT:  -- so I could probably get to it.
17             MR. DANDAR:  Want to just keep that just for
18        ready reference.
19             THE COURT:  Okay.
20             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  You want to give it to Mr. Minton?
22             MR. DANDAR:  Well, I'm going to show him on the
23        Elmo, but we can do that too.  I don't care.
24             THE WITNESS:  It'll be easier to look on this.
25             MR. DANDAR:  All right.  Whatever's easier.

 2        Q    So -- I'm sorry -- how far in advance of the
 3   May 24th deposition did you --
 4             THE COURT:  Don't read them until he gets to
 5        it, please.
 6             THE WITNESS:  All right.
 8        Q    How far in advance of the May 24th deposition did
 9   you retain Mr. Merrett to represent you?
10        A    I don't know.
11        Q    Was it a week?  A day?  A month?  Just a ballpark.
12        A    Well, you see, Mr. Merrett was working with the
13   LMT.  And I mean, you know, there was never any specific
14   retainer arrangement between me and Mr. Merrett.  But -- and
15   I don't know when he started working at the LMT, but it was
16   sometime in 2000.
17        Q    Okay.  Now, you found Mr. Merrett through a
18   referral from Patricia Greenway, correct?
19        A    Yes.  I had previously had communication with
20   Mr. Merrett before that.
21        Q    Okay.  Mr. Merrett had no prior litigation
22   experience with the Church of Scientology, correct?
23        A    No.  But he was very familiar with the whole --
24             MR. DANDAR:  I did it again.

 2        Q    All right.  Isn't it true that Mr. Merrett had no
 3   prior litigation experience as a lawyer in a case with the
 4   Church of Scientology?  Yes or no?
 5        A    How about I don't know?
 6        Q    That's okay.  All right.
 7        A    You know, at the time --
 8             Well, next question.
 9        Q    All right.  Now, did you prepare for your
10   May 24th, 2000 deposition with Mr. Merrett?
11        A    I doubt it.
12        Q    Okay.  Did you confer with me to get together with
13   me to prepare you for your May 24th, 2000 deposition?
14        A    Well, with regards to the money, yes, because we
15   had already discussed that.
16        Q    You talking about this UBS check for $500,000?
17        A    Right.
18        Q    Did we discuss anything else?
19        A    About that $500,000?
20        Q    No.  About any other subject matter, to get you
21   ready and prepared for your deposition in May of 2000.
22        A    Mr. Dandar, there was a time period when we were
23   meeting regularly, and this was part of that time period.
24   You know, I don't know.
25        Q    What do you mean by that?  You and I were meeting

 1   regularly?  When?
 2        A    If you have a problem understanding that or --
 3        Q    It's too vague for me, Mr. Minton.  Tell me what
 4   you mean by that.
 5        A    Well, you know, from '99, when we were down here
 6   setting up the LMT, through 2000, yes, we met regularly.
 7        Q    How often would we meet, Mr. Minton?
 8        A    You know, I can't say.  It was three times a week
 9   or two times a week.  But regularly.
10        Q    Was it as -- as much as one time a month?
11        A    It was more than that.
12        Q    So every month since, what, October of '99, when
13   the corporation papers were filed for the Lisa McPherson
14   Trust, until you -- until, what, May of 2000, you and I met
15   more than one time a month?
16        A    Absolutely.
17        Q    Do you have any way of --
18        A    I mean, you were -- you know, when I came down
19   here -- when I started coming down here a lot, as far as I
20   was concerned, you were like a duck on a June bug when I was
21   around.  You know, you wanted to meet at Ruth's Chris
22   Steakhouse or meet at your office or --
23             THE COURT:  How does a duck get on a June bug?
24             THE WITNESS:  Oh, you know what --
25             THE COURT:  A June bug on a duck?

1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 THE COURT: I don't know what a June bug is. 3 Is that a big bug? 4 THE WITNESS: It's -- I thought you -- I don't 5 know whether they have them in Florida, but where I 6 grew up in Nashville, they're just sort of bugs that 7 appear in -- around June time. They're sort of 8 silvery looking -- well, not silvery, but blackish 9 in colorish on the top. They have sort of a hard 10 shell. A little bit like a cockroach, except more 11 football-shaped, so to speak. 12 And there's an expression, you know, at least 13 where I grew up in Nashville, a duck on a June bug. 14 You know, somebody who's real close. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not familiar with 16 that expression, so -- 17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: -- tell me what it was. I had a 19 vision of some June bug being squashed by a duck. 20 MR. DANDAR: I think -- do they eat -- do the 21 ducks eat June bugs? 22 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether they do. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I'll tell you one thing, the 24 fish like them. I grew up in Chattanooga -- 25 THE COURT: Oh. 0877
1 THE WITNESS: We used to use them for bass 2 fishing. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 4 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Well, now I know what 5 you meant. You and he were very close when he was 6 around, was what you were alleging. 7 THE WITNESS: Right. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Okay. Mr. Minton, I'm going to -- the excerpts 11 that are in front of you -- I'm going to turn to page 212 -- 12 Well, let me ask you this before you do that. 13 So the only thing that you and I talked about, as 14 you say, to prepare you for your May 24th, 2000 deposition, 15 was this UBS check. 16 A That's all I can remember at the moment. 17 Q And it's your testimony under oath before this 18 judge that I told you to lie in your deposition about the 19 source or even receiving this check. Is that what your 20 testimony is? 21 A Absolutely. 22 Q And is it your testimony, Mr. Minton, that when 23 you handed me this check at the Bombay Bicycle Club 24 Restaurant, that you told me that this was your money? 25 A That is my testimony. 0878
1 Q Is that the truth? 2 A Yes, it is. And you were acting like you were 3 fully aware of it. I mean, you -- you specified -- 4 Q I just asked you, was it the truth. I didn't ask 5 you any other question. 6 A Yeah. 7 Q So then I take it, Mr. Minton, that all the other 8 questions in your deposition of May 24th, 2000 were truthful 9 except for this check from UBS, correct? 10 A I think you better ask me whether the answers were 11 truthful, not the questions. 12 Q So as you sit here today, you're not sure if you 13 lied about other things in your May 24th deposition? 14 A You know, I don't know. I don't know. 15 THE COURT: Well, let's establish this. My 16 recollection is alive. And I believe I looked at 17 this deposition and asked some questions about it 18 yesterday. 19 MR. FUGATE: You did, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Yeah. 21 My recollection from your testimony yesterday 22 is, it is your testimony that Mr. Dandar and you -- 23 Mr. Dandar made this suggestion about this 24 problem -- let me see if I can get this right -- the 25 problem with the agreement between you and the -- 0879
1 and the estate -- this is the agreement to give the 2 bulk of or substantial portion of -- 3 Do you remember that? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. 5 THE COURT: That -- okay. The discussion about 6 that came before -- soon before the affidavit was 7 sent to you -- 8 THE WITNESS: You mean -- 9 THE COURT: -- which -- 10 THE WITNESS: -- the discussion about 11 backtracking? 12 THE COURT: Yeah. The discussion about 13 backtracking. 14 THE WITNESS: No. The discussion about 15 backtracking happened sometime in the May/June 16 period. That's what I testified to. 17 THE COURT: May/June of 2000 and what? 18 THE WITNESS: 2000. 19 THE COURT: May/June of 2000. 20 Okay. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Okay. Mr. Minton, if you would, the excerpts in 23 front of you on this particular deposition starts on page 24 212. 25 A So I just open it up to 2000, here? 0880
1 Q Yes. 2 Am I correct? Is there a -- you see page 212? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. Line 11 says, "Question --" 5 Well, let's start -- yeah. 6 "Question: Have you given Mr. Dandar any money 7 since January 13th of 1998?" 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Where are you? 'Cause 9 I can't find it. 10 MR. DANDAR: 212. 11 THE COURT: 212. Thank you. 12 MR. DANDAR: Line 11. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q "Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since 15 January 13th, 1998?" 16 Your answer was, "Yes." 17 Is that a truthful answer? 18 A Absolutely correct. 19 Q "Question: Tell me all the amounts that you have 20 given him. 21 "Answer: I don't know all the amounts. The total 22 amounts to a little over a million dollars, a million fifty 23 thousand dollars." 24 Are both of those sentences in that answer 25 truthful? 0881
1 A Absolutely, Mr. Dandar. 2 Q So it was over a million fifty thousand, wasn't 3 it? 4 A "To a little over a million fifty thousand." 5 Q "Question --" 6 A "To a little over a million dollars, i.e., comma, 7 1,050,000. 8 Q "Question --" 9 A And that's false. And that's false. 10 Q "Question --" 11 Oh. Now that's false. You just said it was true. 12 A No. It's false. 13 Q "Question: Did you make these checks to him 14 yourself? 15 "Answer: Did I what? 16 "Question: Did you make the checks to him 17 yourself? 18 "Answer: Yes." 19 Is that a truthful answer? 20 A That million and fifty thousand, yes, I did write 21 the checks. 22 Q Right. UBS check, you didn't write -- 23 A That's right. 24 Q -- did you? 25 And you told me, when you handed it to me, that it 0882

