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



                                                                       1072


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

           3

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

           7              Plaintiff,

           8    vs.                                     VOLUME 9

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

          14

          15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                                    Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
          16
                CONTENTS:           Testimony of Robert Minton.
          17
                DATE:               May 24, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
          18
                PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
          19                        St. Petersburg, Florida.

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

          24

          25

                            
1073 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR 3 DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 4 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 8 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 MR. KENDRICK MOXON 10 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 11 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 12 Organization. 13 MR. LEE FUGATE and 14 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 15 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 16 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 17 18 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 19 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 21 22 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 23 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 24 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. 25
1074 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 MR. BRUCE HOWIE 3 5720 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida. 4 Attorney for Robert Minton. 5 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 Mr. Rick Spector Ms. Sarah Heller 8 Mr. Ben Shaw Mr. Brian Asay 9 Ms. Joyce Earl Ms. Donna West 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1075 1 THE COURT: Okay. I called the Florida Bar. 2 And Ms. Bloemendaal was not there -- Bloemendaal, 3 but I talked to another gentleman whose name I can't 4 remember. But he was involved in another complaint 5 coming out of this case. Maybe you-all can figure 6 out which one it is. It is a complaint against 7 another lawyer in the case. And he was familiar 8 with the call -- the discussion. 9 So what he said was this is what 10 Ms. Bloemendaal had told Mr. Pope, this was not a 11 confidential letter. 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 THE COURT: I said, "Okay, that is what I need 14 to know." 15 So I read it. And just -- I think I'll have 16 the clerk seal this, because it is in the nature of 17 a Bar matter. I'm not sure why the paragraphs 18 marked were marked, to tell you the truth. 19 MR. FUGATE: I highlighted them, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure why that is. If 21 you're -- if you're noting to me there has been a 22 complaint filed against Mr. Pope, that's -- that is 23 anybody's right to do, so I don't know what that -- 24 well, I'm not sure why that is highlighted. 25 I also see where there is something about the
1076 1 allegation about Mr. Miscavige not having anything 2 to do with the death of Lisa McPherson certainly is 3 an issue -- that is an issue in the case. 4 And the last thing highlighted seems to be some 5 suggestion that Mr. Pope represents anyone, judges 6 or whatever that is all about. 7 He has never represented me, nor has his law 8 firm. Naturally I know Wally Pope. He has been a 9 lawyer in this community a long time. I was a 10 lawyer for a long time before I was a judge. I know 11 who he is. And he knows who I am. 12 As I said, I have almost always been a St. 13 Petersburg lawyer. He has always been a Clearwater 14 lawyer. 15 MR. FUGATE: Clearwater. 16 THE COURT: He has been in my court. He and 17 I -- he never represented me or anything like that 18 so I'm not sure why that is highlighted. But if 19 that was to find out whether -- 20 MR. FUGATE: No, your Honor. It was 21 highlighted because it's another one of the 22 aspersions or accusations cast that are what we've 23 been looking at in the case. And that is one of the 24 things that I wanted to -- I tried to highlight 25 things I thought directly related to the issues.
1077 1 There is one I missed. If you look up in the 2 top of the last paragraph dealing with moneys, you 3 know, they are just areas -- actually, I didn't mean 4 to give you a highlighted copy, but I think I gave 5 you my highlighted copy of things we were going to 6 address. I'll be glad to take it back and give you 7 an unhighlighted copy. 8 THE COURT: No, I'm going to put this -- 9 MR. FUGATE: That is fine. 10 THE COURT: -- in as the Court's exhibit. 11 Madam clerk, put it under seal, merely because -- 12 I'm not sure exactly what it is, but as I said, I -- 13 I have read it and -- and it will be there in the 14 event I should need it. 15 MR. FUGATE: There may come a time in the 16 proceeding that we may want to address that, and 17 unsealing it to ask cross-examination questions of 18 Mr. Dandar. 19 THE COURT: That is fine. If it has some 20 bearing on that, we'll do that. 21 MR. FUGATE: You'll be the -- 22 THE COURT: But for now -- I don't think it's 23 an exhibit that really has -- 24 MR. FUGATE: I didn't file it as an exhibit. 25 Actually, it was handed up to me, your Honor, by
1078 1 Mr. Pope. 2 THE COURT: Maybe it doesn't even have to be an 3 exhibit. 4 MR. DANDAR: I don't think it does. 5 THE COURT: Okay, give it back to me, madam 6 clerk. I agree with that. 7 MR. DANDAR: Judge, the paragraph Mr. Fugate 8 called -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: Aspersions. 10 MR. DANDAR: -- aspersions is not aspersions. 11 We went through quite a few judges in the breach of 12 contract case in Clearwater because Mr. Pope 13 represented quite a few judges and they all recused 14 themselves. So I didn't feel comfortable, if there 15 was anybody on the committee that may look at that 16 that had anything to do with this law firm -- 17 THE COURT: It's a big law firm in Clearwater 18 and -- 19 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the committee is in Tampa. 20 But I don't know what the materiality of that is. 21 THE COURT: Well, I don't, either. But it was 22 highlighted, so that is why we're probably dealing 23 with it. 24 Any way, I have read it and I'll have it up 25 here in the event it's needed.
1079 1 MR. FUGATE: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: And I just wanted to report what 3 the lawyer from the Bar told me, that it was not, in 4 their opinion, a confidential letter, so you are not 5 waiving any confidentiality or anything of the sort 6 by my reading it, if that was your concern. 7 MR. DANDAR: That was it. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Mr. Minton, I'm going to show you what we have had 11 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 53. 12 THE COURT: Did you say defendant's, or 13 plaintiff's? 14 MR. DANDAR: Plaintiff's. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q This is a letter that was given to us today dated 17 May 22, 2002 from an attorney in Geneva, Switzerland, is 18 that correct? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q Is he your lawyer? 21 A He is. 22 THE COURT: How do we know this is from 23 Switzerland? Oh, down here, "Geneva"? 24 MR. DANDAR: I would think so. 25 THE COURT: At the bottom? Okay.
1080 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q It says "Geneva LE." What does "LE" mean? 3 A Where does it say that? 4 Q Above the reference clause. 5 A It's in French. The "Geneva" part I understand. 6 But I don't know what "LE" means. 7 Q All right. This attorney -- 8 THE COURT: I don't know if this is from 9 Geneva, Switzerland or not. 10 MR. DANDAR: I'll ask him. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q This attorney John Pierre Jacquemoud, 13 J-A-C-Q-U-E-M-O-U-D, what city and country is he located in? 14 A Geneva, Switzerland. 15 THE COURT: Well, now we know. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Okay. Was he involved in any degree whatsoever in 18 helping secure the funds that went through Operation 19 Clambake to LMT? 20 A No, he wasn't. 21 Q Was he involved in the $500,000 that came into the 22 LMT that was told in depositions by you and Ms. Brooks to be 23 anonymous sources? 24 A No. 25 Q Was he involved in any money transactions?
1081 1 A No. Other than between him and me. 2 Q Okay. Now, isn't it true, sir, that the Church of 3 Scientology, once they found out you were involved in 4 providing financial support to cases involving the Church of 5 Scientology -- not only did Mr. Elliot Abelson, counsel for 6 the Church of Scientology, call you on the phone, but he 7 also sent you a letter, a threatening letter? 8 A He did. I think that was a little bit later. 9 Q How much later? 10 A Mmm, well, sometime after the phone call in '97, 11 so I don't know how much later, but it had to do with 12 Clearwater and fomenting hatred in Clearwater. 13 THE COURT: If you don't mind, I think we'll 14 try to quit a little early today. It is Friday. 15 I'm just dragging. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Not only would we not mind, 17 but -- 18 THE COURT: Okay, then let's do that. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Let me show you the letter of November 18, 1997 21 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 54. This is from Mr. Abelson, 22 is that right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q To you? 25 A To me.
1082 1 Q At the bottom of the first page, could you read 2 the paragraph out loud, please. 3 A "My client holds you, your associates and backers, 4 financial or otherwise, personally responsible for any and 5 all damages it has suffered or will continue to suffer as a 6 result of your tortious officious intermeddling in church 7 litigation. The Church will not tolerate such conduct. I 8 demand that you immediately withdraw all financial support 9 for such matters and am warning you that you and those you 10 are funding have crossed the threshold of legality." 11 Q Did this cause you any concern? 12 A No. 13 Q As far as your understanding is concerned, was 14 this letter including the case of Lisa McPherson? 15 A Oh, I would guess it was. 16 Q He mentions Dennis Erlich -- 17 A I haven't read the whole part of the letter for a 18 long time, but -- 19 Q One name mentioned in there is Dennis Erlich. Had 20 you -- I think you previously testified you did provide 21 financial support to Mr. Erlich? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Did you also provide financial support to his 24 attorney? 25 A Morrison & Foerster?
1083 1 Q Yes. 2 A No. 3 Q As you sit here today, what is the total amount of 4 financial support you provided to Mr. Erlich? 5 A Mmm, I don't remember. It's a long time ago, but 6 $25,000 or something. 7 Q Was that a loan? Or a gift? 8 A It was a gift to -- it was actually a donation to 9 his ministry. 10 Q Which is called? 11 A I don't remember what it is called. 12 Q Is it a nonprofit corporation? 13 A It is. 14 THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the amount 15 again, Mr. Minton? 16 THE WITNESS: I think that was $25,000. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q And this also mentions -- 19 A Or thirty. I'm not sure. 20 Q This also mentions Keith Henson. As of November 21 of '97, had you provided support of any kind to Mr. Henson? 22 A Mmm, I'm not sure whether I had at that time. I 23 certainly did at some time. But I don't know whether, as of 24 the date of this letter, I had. 25 THE COURT: I can't remember, it's been so long
1084 1 ago, but when was it that you -- well, it was 2 October of '97 -- 3 THE WITNESS: '97. 4 THE COURT: -- when the first check was sent, 5 was it? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. And there -- you know, 7 there were articles, I remember, in the newspaper 8 down here sometime just right after that, that 9 Scientology was complaining very loudly about this 10 contribution of funds into this case. 11 THE COURT: Into the Lisa McPherson case? 12 THE WITNESS: Wrongful death case, yes. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Mr. Minton, I think yesterday we established as of 16 August of 2001 you and I were no longer in communication. 17 Is that right? 18 A I don't think we established that. 19 Q Well, why is it that you had to have Mr. Merrett 20 contact me, through E-Mail, to tell me that there were no 21 more funds available from you to help with the Lisa 22 McPherson case? 23 A I don't know. I don't know why that was the 24 method used. 25 Q And why, in that E-Mail that we had Mr. Merrett
1085 1 talk about, that he suggested a meeting with himself, 2 Mr. Merrett and Stacy Brooks, but not you? 3 A I perhaps wasn't in town. I don't know. 4 Q Now, there has been some testimony about a verbal 5 criticism -- not verbal, but E-Mail or Internet criticism of 6 you, after word got out that you had stopped funding the 7 Lisa McPherson case. 8 When did you first realize that people were on the 9 Internet, criticizing you for that? 10 A Sometime around the time you were notified about 11 not funding the case. 12 Q And how many of those -- how many critics were on 13 the Internet criticizing you about that? 14 A I don't know. 15 Q Do you know if they were criticizing you about 16 that because you had repeatedly said, throughout the years, 17 that you would never give up on the Lisa McPherson case? 18 A Oh, I think that was part of the criticism, yes. 19 Q Did that cause you a lot of emotional upset, the 20 criticism? 21 A You know, it bothered me a little bit in terms of, 22 you know, walking away from it. 23 Q Prior to August of 2001, did you ever speak to 24 anyone involved in the Lisa McPherson Trust at any time 25 about your concerns with income tax evasion?