 1   came from friends in Europe, didn't you?
 2        A    No, I did not, Mr. Dandar.
 3        Q    In fact you said it came from the fat man.  Do you
 4   recall that, Mr. Minton?
 5        A    The fat man's name -- it was never created until
 6   John Merrett created it -- created it in early 2001.  That
 7   was the first time I ever heard the term "fat man."
 8             THE COURT:  So your answer to the question is
 9        no.
10             THE WITNESS:  That's right.
11             THE COURT:  Because remember, we have to have
12        answers.
13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
15        Q    Line 21 --
16             I think we just did that one.  Okay.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Which page?
18             MR. DANDAR:  We're still on page 212.
20        Q    Question at line 23 on page 212 --
21        A    Mm-hmm.
22        Q    "Each check was drawn on one of your personal
23   accounts.
24             "Answer:  I believe it was, yes."
25             That's true also, Mr. Minton, isn't it?

1 A That's true with respect to the million fifty 2 thousand dollars, yes. 3 Q Turn to page 218. Is that in front of you? 4 A Sorry -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: How about 213? 6 THE COURT: Counselor -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 8 THE COURT: You're going to get your turn. 9 This is his impeachment. 10 MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. 11 A Yeah. I'm there on 218. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q I'm sorry. I'll go back to 213. You may not have 14 this one, but since he brought it up -- 15 A It's there. 16 Q Good. 17 Question at the top, "Did you instruct anyone else 18 to write the checks?" 19 "No," is your answer. 20 Is that a truthful answer? 21 A With respect to the million fifty thousand 22 dollars' worth of checks, I didn't instruct anybody else to 23 write the checks. 24 Q Right. You wrote the checks. 25 A Right. 0884
1 Q Those checks. Correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q "Question: Did you physically write them? 4 "Answer: I think I physically wrote them all. 5 There may have been a transfer in there or two, I don't 6 remember." 7 Is that a truthful answer, Mr. Minton? 8 A Well, as I said, I don't remember whether there 9 were any wire transfers in there. There may have been. I 10 don't know. I still don't know. I don't think there were 11 any wire transfers now, based on, you know, having gone back 12 and looked. 13 Q All right. Turn to page 217, beginning line 11. 14 A I don't have a 217 in here so I'll have to look up 15 here. 16 Q All right. Look up here, then. Sorry. 17 Line 11, "What is the agreement with Mr. Dandar 18 with respect to the over $1 million that you've given him?" 19 Now, before we get to the answer, Mr. Moxon's 20 asking you with respect to the over $1 million. Now, that's 21 a pretty broad-ranging figure, isn't it? 22 A Well, he's referring to the $1,050,000, I would 23 assume. 24 Q Your answer is, "The agreement is basically that 25 if and when the estate of Lisa McPherson prevails against 0885

 1   the Church of Scientology and the Church of Scientology
 2   collects money, that the estate will pay back out of the
 3   proceeds of that."
 4        A    Could you --
 5        Q    "If the proceeds --"
 6        A    Could you move it up as you're reading it?
 7        Q    I'm sorry.  I should read up there too then.
 8             "That the estate will pay back on the proceeds of
 9   that.  If the proceeds are sufficient to cover all the
10   expenses, the principal amount that I've advanced to the
11   estate to Mr. Dandar.  That's it."
12             Is that a truthful statement?
13        A    Yes.
14        Q    "Question:  You said the principal amount that you
15   have provided --"
16             And you answered and corrected him, "Advanced," is
17   that correct?
18        A    Right.  Advanced, as in loan.
19        Q    "Question:  Advanced to the estate for
20   Mr. Dandar?"
21             And your answer at the bottom of 217 line 25 is,
22   "No.  To Mr. Dandar for -- to prosecute the case of the
23   estate.
24             "Question:  Now, the million dollars you're
25   talking about were checks written from you directly to

 1   Mr. Dandar or his law firm, Dandar and Dandar, correct?
 2             "Answer:  Correct.
 3             "Question:  Those checks were not written to a
 4   third party to give to Mr. Dandar.
 5             "Answer:  No."
 6             Is that -- both of those truthful, Mr. Minton?
 7        A    I think I used less than artful language in the
 8   one on the page before.
 9        Q    Page 218, line 7.  "Those checks were not written
10   to a third party to give to Mr. Dandar.
11             "Answer:  No."
12             That's a truthful statement too, isn't it?
13        A    Those checks were not written to a third party.
14   Those checks for the 1,050,000 were not written to a third
15   party to give to Mr. Dandar.  That's correct.
16        Q    "Question:  And they certainly weren't written to
17   Dell Liebreich or the estate to give to Mr. Dandar, correct?
18             "Answer:  That's correct."
19        A    Right.
20        Q    That's a truthful statement.
21        A    That's correct.
22        Q    Okay.  So Mr. Moxon then says, "Question:  You
23   testified yesterday in your criminal proceedings that you
24   didn't give money to Mr. Dandar directly; you gave it to the
25   family to give to him.  Do you remember that testimony?"