1086 1 A Not that I know of. 2 Q Do you recall having an emotional breakdown, that 3 is the words I'm using, I don't know what else to call it, 4 where you actually cried -- 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- in front of Peter Alexander and Patricia 7 Greenway because of your -- you expressed you had a lot of 8 concerns of not paying your taxes? 9 A No. I have never had any crying episode in front 10 of Patricia Greenway or Peter Alexander. 11 Q Did you ever express to either one of them your 12 concerns about tax evasion? 13 A No. 14 Q Do you recall having -- again, what, my words -- 15 an emotional breakdown in Stacy Brooks' house on Belleair 16 Beach where I was present? 17 A Well, you know, it's your word, "emotional 18 breakdown." 19 Q It is. It is. 20 A If somebody cries, that is hardly what I would 21 describe as an emotional breakdown. 22 Q Okay. Well -- 23 A There was -- there was -- there has been a 24 constant troubling situation over my relationship with Stacy 25 Brooks, and my feelings for my wife and family from whom I
1087 1 have been legally separated since early 1999. And it 2 continues to this day to be a source of angst. 3 And, you know, you and Ms. Greenway have been 4 proponents of going back to my wife. And this subject came 5 up over at Stacy Brooks' house when you were there. And it 6 was very upsetting, the whole issue. 7 Q Was that the only issue? 8 A That is the only one I remember. That is the one 9 that I cried about. If there were other issues, you have to 10 remind me, because I don't remember any others. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Could we possibly date that? 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q Do you know when that was? 14 A Mmm, it was spring or summer of 2001, I think. 15 THE COURT: Is this the time that Mr. Dandar 16 and Mr. -- Dr. Garko were there seeking money? 17 THE WITNESS: No. This was at Stacy Brooks' 18 house. 19 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q Dr. Garko was not there. Right? 22 A I don't believe he was. 23 Q Okay. And let's go back to this Philadelphia 24 meeting in August of '99. Do you remember -- 25 A Was it August?
1088 1 Q Do you remember we -- 2 A Was it August? 3 Q August of '99. I was up there in Philadelphia 4 taking a doctor's deposition in another case. 5 A Right. 6 Q You and Stacy Brooks came over and had dinner with 7 me. Do you remember that? 8 A Mmm, well, others had dinner with you, as well. 9 Q Well, we'll get to that. But you and Stacy Brooks 10 were there, correct? 11 A We came there to see you. 12 Q And Rod Keller was there? 13 A Rod Keller was at dinner. 14 Q Charlene -- 15 A Charlotte Kates. 16 Q Charlotte Kates? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And weren't there two other people? 19 A I think you mentioned the other day that some 20 Scientologists came into the dinner. 21 Q Well, weren't there two other people sitting at 22 the table with us? 23 A Not that I can remember. 24 Q And do you recall that dinner where Stacy was 25 engaged in conversation with Charlotte and Rod Keller about
1089 1 Charlotte's recent departure from the Church of Scientology, 2 and you and I were engaged in the concerns or the emotions 3 that you were expressing on your marital relationship? 4 A I don't remember that. 5 Q But -- 6 A But it was a dinner conversation. You know, 7 whatever we discussed we discussed. I don't know. 8 Q Well, we certainly didn't discuss the Lisa 9 McPherson case at dinner, did we? 10 A We didn't. 11 Q And it's your recollection that, either before or 12 after dinner, you, or Stacy Brooks in your presence, told me 13 that I had to emphasize the Scientology aspects of the Lisa 14 McPherson case more than I had been? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Did -- 17 A Just to refresh your recollection, we met before 18 dinner. We had dinner. Then we went up to, I think it was, 19 my hotel room with Charlotte Kates and Rod Keller and Stacy. 20 And there was something going on about some contact between 21 these people who had walked into the dinner from the 22 Philadelphia Org. I believe either I or Rod Keller or 23 Charlotte Kates called them up. And we were just kind of 24 horsing around in my room. Then we went to your room. That 25 is where the check was written, in your room, I think.
1090 1 Q Who was present when the check was written? 2 A Stacy, me and you. 3 Q And did Stacy say, "Bob, don't write that check," 4 or anything like that? 5 A No. 6 Q Did she say anything about trying to get you not 7 to write a check? 8 A No. 9 Q And did I listen to that suggestion that you made? 10 A I believe you did. 11 Q How? 12 A Well, I mean, you subsequently added parties. You 13 subsequently started utilizing Stacy and Jesse more for 14 these depositions. 15 Q Mr. Minton, isn't it true that before that dinner 16 in August of '99 in Philadelphia, I had already been meeting 17 with Jesse Prince, and Jesse Prince's affidavit on the 18 culpability of David Miscavige in the death of Lisa 19 McPherson was already done, typed up, signed and sealed? 20 A Seven -- six days before, in fact. 21 Q Right. So you certainly didn't have any input on 22 that, did you? 23 A Well, not on that affidavit. I mean, Stacy had 24 input on that affidavit. 25 Q Really? What -- what part of the affidavit did
1091 1 she write of Jesse Prince? 2 A Well, I would be extremely surprised if she didn't 3 write some part of it, because she's written just about 4 everything that he's had written, because his English is 5 completely atrocious. 6 Q So you are just assuming she did? 7 A Well, she's testified here, I believe, that she 8 talked to Jesse a lot about this affidavit in terms of -- I 9 think she said something about getting him in the right 10 frame of mind, or something to that effect. 11 Q Do you have any idea what that means? How do you 12 get him in the mood to write an affidavit? 13 A You know, I -- I don't remember her testimony 14 exactly about that, other than the fact that she said that. 15 So -- 16 Q You know that Jesse Prince wrote that affidavit in 17 my office -- do you know that? My conference room on 18 O'Brien Street? 19 A I don't know where he wrote it. 20 Q You weren't there? 21 A I don't think so. 22 Q Do you know it took him several days to write that 23 affidavit? Do you know that? 24 A I'm sure it had to take more than one. 25 Q Now, Mr. Minton, you have also alleged that
1092 1 because of your infusion of this check for $100,000 in 2 October of '97, I completely changed the allegations of the 3 complaint and made it into a murder -- a murder wrongful 4 death count. Is that your -- 5 A I didn't say you completely changed the 6 allegations. I said you included the word "murder." You 7 clearly made it -- you had already indicated your 8 willingness to make it an intentional death case. 9 MR. DANDAR: Just bear with me a second here. 10 THE COURT: What are you going to do here? 11 MR. DANDAR: Well, I want to ask him to show me 12 where I changed anything based upon what he may have 13 said to me after October of '97. 14 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Well, would it be possible to 16 just hand him a copy of the complaint? 17 THE COURT: That is what I was thinking. 18 Wouldn't it be easier to have him look at it? 19 MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought -- 20 THE COURT: Well, go ahead, if you want to do 21 it this way. 22 THE WITNESS: What is this we're looking at? 23 THE COURT: This is a copy of one of the 24 complaints. 25 Could you identify for us which -- look at the
1093 1 first page for me so I know what we're looking at 2 here. 3 MR. DANDAR: This is the original complaint 4 filed in February of '97. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. This is the original 6 complaint? 7 MR. DANDAR: Right. Correct. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q Here is Paragraph 18 -- well, actually, it is the 10 second Paragraph 18. I do have a problem sometimes on 11 reading things, apparently. But Paragraph 18, "The above 12 actions of the Church of Scientology were the result of 13 their premeditated design to follow their techniques, 14 bulletins and procedures, which was performed willfully, 15 intentionally, maliciously, and in total disregard of the 16 rights of Lisa McPherson, in addition to their culpable 17 negligence and gross negligence in failing to obtain timely, 18 appropriate emergency medical care through licensed medical 19 providers." 20 Do you see that, Mr. Minton? 21 A I do. 22 Q Okay. Now, here is the first amended complaint. 23 By the way, do you know that Vaughn Young helped 24 participate in preparing me and assisting me in drafting the 25 allegations concerning the operations of Scientology in the
1094 1 first amended complaint? 2 A I believe I have heard it testified about here. 3 Q Well, you know that Stacy Brooks turned over a 4 work product letter that I sent to her and her husband back 5 in May of '97 to the defendants during your negotiations in 6 2002 with Scientology? 7 A I don't know whether she did or not. I believe 8 she said she thought they already had it. 9 Q Paragraph 48 of the first amended complaint: "The 10 above actions of Scientology were the result of their 11 premeditated design to follow their techniques, bulletins 12 and procedures, which were performed by or at the direction 13 of Scientology willfully, intentionally, maliciously and in 14 total disregard of the rights of Lisa McPherson, in addition 15 to their culpable negligence and gross negligence in failing 16 to obtain timely appropriate emergency --" does that look to 17 be the same allegation after your check of $100,000, 18 Mr. Minton? 19 A It does. I mean, it sounds like the same thing. 20 Q Do you see the word "murder" in there? 21 A In this one? 22 Q Yes. 23 A In the first amended complaint? It's in there. 24 Q Okay. Maybe we'll do this at a break. I'm going 25 to have you read it and then you can come back and tell us
1095 1 where you see the word murder. 2 A All right, I will. I believe there is a copy of 3 it here. 4 Q Well, on a break we'll do that. Let's go -- let's 5 go now to the -- let's go now to 2002. 6 During January of 2002 isn't it true that you were 7 calling me up, asking me to meet you? 8 A That is utter rubbish. No. 9 Q Isn't it true the first suggestion from you to me 10 was, "I would like to meet you in Atlanta, Georgia," do you 11 recall that? 12 A No. 13 Q Do you recall the next suggestion by me was, 14 "Well, if you want to meet, let's met at Vanderbilt, I have 15 to fly there for Dr. Fogo's deposition in this case," and 16 you said okay, and I made a reservation for you at the new 17 hotel? 18 A At the Marriott? 19 Q Yes. Do you remember that? 20 A I remember you wanted me to come there and meet 21 you while you were there for this deposition. 22 Q Do you recall that I took a vacation with my 23 family, as I have been doing, I think, for 15 years to the 24 Cayman Islands for a week. And I told you I was going 25 there, if you wanted to meet me, come meet me there. You
1096 1 thought that was a good idea? 2 A No, that is not the way it was put. You wanted to 3 meet me, Mr. Dandar. The concept that you have laid out 4 here is I have been begging to meet with you. 5 The documentation that has already been presented 6 doesn't show that. You were looking for me to come to you. 7 You wanted money. I wasn't anxious to give it to you at 8 that time so I didn't want to meet. 9 Q Show me one letter that says I need to meet you 10 and get money. Do you have one? 11 A Well, that December 15th E-Mail, you know, the all 12 caps, you know, "Help, I need money," you know, "Please --" 13 Q How about January and February of 2002? 14 A What about them? 15 Q Do you have any E-Mails in that time period? 16 A Mmm, yes. 17 Q Do you have them with you? 18 A Well, in January there was the -- the thing from 19 the Vanderbilt. You know, you set that up independently. I 20 didn't tell you I was going to go to Vanderbilt, to 21 Nashville. You asked me. You made a hotel reservation. 22 It's my home town. My mother lives there. My two 23 brothers live there. There are plenty of places for me to 24 stay in Nashville. I don't need somebody to set up a hotel 25 for me.