1 Now, before we get to the answer, what's he 2 talking about? Where did you testify in a criminal 3 proceeding? 4 A That was -- I don't know what criminal proceeding 5 that is, but it's obviously May 23rd. 6 Q Is that Mr. Howd's attacking you? Was that -- 7 that -- had that happened already? 8 THE COURT: You had a battery charge, I 9 believe. 10 THE WITNESS: Right. So -- well, maybe that's 11 the one they're referring to, yes. 12 THE COURT: Do you remember when you went to 13 trial in that case? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, it -- I think it was the 15 day before. If it's -- as I testified yesterday, I 16 can't be sure of the date. 17 MR. DANDAR: I don't know either. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q So, Mr. Moxon -- 20 THE COURT: We'll assume that. 21 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Mr. Moxon's saying that you testified in the 24 criminal proceeding that you gave the money to the family to 25 give to him, and you answered, "No." 0888
1 Is that right? 2 A No. I said -- he asked me, "Do you remember that 3 testimony?" I said, "No." 4 Q Oh, okay. 5 And then he says, "You don't remember doing that," 6 and your answer was, "No. Mr. Dandar represents the family. 7 "Question: Okay. I just want to make it clear 8 --" this is Mr. Moxon -- 9 A Yup. 10 Q "-- you didn't give any money, then, to the estate 11 of Lisa McPherson to give to Mr. Dandar, correct?" 12 And your answer is, "That's correct. I've never 13 written a check to the estate of Lisa McPherson or to any of 14 her relatives." 15 Is that a truthful statement? 16 A Absolutely correct. 17 Q And then on line 13 -- 18 A Is that -- what page are we on? 19 Q We're on 219. Do you have that? 20 A Yeah. I got 219 here. 21 Q All right. And then on page 219, line 13, "Is 22 there any writing with any of the Lisa McPherson relatives?" 23 Your answer was, "No. 24 "Question: With respect to this agreement? 25 Your answer is, "No." 0889
1 That's truthful, correct? 2 A Which agreement are we talking about now? 3 THE COURT: This is the checks. 4 A The loans? 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q The checks to -- the loans. Right. 7 A No. There weren't any written agreements -- 8 Q Okay. 9 A -- with any of them. 10 Q "Question: Was there ever? 11 "Answer: No. 12 "Was there ever a draft of an agreement? 13 "Answer: No. 14 "Was there ever a draft of an agreement with 15 Mr. Dandar? 16 "Answer: No." 17 Those are all truthful, correct? 18 A That's right. 19 THE COURT: I'm going to tell you the same 20 thing I told them. I don't really need a whole 21 bunch of depositions. Just ask the questions. If 22 you want to impeach him, just use the deposition to 23 impeach him. 24 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 25 THE COURT: Of course, there is a little bit of 0890
1 a problem here in this particular case, because he 2 probably doesn't remember things, and so he may have 3 to -- he may have to use a deposition to ask him 4 simply because he wouldn't necessarily remember. As 5 I indicated here, it is really very much an outrage 6 as to the amount of depositions that are taken here. 7 "Outrage" is too strong a word. There is too many 8 depositions taken in this case of Mr. Minton. 9 MR. DANDAR: That's why I kept trying to stop 10 them. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q Mr. Minton, we're on your deposition of May 24th, 13 2000. 14 THE COURT: By the way, for whatever it's 15 worth, in all these depositions, whatever it is 16 we're doing now, we sure don't get to any of that 17 here, so -- 18 MR. DANDAR: I missed that, Judge. 19 THE COURT: Well, trust me, it isn't lost on 20 me. So move on. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q May 24th of 2000, Mr. Minton, isn't it true that 23 as of that date -- 24 THE COURT: What date are you talking about 25 now? 0891
1 MR. DANDAR: The date of this deposition, 2 May 24, 2000. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q You did not have any agreement whatsoever with the 5 estate of Lisa McPherson on the hoped-for proceeds of the 6 wrongful death suit except the repayment of your money that 7 you loaned, correct? 8 A That's not correct. 9 Q Well, turn to page 223, Mr. Minton, top of page, 10 line 1. 11 "Question: Have you talked to Dell Liebreich 12 about what would happen to the hoped-for proceeds in this 13 case? 14 "Answer: No. 15 "Question: Have you had any discussion with her 16 about the money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust? 17 "Answer: No. 18 "Question: It's never happened? 19 "Answer: No." 20 Are those truthful answers, Mr. Minton? 21 A No. 22 Q So this is a lie that -- 23 A No, it's not a lie. You just asked me were they 24 truthful answers first. 25 Q Well, then, why did you not answer -- 0892
1 Well, wait a minute. If they're not truthful 2 answers, are they -- doesn't that make them a lie? 3 A It makes them truthful answers to the best of my 4 recollection at the time. I have been subsequently advised 5 of discussions about that -- 6 Q Oh. 7 A -- with Dell Liebreich. 8 Q Well, who advised you that these are wrong 9 answers? 10 A Nobody advised me these were wrong answers. I 11 haven't seen these. But Stacy Brooks reminded me of the 12 meeting that we had at the steakhouse. 13 THE COURT: When was it Ms. Brooks reminded you 14 of that? 15 THE WITNESS: About the time that we were 16 putting together these affidavits. 17 THE COURT: No, no. Yesterday we talked about 18 this. You and me. Same stuff. 19 THE WITNESS: Right. 20 THE COURT: Did Ms. Brooks have a conversation 21 with you about that yesterday or last night? 22 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. This is 23 when we were -- back in April, when we were writing 24 narratives and time lines -- you know, this was 25 something she reminded me of at that time. 0893

 2        Q    So you and Ms. Brooks --
 3        A    Either -- one of us actually has something about
 4   this in our affidavit.  I think it's in hers.  Because I had
 5   already written my affidavit by the time she wrote hers.
 6        Q    So you didn't --
 7             You and Ms. Brooks write your affidavits of
 8   recantation together?
 9        A    The recantation affidavits, we --
10             THE COURT:  Answer that question, please, and
11        then you may explain it.
12        A    No.
14        Q    Who wrote the re- -- who wrote the recantation --
15   the first one of three -- each of you wrote three.  Which
16   one of you wrote the first one first?
17        A    I -- I think my affidavit is signed on the 24th of
18   April, and Ms. Brooks didn't start working on hers until
19   after that; until after -- yeah.  Until after that.
20        Q    Well, Mr. Minton, this deposition is May 24th of
21   2000.  What's incorrect or untruthful about your answers
22   about not having any discussion with Dell Liebreich or
23   anyone from the -- well, not having any conversation with
24   Dell Liebreich about the, quote, hoped-for proceeds in this
25   case?