1097 1 Q Wasn't it your suggestion for me to get a room 2 reservation for you, Mr. Minton? 3 A No, it was your suggestion. "I'm going to get a 4 room for you. And if you come, fine, you've got a room." 5 Q Then you -- isn't it true, Mr. Minton, you called 6 me up and suggested -- after I made a joke, I said, "Bob, 7 I'm the only person I know that hasn't been invited to your 8 New Hampshire home in all these years." 9 And you said, "Why don't you come up to New 10 Hampshire." 11 Do you remember that? 12 A You've said that several times, "I'm probably the 13 only person I know who hasn't come up to your house in New 14 Hampshire." 15 I said, "If you want to come up here, you are 16 welcome to come up here." 17 You wanted to come up for the purpose of talking 18 about the money you needed. 19 Q When you called me -- let me put it so we don't 20 argue. When we had a phone call about coming to New 21 Hampshire at the end of February of 2002 -- 22 A Right? 23 Q -- was that on a speaker phone in my office? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q Do you know if anyone was listening on that phone
1098 1 call? 2 A I have no idea. 3 Q I called you back and said, "Is it all right if 4 Dr. Garko comes," correct? 5 A You did. 6 Q All right. Now, it's your testimony that at this 7 point in time you no longer trusted me, you no longer 8 trusted Dell Liebreich, you wanted nothing to do with the 9 estate, the wrongful death case, and yet you are agreeing to 10 have me come to your house in New Hampshire. Why? 11 A Well, first of all, when you came to New Hampshire 12 I told you I didn't trust you, the estate or Dell Liebreich. 13 Q When did you form that -- 14 A Because -- well, I wrote it down -- Stacy Brooks 15 wrote it down as I dictated it to her the night before on 16 six or seven art pad pages, big pages. 17 And I said, "Look, this is what I want to talk to 18 Ken about when he's up here." 19 Look, I still liked you. 20 Q When did you stop liking me? 21 A I would say when I heard you testify in Judge 22 Baird's court. 23 Q About what? 24 A About this money, for example. 25 Q Oh. So you made these meetings with Scientology
1099 1 and came to the -- as you say -- set-the-record-straight 2 decision, and you still liked me then? 3 A I told you I -- I informed you before I even went 4 there, at least a week to ten days before I went. And you 5 remember exactly what I told you? 6 Q No. 7 A "I'm not going to do anything there to try to 8 screw you over in any way. Be sure of that. But there was 9 one person that I don't give a crap what happens to him, and 10 that was Patricia Greenway." 11 And you said, "Oh, Bob, don't do that." 12 Q I don't know about that, either. 13 But let's go back to the February -- 14 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I object to him 15 testifying. 16 MR. DANDAR: Yes, I'm sorry, I thought I was 17 doing a better job than that. I'm sorry. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Dr. Garko and I flew up on a Saturday to New 20 Hampshire. Correct? 21 A That's right. 22 Q And you sent -- or -- or Stacy Brooks at least 23 went into the airport to greet us, and you stayed outside in 24 the parking lot. Right? 25 A I was smoking in the car. Yes.
1100 1 Q All right. 2 A You can't smoke in the airport there. 3 Q Did you stay outside in the parking lot because 4 you didn't want to be confronted by anyone working for the 5 Church of Scientology? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. And after we got inside your truck, we all 8 drove to the supermarket. Correct? 9 A That is right. 10 Q And we went and shopped for food, anything we 11 wanted. Right? 12 A Yeah. 13 Q And at this point in time, you have already 14 decided that -- the night before, that I'm a person you 15 don't trust any more? 16 A That didn't mean I didn't still like you. 17 Q Okay. Now, while Stacy is cooking dinner that 18 night, you -- just before we sat down for dinner -- and I'm 19 going to use the word again and you correct me -- you had an 20 emotional breakdown. Is that true? 21 A Well, Ken, that is your terminology. 22 Q I know. I said that. 23 A Yes. I -- I did cry. You know, I was upset. And 24 Michael Garko was very cognizant of the fact that I was 25 upset.
1101 1 And one of the reasons that I was angry and not 2 trusting you is because by this time I was firmly of the 3 belief that you were involved with these people who were 4 doing this campaign, and that you were orchestrating it, 5 even. 6 Q Do you recall, before this weekend, sending Jesse 7 Prince into my office to relay a message to me? 8 A No. I have seen that in Jesse's affidavit. And 9 that is just not true. 10 Q Okay. 11 THE COURT: Before what weekend? 12 MR. DANDAR: The weekend of February 27th. 13 THE COURT: Oh, I thought you meant before this 14 weekend coming up. 15 A And to continue the answer there. And as you 16 know, we've had problems, you and I have had problems 17 before, relative to Jesse Prince coming into your office and 18 representing that he was speaking on my behalf. 19 If you remember, this problem came up several 20 times about the money, including around the time of that Key 21 West trip, because it became a major issue. And I told you 22 that nobody speaks for me, you need to talk to me if you 23 want to find out what I feel or how much money I'm going to 24 be able to give you next month or whatever it is. 25 You remember, we had these discussions about Jesse
1102 1 Prince coming in and falsely misrepresenting his speaking 2 for me. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Isn't it true, however, that what Jesse Prince 5 told me, before I flew up to New Hampshire, is the same 6 thing you told me in New Hampshire? 7 THE COURT: You need to be -- 8 MR. FUGATE: Judge -- 9 THE COURT: They had a lot of chats up there. 10 MR. DANDAR: Oh, about -- 11 THE COURT: Wait a minute, Mr. Dandar. 12 They had a lot of talk over two days. So you 13 need to identify for Mr. Minton what exactly it is 14 that you're talking about. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Isn't it true that one of our many discussions in 17 New Hampshire concerned -- well, I'm going to back up, let 18 me do it chronologically. 19 When you cried before we sat down for dinner you 20 were really emotionally upset toward me. Correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q All right. You thought that I was no longer your 23 friend? 24 A Well, I found it hard to believe that a friend 25 would be orchestrating this type of smear campaign.
1103 1 Q So you assumed that I was orchestrating a smear 2 campaign because there were these people on the Internet 3 chat room, alt.religion.scientology, I guess criticizing you 4 severely for pulling out support of the Lisa McPherson case, 5 is that what you mean? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is there any other smear campaign besides the 8 Internet chat room? 9 A No. No, not chat room. This was 10 alt.religion.scientology. 11 Q What is it called? 12 A A news group. 13 Q It's a news group? Okay. Did I ever post on that 14 news group? 15 A Mmm, I think you might have once. 16 Q Really? What did I say? 17 A I don't remember. But I think I saw you post 18 something once. 19 Q Was it about you? Or a case? Or what? 20 A I don't remember. But, you know, I believe -- you 21 know, I could be wrong, Mr. Dandar, but I think you did. 22 Q It wasn't criticizing you, though, was it? 23 A No. 24 Q In fact, I think the defendants here have shown 25 me -- there are so many of these -- a posting of Dell
1104 1 Liebreich? 2 A Right, that she posted sometime in September to 3 raise money. 4 Q And that was in the course after John Merrett's 5 E-Mail saying you were no longer funding the case? 6 A Right. 7 Q And that posting by Dell Liebreich was not a 8 criticism of you, was it? 9 A It wasn't. 10 Q It was a noble plea for help in the case, wasn't 11 it? 12 A It was. 13 Q And there is a Dina Holmes, who is one of your 14 most vociferous critics, I guess, on the Internet. Would 15 you agree with that? 16 A I would say she qualifies in that category. 17 Q And she -- she hosts a website calls 18 Lisamcpherson.com. Are you aware of that? 19 A I knew there was a website, 20 Lisamcpherson.com-something. 21 Q And even though she's a vociferous critic of yours 22 on the new group alt.religion.scientology, the website 23 Lisamcpherson.com is not critical of you, is it? 24 A No, because you told me this. You actually asked 25 her to change what she had on there and you asked her to add
1105 1 some things, which was -- that was very nice of you. 2 Q Because we had no intention -- well, I don't know 3 about her. I can't speak for her. You're right. 4 But Dell Liebreich, nor I, had any intention to 5 denigrate you anywhere, would you agree with that? 6 A Not that I observed. 7 Q Okay. Now, did you instruct your attorney, 8 Mr. Howie -- no, no, I'm sorry, let's go back to the 9 February weekend in New Hampshire, I'm sorry, because you 10 said quite a bit about that. 11 At the dinner table -- anyway, when you said you 12 didn't trust me any more because you thought I orchestrated 13 this smear campaign, isn't it true I assured you repeatedly 14 that I did not do that? 15 A I believe you did try to offer some assurance you 16 didn't do it. 17 Q Okay. 18 A And I eventually felt that maybe you weren't as 19 involved in it as I thought. 20 Q All right. Now, we sat down at the dinner table. 21 There were four of us at the dinner table. You and I are 22 sitting right across from each other, correct? 23 A I don't remember how we sat. But there were four 24 of us at the dinner table. 25 Q Your back was to the fireplace. Do you remember
1106 1 that? 2 A I don't. 3 Q All right. And you told me, in front of 4 Dr. Garko, "I have no more money for you," do you recall 5 that? 6 A I did. 7 Q And then you said, "But I have friends in Europe, 8 and let's call him the "Fat Man," and he may be interested 9 in sending you some money. Do you recall that? 10 A I didn't use the term the "Fat Man" at all until 11 the next day. 12 Q Okay. 13 THE COURT: What did you say during that 14 conversation? 15 THE WITNESS: Mmm, well, I said that, you know, 16 I don't think there is anything I can do right now 17 but, you know, maybe I have some friends in Europe 18 who could be of assistance. 19 THE COURT: So you mentioned friends in Europe, 20 you just didn't use the words -- 21 THE WITNESS: The "Fat Man." 22 THE COURT: It was basically correct what he 23 said except for the words the "Fat Man"? 24 THE WITNESS: Right. And as I stated in my 25 affidavit, the purpose of using that charade, as I
1107 1 called it, was to keep Dr. Garko in the dark about 2 me providing the money. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q And I think in your -- 5 A At your request. 6 Q Yes, in your affidavit you said I previously 7 requested this. Is that right? 8 A Well, going back to May of 2000, you know, you 9 wanted to make sure that that $500,000 didn't get known to 10 Dr. Garko. 11 Q Do you know -- do you have any knowledge 12 whatsoever that I tell anybody who works for me how much 13 money I have? 14 A Well, I know what Dr. Garko has told me you have 15 told him. 16 Q Well, let's not get into hearsay. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor -- 18 THE COURT: Yes, you asked the question. 19 MR. WEINBERG: You asked him the question. Let 20 him answer it. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Go ahead. What did Dr. Garko say about this? 23 A Dr. Garko -- 24 THE COURT: I think I have heard it, but I 25 think it is a fair thing to say at this point again.
1108 1 A Dr. Garko said the first time -- well, he said, 2 first of all, that he had been aware of all of the money 3 before, even the $250,000 check written on Bank of America 4 in May of 2001 that was payable to Ken Dandar. That he had 5 been aware of all those checks before, but he had not been 6 aware ever of the $500,000 check and even the $250,000 7 check, which he was part of the crowd who came to New 8 Hampshire to solicit money. And he was shocked by it, he 9 said, when Lirot briefed you and him about the testimony. 10 And he said, you know, further that you went out 11 in the parking lot and had a heated conversation, and you 12 told him -- he said to you, "What do I have to do, Ken, to 13 get my money from you?" 14 And at that time I think he said he was eight 15 months behind in getting paid by you. 16 And you said to him, in a snarling -- repeating 17 what he said, in a snarly way, "Michael, there is nothing 18 you can do about it." 19 And he walked away, he said. And he heard you 20 grumble something. He turned around and started to come 21 back and said to himself, "Forget it." 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Anything else? Are you sure you covered 24 everything he said? 25 A That -- no. There is more he said.
1109 1 Q Oh. Keep going. 2 A Well, that is all he said about that -- the money. 3 That is what he said about the money. 4 Q Okay. Did he -- so he didn't know about the -- 5 the UBS -- 6 A Oh -- oh, yes -- no, the other things he said is 7 that for some time you had been telling him that you were 8 financing this out of your retirement account, you know, 9 financing the case out of your retirement account, and that 10 I had not been giving you money for a while. And even the 11 $250,000 in May of 2001 that was written on the Bank of 12 America account -- and I'm happy to look up the exhibit 13 number if you want -- that when you got that check, you told 14 Dr. Garko that you had spent that much money already out of 15 your retirement account and had to put it back in and, 16 therefore, you still didn't have any money. 17 Q Anything else, Mr. Minton? 18 A I think that is all on that subject. 19 Q Okay. So are you telling me and this Court that I 20 requested Dr. Garko to come with me to New Hampshire but we 21 were going to have code words and code names in front of him 22 when we started to discuss money? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And the whole purpose of the trip, I had been, as 25 you say, begging you to meet with you, was to get money from
1110 1 you and not let Garko know about it? 2 A To get money from me. You know, what you did with 3 Dr. Garko was your business. But what you wanted me to do 4 was not to let Dr. Garko know that the money was going to 5 come from me. 6 Q Are you sure that in your mind it wasn't Dr. Garko 7 you didn't want to know about money given to me but, rather, 8 it was Stacy Brooks who you didn't want to find out that you 9 wanted to give money to me? 10 A Mr. Dandar, that is ridiculous. That is 11 absolutely not true. Yes, Stacy did not want me to give any 12 money to you. Stacy -- you know, Stacy is aware of how much 13 money I have given to you. You know how she feels, the 14 problems in the case, the perjury and everything. You know 15 exactly how she felt. I didn't have to hide that from Stacy 16 Brooks. 17 You know, I have done -- if I would have listened 18 to everything she said, you know, I wouldn't be in so much 19 trouble now. 20 Q How long ago would you have been out of the -- as 21 you call it -- Scientology litigation business if you had 22 listened to Stacy Brooks? 23 A No sooner than I'm going to be now. 24 Q Well, she didn't want you to get out of the 25 Scientology litigation business back in the summer of 2001?
1111 1 A It still wouldn't have made it happen any quicker. 2 Because as I told her -- as I told her at that time, "Stacy, 3 look, you have to understand, we're so enmeshed in this, you 4 know, what on earth do you think we can do to distance 5 ourselves from this case? You know, we're so immersed in 6 it, we're sucked into it, there is no way out. We can't 7 just walk away and say, 'God, I wish this never happened.' 8 We are under subpoenas, we're under court orders. You just 9 can't walk away from it if you are in it." 10 Q In the summer of 2001, you had not committed any 11 perjury yet in your depositions because they didn't take 12 place until September and October. Is that right? 13 A I believe the money had already been a perjury 14 matter before that. 15 Q So the -- you're talking about the May 2000 16 deposition? 17 A The $1,050,000 deposition, yes. 18 Q Where you were asked how many checks you wrote, 19 and you had testified $1,050,000? 20 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to that question. He 21 was asked a lot more questions than that, how many 22 checks he wrote. He was asked how much money he 23 gave -- Mr. Minton gave to him. 24 THE COURT: I realize there is a difference of 25 opinion here as to whether that -- but I don't
1112 1 really think that the subtlety needs to be taken up 2 with this witness. You can make that subtle 3 argument between counsel to me. 4 MR. DANDAR: All right. All right. 5 THE COURT: That is, it is Mr. Minton's 6 testimony that it is his belief that he committed 7 perjury in that May affidavit through not disclosing 8 that $500,000 check. Whether that is, in fact, true 9 or not is a matter that you-all can argue if it 10 makes a difference, but, I mean, that can be 11 argued -- he wouldn't know, to be honest with you, 12 all of the nuances of the crime of perjury. 13 Frankly, I don't know them very well, either. I am 14 learning more than I knew before -- 15 MR. FUGATE: Or ever wanted to know. 16 THE COURT: -- a few weeks ago. 17 THE WITNESS: Mr. Howie gave me the biggest 18 nuance, was for each count of perjury, that you can 19 spend 7 years in jail. 20 THE COURT: Well, I think he's a little short 21 there by about 8 years, isn't he? Isn't it a second 22 degree crime? Or is it third degree? 23 MR. HOWIE: It's a second degree felony. 24 THE COURT: Fifteen years in prison. 25 MR. HOWIE: I think we may have been discussing
1113 1 the Criminal Punishment Code. 2 THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. 3 THE COURT: There are two kinds of perjury. 4 One is perjury-perjury as most people know it. That 5 is a 15-year offense. One is just inconsistent 6 statements, very little as far as intent or 7 anything, inconsistent statements, as I recall, 8 under certain circumstances. That is a third degree 9 felony. That is 5 years in prison for each episode. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q I'm pretty sure you and I differ on this, but I 12 just want to establish this as a predicate question. The 13 May 2000 UBS check, your testimony is you told me that was 14 your money. Correct? 15 A I told you both before I got it, after I got the 16 check. Yes. Yes. 17 Q In your affidavit you say that I was under a court 18 order to disclose that $500,000 check. Do you recall that? 19 A I'm saying you told me that you hadn't reported 20 the check, that's all that I said -- 21 Q All right. 22 A -- to the Court. 23 Q And did I -- well, if I told you that, did I also 24 tell you I was under no court order to report any money to 25 the Court or to the defendants after January of 2000?
1114 1 A I'm merely telling you what you told me. That, 2 "You can't do that. I haven't reported it to the Court." 3 Q Did the $500,000 to LMT, the anonymous donation 4 that is really your money, and the $300,000 Operation 5 Clambake money, did that all come from the same financial 6 institution? 7 A Mmm, no. 8 Q Did it come from the same country? 9 A Did what come from the same country? 10 Q Those two payments to the LMT? 11 A Mmm, I believe so. 12 Q Okay. Did the money that was in the UBS check of 13 May of 2000 to me, did that come from the same institutions 14 as the Clambake money and other anonymous money to the LMT? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He just said the 16 Clambake and anonymous were two different 17 institutions. 18 THE COURT: That is true. Sustained. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Did the money, in May of 2000, come from any of 21 the other two institutions? 22 THE COURT: Either of the other? 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Either of the other? 25 A Yes.
1115 1 Q Okay. And did the March 2002 UBS check come from 2 either one of the institutions that LMT got money from? 3 A Ask me that again. 4 Q Okay. The March 2002 UBS check -- 5 A Yes? 6 Q -- that you say is your money, did that come from 7 one, or the other, of the two institutions that sent the LMT 8 money? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. The UBS check that went to Courage 11 Productions, did that come from one, or the other, of the 12 two institutions that sent in the -- that was the source of 13 the LMT money? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. So all we're dealing with are two 16 institutions from which the money came for all of the UBS 17 checks? 18 A Right. 19 Q Okay. Now, were there more institutions, though, 20 involved in transferring money from one to another before it 21 went to the UBS bank? 22 A No. 23 Q Okay. Are the accounts from these institutions 24 that you have refused to disclose in your name? 25 A I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment on that
1116 1 question. 2 Q Are they numbered accounts? 3 A I'm also pleading the Fifth Amendment on that 4 question. 5 Q Does your wife have an interest in the accounts? 6 A I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment on that 7 question. 8 Q Now, Mr. Howie -- no, let's go back to the -- to 9 the New Hampshire weekend. 10 Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, at that dinner table in 11 front of Dr. Garko, you said, "My friends in Europe may be 12 interested in sending you money, but first you need to write 13 a letter to me and you need to get these people to stop 14 criticizing me on the Internet"? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q Did I send you a letter as a result of that 17 conversation? 18 A The suck-up letter, yes. 19 Q That you call the suck-up letter? 20 A Yes. 21 Q But that was at your request? 22 A It was. I stated it. 23 Q Oh, sorry. 24 THE COURT: He said he was sucking up to you 25 but that is what he asked you to do, is that --
1117 1 THE WITNESS: Right. Right. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Do you think there is anything in what you call 4 the suck-up letter written by me that is not truthful? 5 A Yes. I think there are things in the suck-up 6 letter that are not truthful. 7 For example, the highlighted "secret agreement." 8 Q Oh. Okay. So it mentions a secret agreement. 9 You say one existed, right? 10 A I didn't come up with the term. You did. And you 11 put it in the letter. 12 Q Okay. And so did Mr. Merrett lie about that 13 yesterday, too? 14 A I wasn't here when he testified about it but I 15 heard that he testified about it. 16 Q Mr. Merrett said there was never an agreement 17 between me or the estate and you or the LMT to give any 18 amount of proceeds, over and above the loans that you 19 advanced. Is that -- 20 A If that is what he said, he said it incorrectly. 21 Q Okay. 22 A He may not have known. 23 Q Mr. Merrett said yesterday that you posted on the 24 Internet and you put it in an -- interviews in the Boston 25 Globe or wherever, TV, wherever --
1118 1 A Yeah? 2 Q -- that there was this agreement that the LMT 3 would get the bulk of any proceeds from the wrongful death 4 case. 5 A Right. 6 Q And he said he confronted you about that, and you 7 told him, "Well, I know that's not true. I just wanted to 8 get Scientology all riled up about it." 9 A That is a total fabrication on his part. That is 10 not true. 11 Q What would be the motive of Mr. Merrett to lie 12 about that? 13 A You'll have to find out what his other motives 14 were for lying yesterday. I don't know. 15 Q You're not a lawyer, but do you have any idea of 16 the consequences of a member of the Florida Bar lying to a 17 circuit court judge? 18 A Do you? 19 MR. DANDAR: Move to strike. 20 THE COURT: Yes, that will be granted. We 21 really can't go there. We need to kind of move 22 through this. So just answer his question. 23 A I don't know. 24 THE COURT: Well, for one thing, it would be 25 the same thing as anybody else lying, it is perjury.