1 A Well, there was a discussion at that steakhouse 2 in -- 3 Q And when did that occur? 4 A In December, '99 or November, '99. Whatever. 5 Q So, what, five or six months before your 6 deposition? 7 A Right. 8 Q And so five or six months after this -- this 9 discussion that you say happened at a steakhouse, six -- 10 five or six months later, you couldn't remember that in your 11 deposition, but you remember it now? 12 A Well, I'll give you -- yes. Yes. I remember it 13 now because I was reminded of it. 14 Q By Stacy Brooks. 15 A Correct. 16 You know, it's just like the thing with -- in 17 Judge Baird's hearing. You know, I said at this meeting 18 that I thought everybody was in favor of it. Both Stacy 19 Brooks and Michael Garko told me he was never in favor of 20 it, you know. I didn't remember that. 21 Q We'll get to that. 22 A Okay. 23 Q Well, do you agree that your answers here 24 aren't -- you're not hesitating one bit about saying, "No, I 25 didn't talk to Dell Liebreich about the hoped-for proceeds. 0895
1 A That's right. I'm not hesitating here. 2 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have this on a video 3 clip. Would you like to see how Mr. Minton responds 4 to these questions on video? 5 THE COURT: No. I asked him about it 6 yesterday, when he was telling me about when he did 7 first have this conversation with you. I'm quite 8 satisfied, from what his responses were yesterday 9 when he was discussing this, that this is what he 10 meant to say on that deposition. 11 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 12 (A discussion was held off the record.) 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q All right. Let's just continue on. 15 On page 223 at line 8, it says -- Mr. Moxon says, 16 the third question, "You had a chance to --" 17 A Which -- which line are we on? 18 Q Same page, 223, line 8. He asked you for the 19 third time, "It never happened?" 20 And you answer, "No." 21 A Right. 22 Q Okay. And then he asked you, "Have you talked to 23 anyone in the family -- anyone in the family -- about money 24 coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust arising out of hoped-for 25 proceeds of this case?" 0896
1 And you answer, "No. No." 2 A Right. 3 Q And then he says, "Have you talked to anyone in 4 the family about potential proceeds in this case going to a, 5 quote, anticult, end quote, organization? 6 "Answer: No." 7 Where are we -- down on line 21 -- he's asked you 8 this question what, five, six, seven, eight times. Your 9 answer's always been the same. And you're telling us you 10 couldn't remember in May of 2000 that you had this -- this 11 conversation with Dell Liebreich in a steakhouse? 12 A I'm saying I didn't remember. 13 Q Turning to page 239, beginning at line 11 -- this 14 is 239 -- 15 A 11? 16 Q Line 10. 17 A Okay. 18 Q "Have you had any --" or, "Do you have --" 19 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Where are you again? 20 MR. DANDAR: 239. 21 THE COURT: Let me get there. 22 Okay. 23 MR. DANDAR: I messed up too. Line 10. 24 BY MR. DANDAR: 25 Q "Have you had any communications with any other 0897

 1   family member I haven't mentioned?
 2             "Answer:  Not to my knowledge."
 3             He's giving you another opportunity -- do you
 4   agree with that -- to reflect and see if you talked to any
 5   family member.
 6        A    No.  It's asking me whether I had any written
 7   communications.
 8        Q    Okay.  Line 13, "Do you have any agreement of any
 9   kind with the estate of Lisa McPherson?
10             "Answer:  No."
11             Another opportunity, correct, Mr. Minton, to
12   reflect and think about whether or not you had any agreement
13   of any kind with the estate of Lisa McPherson?
14        A    That's a wrong answer.  You know, maybe I just
15   didn't remember.  But there was clearly an agreement then.
16   You know, there were two agreements.
17        Q    Line 16 --
18             THE COURT:  Well, this wasn't a lie; this was
19        just simply -- what you're suggesting to me here
20        today, this wasn't a lie; this was just inaccurate.
21        Because you never suggested that Mr. Dandar told you
22        to lie about this --
23             THE WITNESS:  No.
24             THE COURT:  -- in this deposition.
25             THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't.  No, I didn't.

1 THE COURT: So I guess then we have to assume 2 that it's incorrect. And you're saying it's not a 3 lie, then it's not a lie; then it just must be 4 incorrect. Faulty memory. 5 THE WITNESS: Well, that's the -- maybe. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q And again -- 8 THE COURT: Is that true, sir? I mean, I don't 9 know what else it could be. It's either going to be 10 the truth, a lie or it's some -- it's incorrect. If 11 it's incorrect, it's either a lie or you just didn't 12 remember it very well. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I -- I knew what 14 was going on at that time in terms of the 15 agreements. I don't know why I said no. 16 THE COURT: Well, were you intentionally lying? 17 THE WITNESS: No. I -- I don't believe I was, 18 your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Then -- then you explain it 20 to me. 21 THE WITNESS: I don't have -- 22 THE COURT: Would it have been the truth? 23 THE WITNESS: No. 24 THE COURT: Oh. Okay. 25 0899

 2        Q    Line 16, Mr. Minton, on page 239, "Question:  Does
 3   the Lisa McPherson Trust have any agreement with the estate
 4   of Lisa McPherson?
 5             "Answer:  No."
 6             True or false?
 7        A    That is correct.  It was with me.
 8        Q    Question -- Question, line 19, "Does the Lisa
 9   McPherson Trust have any agreement with any family member?
10             "Answer:  No."
11             Is that a correct answer?
12        A    That's a correct answer.
13        Q    So this -- this agreement that you say exists is
14   an agreement between who?
15        A    It was an agreement between --
16             Well, you're talking about the -- what's now the
17   secret agreement.
18        Q    Well, let's -- I don't --
19             What you call the secret agreement.  That's fine.
20        A    You coined the term.
21             THE COURT:  Well, at least as long as we all
22        know what we're talking about, let's get on with it.
23             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  There -- there are two
24        agreements.
25             THE COURT:  As I told you, frankly -- I'll say