1119 1 Number two, a lawyer stands to lose a lawyer's 2 license, because that will just not be tolerated by 3 the licensing -- well, won't be tolerated by the 4 Florida Bar and, I dare say, won't be tolerated by 5 any other state bar that I could imagine. 6 MR. FUGATE: None that I'm aware of. 7 THE COURT: None that I'm aware of. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q Now, the $100,000 that Gerry Armstrong paid you 10 back, did that come from you? 11 A It did. 12 THE COURT: I'm sorry? The $100,000 that Gerry 13 Armstrong paid you back came from you? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Oh -- 16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor -- 17 THE COURT: -- I don't owe you any money, but I 18 wish I could find some folks I did owe money to. 19 THE WITNESS: Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Sir? 21 THE WITNESS: I just want to pull out some of 22 these things that I showed you yesterday -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 THE WITNESS: -- and one that I didn't show you 25 yesterday because I only read it last night.
1120 1 THE COURT: What is this now? 2 THE WITNESS: This is from the April 8 3 deposition. 4 THE COURT: Oh, okay. The April 8 deposition? 5 Okay. I'm not sure exactly what you're showing me. 6 I had asked -- you made some statement 7 yesterday about some recollection you had, and you 8 were going to show me where it was in your 9 deposition -- what it was in your deposition that 10 caused you to remember this so late in this 11 proceeding. 12 And what you are suggesting is you found 13 something else? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, I read this -- you know, 15 this was the last deposition that I read last night. 16 And there are some things in this April 8 one which 17 we had already stated on the record that there were 18 some corrections that needed to be made to it. 19 One of those involves Gerry Armstrong. 20 THE COURT: Oh. Where is that? 21 THE WITNESS: It is -- 22 THE COURT: Can we -- 23 THE WITNESS: It's -- it's Page 117 on line 24. 24 You know, I'd previously stated that I didn't 25 know where Gerry Armstrong got his hands on a
1121 1 hundred grand. And I'm correcting that testimony by 2 saying that he got it from me. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Well, there is more lies on that page, isn't 6 there, Mr. Minton -- 7 A Yes. I have got them highlighted in yellow. 8 Q -- that has to do with Clambake money and the 9 $500,000 anonymous donation to the LMT? 10 A That's right. 11 Q We're jumping ahead, but this is April 8, 2002, 12 after you have already conferred with representatives of the 13 Church of Scientology to, so-called, set the record 14 straight, and you are lying in your deposition. Why would 15 you do that? 16 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I object. Mr. Minton, 17 I think, was attempting to recant. And he was 18 interrupted by Mr. Dandar in the middle -- I don't 19 know if he was done. 20 THE COURT: Overruled, counsel. 21 A I'm not sure, Mr. Dandar. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Well, could it be and isn't it true that the 24 reason you kept the lie about the LMT money and the Gerry 25 Armstrong money is because your deal with Scientology was to
1122 1 destroy the Lisa McPherson case and not go after the LMT 2 which was dissolved, or Gerry Armstrong who nobody cares 3 about? 4 A Absolutely incorrect. 5 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, also assumes facts not 6 established, that there is a deal. 7 A And, you know, at the time of this deposition -- 8 THE COURT: If that was an objection, it is 9 overruled. I think it is an appropriate question. 10 A At the time of this deposition, within minutes, as 11 you can see, of -- of this, we went out of the room, and we 12 came back in and we told Mr. Rosen that there had been some, 13 Mmm, wrong answers given and we had to correct them. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Well, why didn't you do it right then and there? 16 A Because Mr. Rosen saw how upset I was about this. 17 Q And you think Mr. Rosen cared that you were upset? 18 A Well, you see what he said here on Page 120, and 19 he said, "We'll continue this deposition." 20 THE COURT: I know, perhaps you do, too, 21 Mr. Minton, that Mr. Rosen was quite a bit nicer 22 throughout, he was really quite polite and quite a 23 gentleman, wasn't he, on that April 8? 24 THE WITNESS: I tell you, he was much nicer 25 than any other one.
1123 1 THE COURT: I'm going to tell you something. I 2 also read that October 11 and 12 deposition, and 3 there was quite a change and turn-about face in 4 Mr. Rosen's behavior in those two depositions, 5 wasn't there? 6 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. Absolutely. 7 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, in the one 8 deposition he was giving you notice, trying to get 9 you to pay judgments, trying to have you get out a 10 checkbook -- 11 THE WITNESS: Right there on the spot. 12 THE COURT: -- right there on the spot, right 13 in the middle of a four-hour deposition? 14 THE WITNESS: Right. 15 THE COURT: And he was just as sweet as pie, 16 comparably speaking, in the April 8 deposition, 17 true? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: I'm kind of curious, because I 20 thought in this April 8 deposition, which was the 21 day before you were going in to speak to Judge 22 Baird, that the assumption was that everything you 23 were going to say there, now that you'd agreed to 24 set the record straight, would be true. 25 Is that why you got upset is because you were
1124 1 still lying? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: So, really, after you agreed -- 4 THE WITNESS: You know, there -- there -- 5 THE COURT: I need to take a look here for a 6 minute. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Minton. 7 I noticed back in the deposition, particularly 8 the deposition of -- both September taken by Mr. 9 Moxon, and the deposition in October taken by 10 Mr. Rosen, now that I read them over, after having 11 sat through this deposition last night until the wee 12 hours of the morning, I wondered if you noticed 13 this, too. 14 Did it appear to you, in reflecting what was 15 being asked in those two depositions, that regarding 16 these moneys that were coming from Europe, the 17 $500,000, the $300,000, that they already knew about 18 it? 19 THE WITNESS: What? 20 THE COURT: The money, the $500,000 and the 21 $300,000, Operation Clambake? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe they'd already 23 gotten the bank records from Bank of America by 24 then. 25 THE COURT: So they already knew about all of
1125 1 that? 2 THE WITNESS: Well, certainly in the October 3 one they did, because Mr. Rosen had the bank 4 records, I know. I remember that. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, when did you get those 6 records, do you remember that? 7 MR. MOXON: Yes, I got some of the records from 8 LMT at the Stacy Brooks' deposition. She revealed 9 them. 10 MR. DANDAR: But, Judge -- 11 THE COURT: Wait a second. When was that? 12 MR. MOXON: In August. 13 THE COURT: In August? 14 MR. MOXON: Yes. 15 MR. FUGATE: Of? 16 MR. MOXON: 2001. 17 THE COURT: So Ms. Brooks had given you all 18 this data about this Clambake and all that stuff 19 that I just gave you the other day? 20 MR. MOXON: No. We just got some of the 21 records. We tried to piece together what was going 22 on because we saw transcripts. Remember, we got 23 bank records, we had a couple hearings about the 24 bank records from the Bank of America, you recall 25 there was a phone hearing and motions for protective
1126 1 orders, there was a lot of litigation that fall, 2 particularly Judge Beach -- mostly with Judge Beach, 3 but some with you, and we'd gotten some records. 4 And there was some alarming very strange, unusual 5 transfers. And we are trying to figure out what in 6 the world is going on, particularly one that looked 7 like there were these transfers that may have been 8 going to Dandar, we didn't know what was going on. 9 THE COURT: I really need to ask you, did it 10 appear to you that the Church of Scientology already 11 knew about stuff that you had no idea that they knew 12 about when Mr. Moxon took your deposition in 13 September? 14 THE WITNESS: I think they already knew about 15 this $300,000 and $500,000 having gone into the LMT. 16 THE COURT: And the money -- did they know 17 anything about money going to Mr. Dandar? 18 THE WITNESS: Not that I know of. I don't 19 believe they did. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Well, as I said, as I read 21 it over, I thought, wow, they knew a lot more than I 22 would have thought they knew back then. 23 It really doesn't matter. It was what was in 24 your mind. In your mind, you were not concerned 25 that they already had information that you never
1127 1 dreamt that they would have because you were trying, 2 obviously, to hide it from them, you have already 3 testified about that. 4 THE WITNESS: Right. But I believe Stacy 5 Brooks had to testify that -- I don't know whether 6 this was the one where she was threatened to go to 7 jail or what, but there was -- I know she had 8 testified about some of this stuff. 9 THE COURT: It may be the reason I don't know 10 that because I don't have Ms. Brooks' deposition. 11 MR. DANDAR: Didn't we give it to you? 12 Mr. Lirot has our copy. 13 MR. FUGATE: Judge, that -- just for the 14 record -- 15 THE COURT: So if it is right, obviously when I 16 was reading the deposition it was pretty clear -- 17 THE WITNESS: They did know about it. 18 THE COURT: They did know about it? So however 19 it was he knew about it, it was pretty clear to you 20 it had been something you had been very careful 21 about trying to hide from the Church of Scientology 22 for the reasons you have already said, and the fact 23 that you are, were and -- in September and are to 24 this very day claiming the Fifth Amendment, this was 25 a concern, I presume, way back in September.
1128 1 THE WITNESS: Sure. Sure it was. 2 THE COURT: This was a fairly elaborate scheme 3 that had been gone through, at least as to this 4 $300,000 Clambake contribution, to hide it from 5 Scientology, and to hide it from what -- whatever 6 else it is that you're trying to made hide it from 7 or not incriminate yourself. 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, in May of 2000 when you 11 handed me the $500,000 UBS check, you knew at that time that 12 the only money the Church of Scientology was interested in 13 learning about was money that came from you? 14 A No. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I don't -- 16 A No. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I guess if he understands, it is 18 okay. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q You didn't have that understanding? 21 A Well, just from what I understand you are saying 22 is that the Church of Scientology was only interested in 23 going into discovery on moneys coming from me? 24 Q Right. 25 A That is what you are saying?
1129 1 Q Right. 2 A That had nothing to do with why the check was 3 issued the way it was. 4 Q Well, did you have an understanding, back in May 5 of 2000, that you were the only person they were interested 6 in in obtaining information from as to funds going to the 7 Lisa McPherson case? 8 A I think that is an accurate description of what 9 was going on at the time. That's who they were inquiring 10 about. 11 But, you know, you're the one who wanted to put 12 this money into a separate account. You weren't going to 13 run it through your trust account. You were going to tell 14 the employees that you were financing this case out of your 15 retirement funds. 16 THE COURT: Well, you were trying to hide it, 17 too, weren't you Mr. Minton? What is fair is fair. 18 I don't know what it was Mr. Dandar was trying to 19 do. We're going to hear about it. But you, sir, 20 certainly didn't want any more money for anybody 21 else to trace from this country. Did you? 22 THE WITNESS: Mmm -- 23 THE COURT: You were perfectly happy to hide 24 that $500,000 and have it come over the way it came 25 over. That is a lot of money.
1130 1 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I could have 2 written the check here. But, you know, I did it -- 3 and, you know, at the time, you know, it didn't dawn 4 on me, really, that I was doing this to avoid any 5 discovery from Scientology about it. 6 It was that this is the way Mr. Dandar asked me 7 to do it. And I said fine. I mean, this was -- 8 this was $500,000 that, in Judge Moody's court, Ken 9 Dandar, with a trial date set, said, "This will take 10 me through trial." 11 THE COURT: So your testimony to me is the only 12 money that you cared about hiding from whatever it 13 is you are taking the Fifth Amendment for was the 14 $500,000 that you paid to LMT and the $300,000 that 15 you went through the elaborate scheme for to pay to 16 LMT, but that same motivation did not exist in the 17 $500,000 check to Ken Dandar and the $250,000 check 18 to Ken Dandar? That same motive did not exist? Is 19 that what you're telling me? 20 THE WITNESS: Well, it didn't, your Honor. 21 Also, this is a year earlier. $500,000 in May 22 of 2000, you know. And I subsequently gave 23 Mr. Dandar a check for $250,000, you know, on my 24 bank account here after that. 25 THE COURT: Well, I understand that. But -- I
1131 1 don't know how much money you keep in your account. 2 But I do know that is $750,000. That is a lot of 3 money. I don't know how much you keep in your 4 American accounts and I, frankly, am not going to 5 ask you because I don't care. But that is a lot of 6 money. And if you weren't keeping that much money, 7 well, then that would kind of deplete you. 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Mr. Minton, since -- for the years '97, '98, '99, 11 2000, to 2002, have you underreported your income to the 12 Internal Revenue Service? 13 MR. HOWIE: Objection. 14 THE COURT: Overruled. And I'll tell you 15 exactly why. Because there is an allegation the 16 very reason, the very thing, that the Church of 17 Scientology was using was either extortion or 18 whatever about money laundering, racketeering or 19 income tax. And, therefore, that becomes a relevant 20 inquiry. I'm not saying it is true or not true. I 21 am saying it is a relevant inquiry. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just -- I mean, 23 these are just allegations. I just want to make the 24 record clear. 25 THE COURT: I understand that. But --
1132 1 MR. WEINBERG: I understood your ruling. I 2 mean, we have been quiet every time Mr. Dandar said 3 extortion and blackmail and all those things. I 4 just wanted to make clear these are his allegations 5 and that is all it is. 6 THE COURT: I understand that is his 7 allegation. However, in this hearing he's allowed 8 to pursue his allegation, just as you are. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 10 THE COURT: And I tried to make it clear many, 11 many times, and I'm not suggesting any of these 12 things are true, but these things have to be 13 explored so that this hearing can be done and 14 rulings can be made. 15 A I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment on that 16 question. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q Does Stacy Brooks know anything about whether your 19 income tax reporting in the United States is accurate? 20 A I wouldn't think she would have any idea. 21 Q You kept that from her? 22 A She's never been involved with it. 23 Q You haven't told her? 24 A I haven't. 25 Q Did you ever tell her you were concerned about tax
1133 1 evasion? 2 A No. 3 Q Did you ever tell her you were concerned about 4 money laundering? 5 A No -- well -- well, yes. 6 Q When? 7 A In connection with these charges that were filed 8 in Switzerland. 9 Q Okay. What charges were filed in Switzerland? 10 A Mmm, the Nigerian -- back in June of '9- -- no, 11 June of 2000, the Nigerian high commissioner in London wrote 12 a letter to the Swiss prosecutor in Bratosa (phonetic) and 13 alleged that the business that I had done twelve years 14 earlier in Nigeria, the business that had finished 12 years 15 earlier in Nigeria, had involved money laundering, forgery 16 of financial documents and a third allegation. 17 Q And did the prosecutor in Switzerland get 18 interested in that charge? 19 A Not to my knowledge. What happened was that the 20 way the charge was alleged, it was alleged that I somehow 21 facilitated the laundering of $12 billion by a Nigerian 22 dictator named Soni Abacha, who came to power the year after 23 I stopped doing business in Nigeria. 24 You know, I have never been to Nigeria, I never 25 met any of these people who were in power, and this
1134 1 allegation was basically bogus. 2 Numerous attempts were made to convince the 3 prosecutor that these charges were bogus. People who were 4 familiar with money laundering and familiar with the debt 5 trading business that I was involved in went to visit the 6 police in Switzerland, the prosecutor's office in 7 Switzerland. They wrote affidavits explaining this 8 business, to convince the Swiss authorities that there had 9 not been any crime and this was a bogus allegation. 10 But one -- the main charge was this $12 billion of 11 money laundering. 12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was looking at 13 something. The one something charge? 14 THE WITNESS: The main charge -- 15 THE COURT: The main charge? 16 THE WITNESS: -- was $12 billion worth of money 17 laundering that enabled this Nigerian dictator whose 18 last name was Abacha, A-B-A-C-H-A, to steal from the 19 country $12 billion, basically. 20 THE COURT: When you say the charge, this is 21 again -- I'm just -- maybe it is late in the week -- 22 but this charge was a charge brought against you? 23 Or being looked at against you? Or looked at 24 against this Nigerian leader? 25 THE WITNESS: Well, in fact what had happened
1135 1 earlier is the Swiss authorities conducted a 2 large-scale investigation into this Abacha and 3 seized moneys and things of that nature that he had 4 stolen from Nigeria and put in Switzerland and 5 Luxemburg and the Cayman Islands and Panama and 6 everywhere else. So the Swiss authorities had this 7 huge investigation going -- also in London -- had 8 this huge investigation going, and this charge 9 from -- or this letter from the Nigerian high 10 commissioner in London was an attempt to add this 11 within that investigation that the Swiss authorities 12 were doing. 13 And, you know, it's two years -- almost two 14 years later. The Swiss authorities have said, you 15 know, "We're not in a position to give you a letter 16 saying that we're not pursuing this case because 17 it's a small element within a much bigger case. And 18 until we get rid of the whole case, we can't say, 19 you know, you're off the hook." 20 THE COURT: That is you personally? 21 THE WITNESS: Right. 22 THE COURT: Okay. But this is the same 23 Nigerian money laundering $12 billion scheme that 24 Stacy Brooks wrote about in her harassment of Bob 25 Minton where she alleged that the Church of
1136 1 Scientology was -- was over there in Nigeria or in 2 the business community over there trying to keep 3 that stirred up in some fashion? 4 THE WITNESS: Well, they definitely stirred it 5 up. Definitely. 6 THE COURT: And that was true? 7 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe it was true. 8 THE COURT: Well, she believed it was true, she 9 put it in -- and you believed, certainly, it was 10 true at the time? 11 THE WITNESS: I did. 12 THE COURT: So -- okay. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q And did there ever come a point in time when the 15 Swiss prosecutor told you, "Okay, you're off the hook"? 16 A I believe I just testified -- 17 THE COURT: He just said that they could not 18 let him off the hook because he said it was part of 19 a bigger -- this is about the Abacha fellow, right? 20 THE WITNESS: Right. 21 THE COURT: And until that was resolved, they 22 couldn't let him off the hook. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q So it is still ongoing? 25 A It's still pending. Yes.
1137 1 Q And -- 2 A You know, I haven't been charged with anything. 3 You know, if I was charged, you know, I would actually have 4 some rights. But right now I'm just -- 5 THE COURT: And the actual charge is money 6 laundering, or racketeering, or fraud, or what did 7 you say -- 8 THE WITNESS: Money laundering, forgery of 9 financial documents, and maybe the third was fraud. 10 I'm not sure. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q When did it come to your attention that this 14 was -- this was going on involving you with the Swiss 15 government and Swiss prosecutor? 16 A Just after that -- sometime within a month or two 17 of that letter going to the Swiss prosecutor. 18 Q What month was that? What year? What month? 19 A Well, the Swiss prosecutor -- the letter went to 20 the Swiss prosecutor in June of 2000. 21 Q Was there anything going on in the summer of 2001? 22 A No. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I assume you mean with regard to 24 this case? 25
1138 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q With regard to the Swiss prosecution? 3 A No. 4 Q Did you have evidence in the summer of 2000 that 5 the Church of Scientology investigators or other operatives 6 were behind getting the Swiss prosecutor to look at you? 7 A There -- I certainly had a pretty strong feeling 8 that -- that this investigator, David Lee, was involved in 9 this. 10 Q The same David Lee -- 11 THE COURT: That seems odd to use the term 12 "operatives." What in the hell is a church 13 operative? 14 MR. DANDAR: Someone working undercover, like 15 Laura Terepin was working for David Lee, the other 16 undercover person you say was connected and working 17 for the Church of Scientology. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Right, Mr. Minton? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Now, back in New Hampshire, Sunday morning, you, 22 Stacy Brooks and I and Dr. Garko, I believe -- 23 THE COURT: Wait a second, if we're going back 24 there, this is a wonderful time for a break, so 25 stop. We'll be in recess until 3:15 or 3:20. But
1139 1 go on and -- 2 MR. WEINBERG: You think we'll go, what? 3 THE COURT: We'll break around 4:30. How is 4 that? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Sounds good. 6 MR. DANDAR: I'll have Mr. Minton read this 7 complaint. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Look at that complaint, if 9 you would. Just take it with you downstairs. 10 THE WITNESS: Which complaint? 11 THE COURT: Whatever he's going to give you, 12 the first amended complaint. See if you can find 13 the word "Murder." 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 15 THE COURT: Specifically the word "Murder." I 16 guess that is what he wants you to look for. 17 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken at 3:00 to 3:22.) 18 _________________________________ 19 THE COURT: Well, I told Mr. Keane -- I saw him 20 at lunch -- that I had that box -- he just had a 21 jury that is going to be instructed at 1:30 -- but 22 that I haven't seen him so I don't know whether his 23 jury is out or what. 24 MR. MOXON: I spoke to him just now at break 25 and he's still waiting for the jury but he said he
1140 1 would stop up and get the box. 2 THE COURT: Fine. But I want to talk to him 3 before he gets it. So if I don't have a chance to 4 deal with him, he'll just have to get it next week. 5 MR. MOXON: Okay. 6 THE COURT: And I guess what I need to see is 7 the latest order to make sure he has the latest 8 order. There are so many orders around, that I have 9 seen floating around, that I need to see. What does 10 he have? 11 MR. MOXON: I have given him all of the orders, 12 your Honor. But I'll make sure he has the latest. 13 THE COURT: Well, give me all of the orders, 14 would you, so I can look through and see what I 15 think he needs to do. 16 MR. MOXON: Okay. And Mr. McGowan and I 17 already talked, and he's stipulating that I could 18 look at these tapes in Mr. Keane's office and just 19 copy sections that were related to the issues in 20 this case, and if there is any dispute as to any of 21 it, we'll bring it to the Court. 22 THE COURT: Well, that is not acceptable to me. 23 Mr. Keane is not to turn over those tapes unless 24 they are relevant. 25 MR. MOXON: Okay.