1 it now and I'll say it again and again -- there was 2 no agreement. There was nothing that I consider 3 under the law that would ever be accepted as an 4 agreement. Period. End. So if you don't want to 5 call it -- you know, secret agreement -- that's 6 even -- I mean, it ain't an agreement, but if you 7 want to call it an agreement, if you want to call it 8 a secret agreement, as long as we all know what 9 you're talking about, that's fine. So go ahead and 10 call it a secret agreement. 11 MR. DANDAR: I'll use the term to keep it 12 straight between the repayment of the loans. 13 THE COURT: That would be good. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Okay. Mr. Minton, who has the secret agreement? 16 Where are -- who are the parties to the secret agreement? 17 A Well, clearly, me and the estate. 18 Q You personally. 19 A Well, yes. I mean, the -- the -- the thing has 20 shifted from FACTNet to the LMT to a future organization 21 that Stacy and I might set up. 22 THE COURT: No, no. He's asking you if the 23 agreement, whatever this agreement is, is with you 24 personally. Is the answer to that yes? 25 THE WITNESS: I did answer yes. And the reason 0901
1 I'm explaining why it's yes, is, you know, 2 obviously, when it starts with the proceeds going to 3 FACTNet, and then you go to the LMT, and then you go 4 to a future organization to be set up after the 5 LMT's dissolved, it's obviously following me. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q And of course, you are not a nonprofit 8 organization, are you? Silly question, but -- 9 THE COURT: That's so obvious you don't even 10 have to ask it. 11 MR. DANDAR: I'm not going to ask it. 12 THE COURT: So if the agreement was with you, 13 it's pretty obvious, isn't it -- that's exactly what 14 you're trying to say -- that there was no 15 understandings about it going to any nonprofit. 16 It's going to you. 17 THE WITNESS: No. Your Honor, that's -- 18 THE COURT: Then -- 19 THE WITNESS: That's not -- that's not an 20 understanding that I would agree with whatsoever. 21 THE COURT: So then the agreement wasn't with 22 you. 23 THE WITNESS: The agreement was with me. 24 The -- FACTNet was a nonprofit. It was going to go 25 to FACTNet. LMT was a for profit, which Mr. Dandar 0902
1 said we would convert to a nonprofit when the time 2 came. 3 Okay. There was never any question of the 4 money going to me. 5 THE COURT: You then were going to put it in -- 6 the money was to come to you -- 7 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: -- you were going to put it in a 9 nonprofit -- 10 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. You know, I -- 11 I've discussed this numerous times. But it's -- 12 THE COURT: You know, I hate to ask you to 13 repeat it and repeat it, but quite frankly, it's 14 very confusing, you must admit. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, it's -- okay. I agree it's 16 confusing. 17 But the money was always going to be put in a 18 nonprofit, because the estate wanted to make sure 19 that it was going to get that tax benefit of the 20 donation to a nonprofit. 21 THE COURT: Yes. But this is Ms. Liebreich and 22 her sisters. They -- they had all this information? 23 THE WITNESS: No. I -- I told you, this is 24 Mr. Dandar. I mean, he's the guy that is the 25 attorney for the estate; he's the one who talked 0903
1 about this thing from the beginning; he's the one 2 who talked about setting up the LMT; he's the one 3 who set up the LMT; he's the one who said it's going 4 to be nonprofit when the time comes to distribute 5 money. 6 You know, this is -- 7 THE COURT: So then clearly he was in control 8 of things, not you. 9 THE WITNESS: He -- he was in control of the 10 aspects of this that related to the family. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: You know -- I mean -- you know, I 13 was not calling up Dell Liebreich and she wasn't 14 calling me up. You know, we talked, you know, maybe 15 a couple of times on the phone. Ann Carlson sent me 16 a couple of cards. And maybe either Lee Skelton or 17 Dell also sent me a card. But you know, there 18 wasn't any, you know, phone-to-phone, you know, 19 communication when we were going through all of 20 this. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Okay. Now, your next deposition after May 24th of 23 2000 is September 18th of 2001. And Mr. Merrett again -- 24 September of 2001 -- in this case, is representing you. 25 A Correct. 0904
1 Q Now, you claimed in the prior days of testimony 2 that by September 18th, 2001, you had cut off and stopped 3 having anything to do with the wrongful death case, right? 4 A Well, not really. Yeah. That -- that I wasn't 5 going to fund it anymore. 6 Q You sent Mr. Merrett to my office to tell me 7 there's not going to be any more funding, and even had him 8 send me an e-mail, is that right? 9 A I'm aware that he sent the e-mail. I'm not -- I 10 didn't know that he came to your office to talk about it -- 11 Q Did -- 12 A -- as well. 13 Q Did you tell Mr. Merrett to send me an e-mail 14 saying there's no more money? 15 A Whether I told him or Stacy Brooks told him, I'm 16 not sure. 17 THE COURT: What was the date of the e-mail? 18 I've forgotten. 19 MR. DANDAR: August of -- 20 THE WITNESS: 23rd or 24th -- 21 MR. DANDAR: -- 2001. 22 THE WITNESS: Of August. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Now, your September 18th, 2001 deposition, 25 Mr. Minton; did you lie in that one? 0905
1 A I'm sure I did. 2 Q At this point in time, you had cut off funding for 3 the wrongful death case. According to you and Ms. Brooks, 4 you ordered -- ordered Mr. Jesse Prince to withdraw as my 5 expert, is that right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q You had that kind of control on Jesse Prince. You 8 can order him to do things like that? 9 A Absolutely. 10 Q So -- 11 A You know, I mean -- 12 Q Would you agree that -- 13 A I mean -- 14 Can I -- can I explain? 15 Q No. 16 A Okay. 17 Q Well, sure. Go ahead. Why not? Explain how you 18 have the power, and Ms. Brooks, to order Jesse Prince to do 19 whatever you want it is that you want him to do. 20 A Well, you know, all of us at the LMT were 21 extremely concerned about how the LMT had been consumed into 22 this case. And what was happening to everybody, everybody 23 who was there, everybody who was an employee, they were -- 24 you know, they were afraid to walk out the doors. They get 25 subpoenas served on them -- you know, everybody was really 0906

 1   concerned about what was happening in this case to the LMT.
 2             Jesse -- you know, Stacy had been a proponent of
 3   this for some time.  You know, let's try to distance
 4   ourselves as much as we can from this thing, to perhaps
 5   avoid all of that legal hassle.  Jesse was completely keen
 6   to do that as well.
 7             So I mean, you know, to tell him that we were all
 8   going to, you know, disassociate ourselves from this case,
 9   you know, it was no -- no big step in logic to tell Jesse to
10   withdraw as an expert witness.  This wasn't even something
11   that -- you know, this wasn't, you know, an order that, you
12   know, "Jesse, you don't do this.  You're not going to get
13   paid anymore."  Jesse said, "Let me out.  I want out of
14   that."
15        Q    And he wanted out of it because of all the
16   harassment by the Church of Scientology.
17        A    Well, that was -- I mean, we considered a lot of
18   it legal harassment.  You know, there wasn't -- you know,
19   from the time -- you know, there was a time when the Church
20   of Scientology, to my way of thinking, was harassing me.
21   You know, other than legally.  I mean, other than legal
22   harassment.  And you know, once they were able to get all of
23   us -- I'm talking about the people who were in the LMT --
24   all of us engulfed in this case, because of, you know, our
25   actions, our -- whatever, to that date, you know, they

 1   pretty much stopped the harassment other than what we would
 2   call litigation, stroke, legal harassment.
 3        Q    As of when did they stop the nonlegal harassment?
 4        A    Well, I'm saying there weren't further instances
 5   of it, but there were -- they weren't very frequent.  And
 6   they weren't, you know, any big deal.
 7             Sometime, you know, in 2001.
 8             I mean, you know, they had -- they had everything
 9   they needed in terms of getting whatever information they
10   wanted through the court system, and we were all, you know,
11   ensnared in that in this case to such an extent that, you
12   know, we just -- they didn't need to harass us any way.
13        Q    When --
14        A    This was harassment enough, as far as I was
15   concerned.
16        Q    When did the Church of Scientology stop harassing
17   you in a nonlegal sense?
18        A    Well, by and large, they did sometime in early
19   2001.
20        Q    What does that mean?
21        A    March, say.
22        Q    March of 2001.
23        A    Yeah.
24             You know, as I said, there were other instances
25   that would be -- that I would consider harassment that

 1   occurred after that, but they were very infrequent, you
 2   know, by and large.
 3             THE COURT:  Let me see if I understand this
 4        correctly, because I -- when you use the term
 5        "legal" versus "illegal --"
 6             THE WITNESS:  No, no, no, I never used
 7        "illegal."
 8             THE COURT:  Well, what did you say?  Proper
 9        versus improper?  What were your terminology?
10             THE WITNESS:  My terminology was straight
11        harassment.  Let's use -- I didn't use the word
12        "straight," but just harassment; you know, like
13        picketing your neighborhood --
14             THE COURT:  Did I make this up legal versus
15        illegal?  I don't know.
16             THE WITNESS:  No, no.  I didn't say "illegal."
17             THE COURT:  Okay.
18             THE WITNESS:  When I used the term "legal
19        harassment," what I meant was legal -- litigation,
20        stroke, legal harassment.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22             THE WITNESS:  You know, harassment in the legal
23        system through -- you know, through the courts and
24        you know, subpoenas and things like that.  That's
25        what I meant by that.

1 THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to use the term 2 "illegal" because -- I don't mean it anything 3 illegal like a crime, but I think of legal, and 4 opposite legal is illegal. 5 What you're saying is the harassment that you 6 found to be improper, not through the court system 7 or not through some -- some lawsuit -- 8 THE WITNESS: Right. 9 THE COURT: -- this type of thing, you believe, 10 stopped in March of 2001. 11 THE WITNESS: By and large. 12 THE COURT: By and large. 13 THE WITNESS: Let -- why don't we just call it 14 improper harassment? 15 THE COURT: Improper. 16 THE WITNESS: Simpler. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: Simpler. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Well, Mr. Minton, you are familiar with the 21 harassment time line of Robert Minton posted on the Internet 22 by you or Ms. Brooks or someone at the LMT. 23 A I'm not that familiar with it. 24 Q Did you help author some of that time line? 25 A The -- the way this time line evolved is during 0910

 1   the --
 2             THE COURT:  First of all, answer the question.
 3        Did you or didn't you help to write it?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I did write some of it.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 7        Q    And would you agree --
 8        A    And --
 9        Q    -- that --
10        A    I'm going to tell you which part, if you don't
11   mind.
12        Q    Go ahead.  Go ahead.
13        A    When -- when this Howd incident occurred, which
14   was, I believe, October, '99 -- October 31st, '99, when you
15   and I were still friends and good buddies, and you came to
16   the jail that night to bail me out of jail, Mr. DeVlaming,
17   who became my attorney, suggested that -- that I put
18   together a time line of harassment.  And that time line of
19   harassment was -- to my recollection, it was largely put
20   together by me.  Maybe Stacy was, you know, typing some of
21   this stuff.  But it was based on a contemporaneous post that
22   I had made to the Internet from, you know, '97 up through
23   that time in 1999.  And all the harassment time track after
24   that was put together by Stacy, Mark Bunker, Ingrid Wagner
25   and others.

 2        Q    What I want it made clear about is that the people
 3   who put it together after you started it, did they just make
 4   it up?
 5        A    I'll be honest with you, I haven't read it.
 6        Q    So we have to go through that?
 7             THE COURT:  Yeah.  Let's go through it and see
 8        if he --
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  Let's.
10             THE COURT:  -- it's right or wrong.
11             THE WITNESS:  I'm there.
13        Q    The first entry is January of '96.  Would that be
14   one that you made?
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Excuse me, your Honor.  Just for
16        the record, what's the exhibit number?  I mean --
17             THE COURT:  Yeah.  I can't find it either.  I'm
18        looking, rooting through all this stuff.
19             THE WITNESS:  I don't have a copy of it up here
20        myself, Mr. Dandar.
21             MR. DANDAR:  I'll tell you what; since we're
22        getting -- how long are we going to go?
23             THE COURT:  You want to stop now --
24             MR. DANDAR:  No.
25             THE COURT:  You don't want to stop?