1141 1 THE COURT: So, no, you cannot look at them 2 because there may be things that aren't relevant. 3 That is why I say, I'm going to talk to Mr. Keane 4 and I'm going to decide what it is has been ordered 5 to be done in this case, which I think is to turn 6 over unedited videotapes of witnesses in the case. 7 I think that is the last thing. 8 MR. MOXON: I'll give you each of the orders, 9 your Honor. 10 THE COURT: What I want to do at some point in 11 time is figure out witnesses, well, who are the 12 witnesses, and let him know that. And I don't know 13 how in the world he's going to know who these people 14 are. 15 MR. FUGATE: I was just going to say -- 16 THE COURT: I wouldn't, and I have seen some of 17 them. 18 MR. FUGATE: -- there is no way he can get them 19 without you being involved. Should somebody go tell 20 him he needs to stop by here first? 21 MR. MOXON: I already talked to him about it. 22 THE COURT: The nice thing about it is I talked 23 to him, so when I have time to get with Mr. Keane, I 24 shall do so. That man has got a jury out. And I'm 25 tired. And I'm not going to ask him, when he's
1142 1 waiting for a jury that he's been involved in for 2 two weeks, to come up and deal with this, so -- he's 3 not going to deal with it, most likely, today. I'm 4 not going to deal with it today. And we'll get this 5 done next week. 6 MR. MOXON: Very good. 7 THE COURT: But I do want the order so I can 8 see what -- what needs to be done. 9 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, as a point of 10 information, I won't belabor the point, but I have 11 just spoken with Mr. Bunker. I'll be entering an 12 appearance for him. He advises me that there are 13 like 26 more tapes in his possession that would fall 14 under the order. They are being Fed Ex'd to me. 15 I'll turn them over to your honor or Mr. Keane on 16 Tuesday. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. McGOWAN: So I hope that -- 19 THE COURT: But, obviously, it has been brought 20 to my attention there are tapes in there that are 21 personal tapes. Mr. Moxon does not need to see 22 personal tapes. Neither does Mr. Dandar. 23 MR. MOXON: No. I don't want to. Absolutely. 24 THE COURT: But you can't go view them and then 25 say, "Well, gee, I don't need that." Personal tapes
1143 1 are personal tapes. And that is my problem. And 2 I'm not sure how it is we're going to -- I mean, 3 that was an objection made in my court and I need to 4 honor that, but I'm just not sure how that is going 5 to happen. 6 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, Mr. Bunker is 7 actually willing to come down and assist Mr. Keane. 8 He knows what -- 9 THE COURT: That would be perfect. He knows he 10 has the right to come in and make his argument 11 before me about all of the tapes, all that stuff 12 that was said yesterday, journalistic privilege and 13 all that sort of stuff, if he wants to. 14 But if he doesn't do it pretty quick, I'm going 15 to assume he doesn't want to do that, and that all 16 he wants to make sure of is his personal tapes are 17 not viewed by anybody, other than the master is 18 going to have to view them. And -- 19 MR. McGOWAN: Right. 20 THE COURT: -- and that whatever is turned over 21 to either side will be copies, and whatever it is, 22 he can have them back. 23 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, I have disabused him 24 of certain notions. And he understands how in 25 camera viewing these kinds of things works now. And
1144 1 I think he'll be cooperative. 2 And I think he can actually identify certain 3 tapes which are, in whole, irrelevant or family 4 tapes or whatever. 5 THE COURT: I'm sure that is true. Then once 6 we identify that there are certain relevant tapes, 7 as far as I'm concerned at that time, Mr. Moxon and 8 Mr. Dandar or somebody from your office can be 9 present and you-all can identify what you want and 10 somebody can -- I don't know whether Mr. Keane has 11 the ability to do this or not, but I guess he has 12 the ability to appoint somebody who does have the 13 ability, like he did with the computers. 14 MR. MOXON: Yes, well, we may have to sit down 15 with him and maybe with Mr. Bunker there, too, and 16 try to figure out which are which. It's kind of 17 hard to tell, I guess, unless you actually look at 18 them. But, of course, I have a list of all of the 19 people that have been witnesses or people that are 20 listed as witnesses. 21 THE COURT: Well, people that have been listed 22 as witnesses but who are not now witnesses, why 23 would you be entitled to them? 24 MR. MOXON: Well, only because, from time to 25 time, some of the witnesses have been utilized for
1145 1 matters that have been argued here now. Mr. Dandar 2 has put pretty much everybody back on his witness 3 list, and then some, who was on the original. We 4 have gotten a list from him that is quite long. So 5 I don't know if there is anybody in the category of 6 "used to be but no longer is." 7 THE COURT: Well, if they are on the witness 8 list -- but if there is somebody that is not on any 9 witness list and they used to be and they are long 10 since removed, not to be used for anything and not 11 planned to be used for anything, I don't see where 12 they would still be part of the order. 13 MR. WEINBERG: I guess it depends if they were 14 sitting there talking about the case at the LMT or 15 in end of cycle or something that is an issue in the 16 case, I -- like that clip you saw would be very 17 relevant. 18 THE COURT: I think so, too. But those are 19 people who clearly -- 20 MR. WEINBERG: On that tape, those particular, 21 certainly were. 22 MR. McGOWAN: Perhaps if we have a list of 23 witnesses and issues, we could then, with 24 Mr. Bunker's help, go through the tapes, make a 25 privilege log and say, here is such and such a
1146 1 witness, do it that way. 2 THE COURT: That will work. Okay. We'll get 3 it done. But as I said, I have been a trial lawyer 4 many years before I was a judge, but when you have a 5 jury out on a big case, and you tried it probably on 6 a contingency fee, you don't want to sit down with 7 some judge and have her talk about a bunch of tapes 8 that somebody asked you to go through. So I'm not 9 going to bother him, except I told him, when he's 10 done, have him see me. And that will probably be 11 next week. 12 MR. MOXON: Okay. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Very good. 14 THE COURT: Continue, Mr. Dandar. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Quickly, Mr. Minton, did you have a chance to look 17 at the first amended complaint? 18 A I did. 19 Q Is the word "murder" used in reference to the 20 killing of Lisa McPherson? 21 A Mmm -- 22 MR. FUGATE: Judge, that is not what the 23 original question was, I don't think, was -- was the 24 word "murder" in there. 25 THE COURT: No, I think it was as it relates to
1147 1 this case. He was asking what changed from the 2 first to the second. That is how I gathered the 3 question. 4 A Well, the word "murder" is used in Paragraph 38 5 concerning the introspection rundown. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Read it, please. 8 A "The introspection --" Paragraph 38: "The 9 introspection rundown, even according to L. Ron Hubbard, 10 must be followed strictly and by Scientology-trained 11 personnel as defined by Scientology. Otherwise, it can be 12 extremely dangerous, and to those who wish to abuse the 13 introspection rundown, according to L. Ron Hubbard, can be 14 used to murder that person or cause a person to go 15 completely and utterly insane or to commit suicide." 16 Q Does it allege that -- in the case of Lisa 17 McPherson, the word "murder," is that used? 18 A I think that the term "murder" here is one of 19 these allegations by innuendo. 20 Q Oh, okay. So the first amended complaint, after 21 you gave me the first check of $100,000, does not say 22 Scientology murdered Lisa McPherson? 23 A It doesn't. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Judge -- 25 A But that is your copy.
1148 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Sorry. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I suppose that is 4 subject to some -- in light of the allegation of 5 intentional killing and language that it relates the 6 introspection rundown to murder, and the allegation 7 that Lisa McPherson, in that amended complaint, was 8 on the introspection rundown. So I think, as 9 lawyers, we would argue that in light of the 10 characterization of murder and introspection 11 rundown, Paragraph 38, but that is not for 12 Mr. Minton to -- 13 THE COURT: No, it's not. And that was not 14 exactly as I understand what Mr. Minton said had 15 happened after he gave the money, so -- 16 MR. DANDAR: I'm just interested in the 17 church -- 18 THE COURT: However, in fact, the word "murder" 19 was used in some of the later complaints, I believe. 20 MR. DANDAR: No. 21 THE COURT: Well, I thought I saw it. 22 MR. DANDAR: What he just read from is actually 23 words of Mr. Hubbard in his own publications. 24 THE COURT: Right. 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: That is --
1149 1 MR. MOXON: That is not true. 2 MR. LIEBERMAN: He just makes it up, your 3 Honor. I ask Mr. Dandar to produce a document by 4 Mr. Hubbard saying the introspection rundown can be 5 used to murder somebody. 6 THE COURT: That is what it said in that 7 complaint. 8 MR. LIEBERMAN: But he just said it is in the 9 writings of Mr. Hubbard. He makes it up. It's the 10 same kind of thing we have in the fifth amended 11 complaint, your Honor. It is just made up. He just 12 says it. And it's not true. 13 THE COURT: Well, all I know is what I heard he 14 read. And that sounded like something he was 15 reading -- putting in his complaint that came from a 16 writing of L. Ron Hubbard. I don't know. 17 MR. MOXON: It is not, your Honor, absolutely 18 not. 19 THE COURT: Well, there is a lot of stuff said 20 in this hearing, such as Judge Quesada takes bribes, 21 Judge Schaeffer takes bribes, Judge Schaeffer was 22 before the whatever. There is a lot of stuff that 23 has been said here that is not true. But, you know, 24 we all have to just move on and not get terribly 25 upset and jump up and down, or else I'll be jumping
1150 1 up and down all of the time. So, really, we need 2 not do that. 3 Move on. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Mr. Minton, there came a time when you or the LMT 6 retained the services of Patrick Jost, is that correct? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q Patrick Jost is a money-laundering expert from the 9 U.S. Treasury Department, is that correct? 10 A Mr. Jost is somebody I have been acquainted with 11 since 1995. He was an official at the Financial Crimes 12 Enforcement Division of the U.S. Treasury Department. He 13 was an expert in money laundering and conducted many 14 money-laundering investigations for the U.S. government. 15 And he specialized in something that came into the news 16 after September 11th, Holowa (phonetic). 17 And even though he had left Fin. Cen. by that 18 time, he went back and did some work for the government in 19 connection with middle Eastern groups. 20 Q How is it you became familiar with him in 1995? 21 A We met down in Washington with Arnie Lerma. 22 Mr. Jost suggested -- made a number of suggestions to me at 23 that time. And, you know, we stayed in touch. 24 Q Well, was it about money laundering? 25 A No.
1151 1 Q What was it about? 2 A Mmm, it was about a man who lived on a mountain in 3 New Hampshire, whose name I can't remember, who he thought 4 would be a good private investigator to delve into 5 Scientology. 6 Q And did you retain that man on the mountain? 7 A I didn't. 8 Q Okay. And did you retain the services of Mr. Jost 9 beyond that after LMT was formed? 10 A He did -- he did work for the LMT, yes. 11 Q And what work did he do for the LMT? 12 A Mmm, I wasn't involved in his day-to-day 13 activities. But, generally speaking, what he was doing was 14 compiling information based on letters and statements given 15 to the LMT by people who had been involved in Scientology 16 and tried to categorize them into various areas where he 17 thought Scientology may be vulnerable to prosecution in some 18 way, civil or criminal prosecution. 19 Q Did it have to do with money laundering? 20 A No. 21 Q Did someone cause a book on the U.S. penal system, 22 the federal code on -- on criminal statutes concerning money 23 laundering, to be brought into the LMT? 24 A I was never aware that one was there. 25 Q In the summer of 2001 when money laundering was
1152 1 being questioned or raised by Mr. Moxon in the deposition of 2 Ms. Brooks in the LMT, was that when the book on the U.S. 3 crimes was brought in for review at the LMT? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form. "Is that 5 when the book"? 6 THE COURT: Sustained. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q In the summer of 2001 was the book on money 9 laundering crimes brought into the LMT office? 10 A Not to my knowledge. 11 Q Do you have any knowledge of the crimes book being 12 brought into the LMT offices? 13 A I have never seen it, I have never heard of it 14 being there. I don't know anything about it. 15 Q Did Patrick Jost -- was he assigned any task to 16 look at Euro transactions, bringing money into the country 17 or into the LMT on -- to see if it would violate any U.S. 18 laws on income tax evasion or money laundering? 19 A No. 20 Q Did you send Patrick Jost to France to confront or 21 to see Michelle Pisante (phonetic), the attorney, to demand 22 or request your money back? 23 A I don't think so. 24 Q Well, what are you saying? You don't know? Or 25 you are not sure?