1 MR. DANDAR: No, I don't. 2 But I want -- since we can't all get this 3 document, I can go to the -- well, I was going to 4 go, before I got sidetracked here -- 5 THE COURT: Go where you were going to go and 6 then we'll come back to the time line after we can 7 all find it. 8 MR. DANDAR: All right. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Mr. Minton, we left off with your May 24th, 2000 11 deposition where you were represented by Mr. Merrett, and 12 then you had your deposition taken again by Mr. Moxon on 13 September 18th of 2001, which was a year and a half later. 14 A Right. 15 Q And Mr. Merrett also represented you there, 16 correct? 17 A I believe he did. 18 Q Okay. Did you meet with me privately at any time 19 before your deposition of September 18th, 2001, which would 20 be a couple weeks after you cut off the funding for the 21 estate and ordered Jesse Prince to withdraw as my expert, to 22 prepare for your deposition? 23 A I'm sure we did. 24 Q Really. Were we good buddies and on good terms 25 then? 0913
1 A We were. I mean, you were still sucking up for 2 money, whether I'd said I was going to cut you off or not. 3 We were good buddies. I didn't dislike you, Mr. Dandar. I 4 just disliked what was happening to me. I liked you. I 5 liked you all the way up until you lied to me in 6 New Hampshire on February the 23rd and 24th. 7 Q Did I tell you to lie in your September 18th, 2001 8 deposition? 9 A You did. 10 Q What did I tell you the to lie about, Mr. Minton? 11 A You told me to lie about the moneys. Still keep 12 lying about the moneys. You know, concentrate on the checks 13 you've written. Time and time again. 14 Q So you actually recall Mr. Moxon asking you a 15 question on -- on September 18th, 2001, about the moneys, 16 and that you gave him a -- you told a lie? 17 A I'm sure I did. 18 Q Oh. Okay. Well, let's take a look at that 19 deposition. 20 In fact, before I get there, let me just ask you a 21 general question. Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that in the 22 September 18th, 2001 deposition, where you were represented 23 by Mr. Merrett, you pled the Fifth Amendment to any 24 questions concerning money? 25 A That's right. I did. 0914
1 Q Is that -- I mean, in your mind, pleading the 2 Fifth Amendment, is that a lie? 3 A No. 4 Q Okay. 5 A You know, Mr. Dandar, if you want to know about 6 this Fifth Amendment -- 7 THE COURT: No. He didn't ask you about the 8 Fifth Amendment. He asked you if you pled the Fifth 9 Amendment and you said you did. That -- he asked 10 you if it was a lie and you said no, it wasn't. So 11 that -- that really doesn't need any explanation. 12 You are correct, pleading the Fifth Amendment 13 is not a lie. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Now, as you sit here today, honestly, you cannot 16 recall making any lies in your testimony on September 18th, 17 2001, can you? 18 A I can. 19 Q Pardon me? 20 A I can. 21 Q What lies? 22 A It was -- it was basically to cover up something. 23 Q What? 24 A Cover up moneys that you had taken. 25 Q That I had taken? 0915
1 A As fees. 2 Q From where? 3 A The money that was given to the case. 4 Q Were you asked a question about money that I had 5 and you answered the question? 6 A I was asked by you, prior to the deposition, to 7 cover something up, and that was about these fees you had 8 taken. 9 Q Was this -- I mean, did we have a phone call about 10 preparing you for your deposition? 11 A I think it was at a lunch. 12 Q Okay. So when did this occur before your 13 September 18th, 2001 deposition? 14 A I don't remember exactly where it occurred, but I 15 think -- or when it occurred, but I believe it was at 16 Ottavio's restaurant. 17 Q And who was present besides you and me? 18 A Nobody. 19 Q Was this a lunch or a dinner? 20 A Lunch. 21 Q Do you have any receipt that shows that you and I 22 had lunch together? 23 A No. 24 THE COURT: I'm a little confused. And I'm 25 sorry. I do have to stop here. 0916
1 Is this -- is this something that was covered 2 in your affidavit? 3 THE WITNESS: I don't think it has been, your 4 Honor. 5 THE COURT: Oh, this is -- this is something 6 that you just have remembered since you gave an 7 affidavit correcting your lies. It's another lie. 8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you know, I have -- 9 you know, there've been a number of instances in 10 here where there's been lies told. And even after 11 going through some of these things, there's some 12 that I obviously have not even remembered testifying 13 about. 14 THE COURT: Is the answer to my question, you 15 have more lies that you have not disclosed on your 16 recanting affidavit? And is this one of them? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: All right. Well, we better get to 19 that one. Because I don't know anything about it. 20 MR. DANDAR: I don't either. I got to try and 21 figure out where -- 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q You lied when I was asking you questions? Is that 24 what you're saying? 25 A I don't think you were asking me -- 0917
1 Q Was it Mr. Moxon? 2 A Probably. I wouldn't have to cover up -- you 3 wouldn't be so stupid -- 4 Q Well, I think you said that someone said I wasn't 5 the sharpest knife in the drawer -- 6 A That's right. 7 Q -- so -- 8 A That doesn't mean you're not somewhat smart. 9 Q So I -- 10 A Look, Mr. Dandar -- 11 THE COURT: Well, look here, we can't have 12 this. 13 I need to know -- here's somebody in court -- 14 I really need to call Mr. McCabe or something. 15 We've got all manner of -- of people here coming in 16 and saying they -- they've done lies, and they 17 haven't recanted the lies -- 18 I don't know where it is. Where is it, 19 Mr. Minton? 20 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't have it here 21 with me, but I was going through some documents last 22 night that I had back at the hotel and -- 23 THE COURT: Well, what documents? Did you 24 bring them? 25 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. 0918
1 THE COURT: So you just come in and dump a 2 little lie in the court or a big lie in the court. 3 THE WITNESS: Your -- 4 THE COURT: Where is it? What is it? Tell me 5 what it is first. 6 THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Dandar had asked me to 7 cover something for him. And you know, I -- I -- 8 it -- I could be wrong in terms of whether it was 9 this deposition or the Rosen deposition, 'cause one 10 was in September, one was in October. I don't 11 remember for sure which one it is. 12 THE COURT: It would be a nice place to start 13 for you to tell us what it is that you are now 14 purporting to tell -- say is a lie that Mr. Dandar 15 asked you. What did he say to you? 16 THE WITNESS: He said to me that he had taken 17 about 60,000 -- I think $60,000 in fees out of some 18 of the moneys that had been paid for the case. 19 THE COURT: Out of some of the moneys you'd 20 paid for the case? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 THE COURT: Out of the $2 million that you 23 paid? 24 THE WITNESS: At that time, it wasn't up to 2 25 million yet, but out of that money. 0919
1 THE COURT: Out of that money. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: So Mr. Dandar says, "I've taken 4 60,000 in fees out of this money." Did you say -- 5 THE WITNESS: I said okay. You know, I mean, I 6 didn't, you know, say, you know, "You shouldn't have 7 done that." I said, "Okay. Fine. What is it I got 8 to do?" 9 THE COURT: And he said, "You got to lie about 10 it," of course. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Mm-hmm. 13 And so you -- you, of course, being the 14 truthful person you are, said, "Fine, when do I have 15 to do that?" 16 Because this involved money again, right? It's 17 okay to lie when it involves money. We established 18 that before. 19 THE WITNESS: No. It's okay to lie when this 20 case is the central -- you know, I'm not saying it's 21 okay, now; I'm just saying that this was the 22 feeling, that it was okay to do anything to protect 23 this case. 24 THE COURT: And tell me when you had this 25 conversation with Mr. Dandar. 0920
1 THE WITNESS: When? I can't be sure. It was 2 Ottavio's restaurant on -- two blocks -- two doors 3 away from the LMT office. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Can you give us a year? 5 THE WITNESS: Yeah. It was 2001. 6 THE COURT: Can you give us a month? Must have 7 been before September, because the first time this 8 has ever come to my attention, and apparently his, 9 except if he remembers the conversation, was you 10 assumed you lied on the September 18th, '01 11 deposition. So I assume it must have been some 12 conversation before September 18th. 13 THE WITNESS: Well, it was either September, 14 October. So I mean -- as I said, I'm not sure 15 whether it was this deposition or the next one. 16 THE COURT: And Mr. Dandar said, "Whoops, I've 17 taken some money." And you, of course, having given 18 this money to the estate, said, "Why did you do 19 that? You have no authority to do that." 20 THE WITNESS: Look, your Honor, he said, you 21 know, "Look, I haven't been making any money. You 22 know, I had to take some money for fees." 23 THE COURT: And you said, "Okay." 24 THE WITNESS: I did. 25 THE COURT: Okay. 0921
1 THE WITNESS: You know -- you know, I didn't 2 say, "Okay." I just said, "Okay. No problem." 3 THE COURT: Okay. And then you assumed you 4 lied about it somewhere because he told you to. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Let's see if we can find it. 7 And you just remembered this last night. 8 THE WITNESS: I was going through some 9 documents I had. You know, I was trying to prepare 10 for today's cross-examination. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q Did Ms. Brooks help you get prepared? 13 A The -- the second we came back to our hotel room 14 after dinner, Ms. Brooks made a phone call to her mother, 15 and when she got off that phone, within 30 seconds of that, 16 she was snoring and didn't wake up until this morning. 17 Q The answer to my question is no, she did not help 18 you get prepared? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q On the way back from the courthouse to wherever 21 you're saying, she didn't talk about, you know, what things 22 I may ask today? 23 A No. 24 Q And you didn't either. 25 A I didn't what? 0922
1 Q You didn't either? 2 A No, I didn't. 3 THE COURT: What document did you look at last 4 night that helped you here? 5 THE WITNESS: It was -- it was a deposition 6 transcript or excerpt. You know, they're all spread 7 out on the floor at the hotel room. And it was a 8 deposition. 9 THE COURT: You were reading a question and 10 answer. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: And that -- it was -- and when you 13 read it you realized it was wrong. And this was the 14 first time you remembered that you had said 15 something about this under oath. Is that it? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Well, surely -- surely, when you 18 were chatting with the lawyers for the Church of 19 Scientology, they would have wanted to know whether 20 Mr. Dandar took any of this money and used it, 21 didn't they? 22 THE WITNESS: They had asked me whether I 23 thought he ever did. 24 THE COURT: And what did you tell them? 25 THE WITNESS: I said, "I don't think he did." 0923
1 You know, that was what I told them at first. 2 THE COURT: Oh, so this is something you lied 3 to them about too. 4 THE WITNESS: No. I -- I didn't remember this. 5 You know, I didn't remember it. I mean, you know, 6 even -- even later, when, you know, they presented 7 these documents and stuff, you know, I never read 8 anything that made me think otherwise. 9 THE COURT: Well, for goodness sakes, this is 10 pretty important. You're trying to set the record 11 straight, as I recall, so that you can have a global 12 settlement with the Church of Scientology. 13 THE WITNESS: But your Honor, I just didn't 14 remember it, that's all. I didn't remember it. I 15 would have said something about it if I had 16 remembered it. I would have said something to 17 Mr. Howie so we could have dealt with this in the 18 affidavits. 19 THE COURT: Well, I guess my problem is -- is 20 when they -- when they asked you, "Did he take some 21 of this money and use it for his fees," this was 22 pretty important, and you didn't remember it. Now 23 you're saying that last night you read a deposition 24 where you were asked the question and you did 25 remember. Is that it? 0924
1 THE WITNESS: That's right. That's what I'm 2 saying, your Honor. I mean, it's -- 3 THE COURT: We're going to have to take a 4 break -- 5 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to try and look for it 6 through lunch. 7 THE COURT: Yeah. If you could help us find 8 it -- 9 Mr. Howie, maybe you could help your client 10 here to find whatever in the world it is he's 11 talking about. I would suggest that looking in 12 these transcripts or whatever it is he's got and -- 13 Do you have the whole deposition or just parts 14 of transcripts? 15 THE WITNESS: I have parts of some depositions 16 and whole ones as well. 17 THE COURT: Okay. And where are they today, as 18 we speak? 19 THE WITNESS: They're back at the Hyatt 20 Westshore. 21 THE COURT: And that's in Tampa, as I recall. 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. 23 MR. DANDAR: 25 minutes each way. 24 THE COURT: 25 minutes each way. 25 MR. DANDAR: Well, here, it might be closer, 0925
1 because it's all interstate, so might be 20 minutes. 2 THE COURT: I don't know what to do except have 3 him go get it. 4 MR. DANDAR: And Mr. Merrett would be here at 5 1:30. 6 THE COURT: Yeah. So this would be a fine time 7 for him to go get it and bring it back, show it to 8 your lawyer so we can all find it, so we can get 9 this straightened out. 10 And I would appreciate it, Mr. Howie, if we're 11 going to have any more lies, and this three that he 12 hasn't recanted, that I know of -- three that I know 13 of -- that if there are more that perhaps he needs 14 to spend enough time to go through his deposition -- 15 I mean, his credibility is indeed at issue. 16 This is a man who says to me, "I lied. I committed 17 perjury," and then all of a sudden, when Ms. Brooks 18 is asked a question, well, he remembers some more 19 lies. And now we've got another lie that apparently 20 he didn't tell you about, I'm sure, in the recanting 21 affidavit because he didn't tell the church about 22 it, about something I would assume would be fairly 23 critical, but it just dawned on him last night when 24 he was looking at transcripts. 25 So what I want to see are the transcripts. 0926
1 Maybe you can point it out to me so I can go to it 2 and so I can see what it was that refreshed his 3 memory. 4 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. If I have the 5 permission of the court -- 6 THE WITNESS: I'll go get them. 7 MR. HOWIE: -- to discuss Mr. Minton's 8 testimony to that extent only. 9 THE COURT: To the extent of whatever this is 10 he's talking about -- 11 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: -- you may. 13 MR. DANDAR: And any other things that he 14 discovered. I mean, I don't want -- 15 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. 16 Are there more lies that you discovered last 17 night? 18 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Then you may discuss this 20 new lie. 21 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Do I need to get the state attorney 23 here? I mean, I thought I could refer this to the 24 state attorney when this was all done. But as far 25 as I'm concerned, there are at least two lies that I 0927
1 uncovered, and those are prosecutable, quite 2 frankly. This one, he brought to our attention 3 first. 4 So I just thought I'd wait and deliver all 5 this, because we've got allegations of lies on one 6 side; on the other side we've got allegations of 7 people committing extortion and bribery, and all 8 that has got to be figured out with the state 9 attorney. I don't prosecute crimes, I don't defend 10 crimes. That's a matter for the state attorney. So 11 I thought we'd just wait till this was all over and 12 we could send all this out. 13 Of course, I told Mr. McCabe this was coming. 14 But you know, maybe I need somebody here to advise 15 this man of his rights. 16 Are you -- are you fully equipped to do that? 17 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 18 THE COURT: All right. Then we're going to go 19 ahead and take our lunch break. 20 MR. DANDAR: I'd like to get the excerpts, that 21 I gave Mr. Minton, back. 22 THE COURT: Which excerpts? 23 MR. DANDAR: From his deposition. 24 THE COURT: Yes. Give those back. 25 And I want to see the excerpts. In other 0928
1 words, I want this to happen -- 2 Because quite frankly, you have to admit, this 3 is somewhat suspect. 4 I want you to go to your hotel, get those 5 deposition transcripts, and bring those back. 6 And Mr. Howie, as an officer of this court, I 7 want you to see to it that that happens. 8 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Those transcripts that he's got 10 excerpts of. 11 Do I make myself clear? 12 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: All right. We will be in recess -- 14 it's 12:00. 15 What time is Mr. -- 16 MR. DANDAR: 1:30, 2:00. If he's not here, I'd 17 like to start as soon as we can with Mr. Minton. 18 And if we need time for him to -- 19 THE COURT: No, no, no. 20 MR. DANDAR: No? 21 THE COURT: I need to know what time 22 Mr. Merrett is going to be here. What time did he 23 say? 1:30? 24 MR. DANDAR: 1:30, 2:00. 25 THE COURT: Then there's no point in our coming 0929
1 back before that, is there? 2 All right. So it's 12:10. Let's go ahead and 3 be back at 1:30. And if he's not here yet, we'll 4 just all take a little break until he gets here. 5 Then we'll start with Mr. Merrett and then we'll 6 begin at -- whenever you're done with Mr. Merrett. 7 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 8 THE COURT: If he finishes today. Mr. Merrett. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0930

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

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index