1153 1 A Well, I didn't request him to do that. 2 Q Do you know that he actually did that? 3 A Well, I know that he got pretty infuriated with 4 Pisante for not providing the materials that Pisante 5 promised to provide him. And they had numerous disputes. 6 And Mr. Jost would complain, substantially to 7 Ms. Brooks. I never discussed with Mr. Jost anything 8 concerning his dealings with Pisante. Ms. Brooks dealt 9 exclusively with Patrick's activities, other than it related 10 to the Swiss investigation. 11 Q So Mr. Jost was involved to assist you in some way 12 with the Swiss government's investigation concerning the 13 allegations of money laundering? 14 A Yes. He was familiar with the players involved, 15 the people in the Swiss money-laundering offices in Zurich 16 and Geneva. He knew some of the police there that he had, 17 you know, cooperated with in his capacity as a federal 18 agent. 19 And so he met with the judge and some of the 20 police people on more than one occasion to discuss the 21 matter. 22 He also compiled an affidavit, an extensive 23 affidavit, which he submitted to them, you know, explaining 24 this whole situation in terms of what this business was in 25 Nigeria, that there was never any money laundering involved,
1154 1 there was never any forgery of financial documents, whatever 2 the other charge was. 3 Q Well, did you use his services in any way 4 whatsoever concerning the money that you brought into the 5 country? 6 A No. 7 Q The UBS checks written to Courage Productions, how 8 did the Church of Scientology get a copy of that? 9 A I gave it to them. 10 Q How did you get a copy of it? 11 A The same way I got a copy of the checks that I 12 gave them that were made payable to you. I called up and 13 asked for them. 14 Q Who did you call? 15 A The financial institution. 16 Q Which one? 17 A Mmm, I'm pleading the Fifth Amendment on that. 18 Q Is that the financial institution that you have an 19 account or accounts in that sent the money for these checks? 20 A I'm pleading the Fifth Amendment on that question. 21 Q I may have asked you this before, but pardon me if 22 I did. Did John Merrett know that the Operation Clambake 23 money that came in, the $300,000 -- did he know, before it 24 came in, and at the time it came in, that it was your money? 25 A Well, not only did he know it, but he even -- when
1155 1 he was trying to get his friends involved, he told me these 2 people were so trustworthy and so loyal to him that they 3 could go pick up cash if I wanted them to. 4 Q Now, before we get back -- 5 A From me, yes. Cash of mine. 6 Q Okay. Before we get back to the New Hampshire 7 weekend visit, isn't it true that the reason that you 8 canceled your trip to Nashville to see me was because Mark 9 Bunker was in the hospital? 10 A I don't believe Mark Bunker was in the hospital in 11 January. 12 Q Do you recall telling me that? 13 A Mmm, I don't remember telling you that. If he was 14 in the hospital -- it might have been an excuse not to see 15 you. But I don't recall that he was in the hospital in 16 January. 17 Q Now, on the weekend Dr. Garko and I were at your 18 New Hampshire house, on Sunday do you recall me, you, Stacy 19 Brooks -- and I believe Dr. Garko, maybe, I can't say -- 20 sitting down in your living room and you starting to talk 21 about the motion to show cause with Judge Schaeffer? 22 A No. 23 Q Do you recall you and I -- and I believe Stacy 24 Brooks and Dr. Garko -- going over the questions that you 25 raised and plead the Fifth Amendment to before -- in the
1156 1 deposition that was involved in Judge Schaeffer's court? 2 A Yes. 3 Q All right. Do you recall me telling you, after we 4 went over the 80 or 90 questions, there was nothing in there 5 that you should plead the Fifth Amendment to? 6 A No, I don't remember you telling me that because I 7 couldn't plead the Fifth Amendment to them, I was ordered to 8 answer them. If you gave me that advice, that wouldn't have 9 been very helpful. 10 Q And isn't it true the advice I gave you was to 11 simply tell the truth, there was nothing for you to hide? 12 A I wouldn't characterize your advice to me that 13 way, no. 14 Q Now -- just a minute. Now, after I left New 15 Hampshire, there came a time, within ten days or so, that 16 you called and said that you had arranged to have this 17 person in Europe send a check to me. Do you recall that? 18 A No. 19 Q Do you recall having a telephone call with me in 20 March of 2002 where you said -- you asked whether or not the 21 Court here had issued any type of interrogatory or 22 deposition to a bank in Switzerland? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And do you recall telling me that you were 25 concerned about that?
1157 1 A Yes. 2 Q And do you recall telling me that if that was 3 happening, that I needed to find out about it and let you 4 know? 5 A I did. 6 Q And do you recall telling me that if it wasn't 7 something issued by this Court, that you were even more 8 concerned that somebody had found and discovered some 9 information of your banking activities in Switzerland that 10 greatly concerned you? 11 A I wouldn't have said, had it not been issued by 12 this Court. I mean, it would have either been issued by 13 this Court or not issued. 14 Q Okay. But, generally, you do recall the telephone 15 conversation and you do recall being concerned that 16 something was happening at your banks in Switzerland? 17 A I was concerned that there was some inquiry. 18 Q Okay. And you never told me the name of those 19 banks. Correct? 20 A I don't know whether I did or not. 21 Q And I never asked you the name of those banks. 22 Did I? 23 A Mmm, I think the name of Dresdner Bank came up. 24 Q Is that in Switzerland? 25 A Yes.
1158 1 Q Is that one of the banks that sent a check to the 2 UBS, for one -- one of the UBS checks in evidence? 3 A I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment on that. 4 Q Now, isn't it -- 5 THE COURT: Could I get a time reference on 6 this? When was this call? 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Do you recall when the call was, Mr. Minton? 9 A I don't. 10 Q March of 2002? 11 A Yes. It was sometime in March. 12 THE COURT: Yes. Okay, this was just recently? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. March of 2002. Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Did you tell Stacy Brooks that you were having a 17 check sent to me? 18 THE COURT: Are you talking about -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: Time? 20 THE COURT: -- about the $250,000? 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q In February or March of 2002? 23 A Yes. 24 Q When did you tell her the first time? 25 A Mmm, I don't remember.
1159 1 Q Was it before, or after, I got it? 2 A I'm not sure. I think she might have been there 3 when I caused it to be issued. 4 Q All right. And what does that mean, get on the 5 phone and tell somebody to do it? 6 A Yeah. 7 Q Was she upset about that? 8 A She thought it was not -- she thought I was being 9 stupid to do it, but, you know -- I said, "Look, Stacy, I 10 feel obligated to do it." 11 Q Before you, as you say, caused the check to be 12 issued, the March 2002 check, had you already -- you or 13 Stacy Brooks made contact with Mike Rinder? 14 A No -- oh, March 2nd? 15 Q Yes. 16 A Sorry, let me go back so you know the full story 17 here. There is no attempt to hide anything. 18 February 4 or thereabouts, Mr. Howie -- this is 19 the first time the subject of any settlement discussions 20 with Scientology came up. 21 Q February? 22 A February 4th, approximately. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Mr. Howie felt Ms. Brooks -- Ms. Brooks and 25 Mr. Howie had been discussing this matter. Mr. Howie was of
1160 1 the opinion that this breach of contract case -- which all 2 Scientology was looking for was basically costs and attorney 3 fees after I had been added a party -- that it would be a 4 reasonable effort to call up his friend, Wally Pope, and 5 discuss what would it cost to settle this. 6 Mr. Howie, I believe, discussed with Ms. Brooks 7 the fact that it is only costs and attorney fees here in 8 Pinellas County, for God's sakes, this can't be this huge 9 amount, and if we can save ourselves a couple hundred 10 thousand dollars or whatever it would take to litigate this 11 thing, if we could settle this for some relatively modest 12 number, that it would be worth a try. 13 Mmm, Ms. Brooks didn't think that was something 14 that Scientology would go for. Mr. Howie and I 15 subsequently -- well, subsequently, I authorized Mr. Howie 16 to go ahead and do that. 17 He made a call to Mr. Pope. Two days later, 18 Mr. Pope and Mr. Rosen called back and suggested that, 19 number one, "We're not interested in talking about any sort 20 of piecemeal settlements on some specific case, you know, if 21 you want to -- if Minton wants to talk about global 22 settlement, by all means, we're willing to sit down and do 23 that." 24 And they suggested a time frame of around the 25 week ending the 22nd of February, just before you came up.
1161 1 And, you know, I thought about it for -- for a 2 while, and went and suggested to -- or advised my counsel 3 that if they wanted to talk about global settlements, let's 4 ask them to put it in writing what they want to talk about. 5 Q Did they put it in writing? 6 A Mr. Pope and Mr. Rosen basically, in a polite way 7 -- well, I don't think they were particularly polite, but 8 they said forget it. And there wasn't any further contact 9 between any attorneys of mine or by Stacy Brooks or myself 10 with Church of Scientology officials until -- and if you 11 would like for me to get my calendar out -- 12 Q Please. 13 A -- I can tell you the exact date. Until 12 noon 14 on Saturday, March 16th, at which time I called Mr. Rinder 15 in Los Angeles. 16 Q Well, why did you call Mr. Rinder? 17 THE COURT: Could I -- I was writing real hard 18 here and I must have missed something. 19 Everything was put on hold by everybody with 20 this agreement, that -- nothing until March 16th? 21 THE WITNESS: No, nothing was put on hold. The 22 idea that if we wanted to -- you know, my suggestion 23 was that if we were going to have any kind of 24 meetings about global settlements, you need to put 25 it in writing.
1162 1 And they basically said, you know, F-off. 2 THE COURT: Get a hat? 3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, get a hat. 4 THE COURT: That is a nice way to say it. 5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 6 THE COURT: That is the "in court" way of 7 saying it. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Well -- 11 A So -- 12 Q -- February 4, though, was Mr. Howie approaching 13 Mr. Pope? 14 A Correct. And then a couple days later Mr. Pope 15 and Mr. -- 16 Q Rosen? 17 A -- Rosen called Mr. Howie back. 18 Q And said, "We are not going to put it in writing"? 19 A No, they called back to say, which I just said -- 20 Q Okay, global -- 21 A "-- global settlement. If you want to talk the 22 global settlement, the weekend of February 22nd might be --" 23 THE COURT: Wait a second. I never got the 24 answer to my question. 25 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry.
1163 1 THE COURT: I heard March 16, something about 2 everything is going to be on hold until -- 3 THE WITNESS: No. No, nothing on hold. 4 THE COURT: You just called on March 16th? Is 5 that it? 6 THE WITNESS: Right. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: As of March 15th, that night, 9 Stacy and I talked about this quite extensively and, 10 you know, I decided that the time had come to try 11 and settle all outstanding differences with 12 Scientology so that we could get out of this trouble 13 that we were in down here. 14 THE COURT: The week of February, whatever it 15 was you said, just kind of came and went, nobody did 16 anything? 17 THE WITNESS: That is right. Once they -- you 18 know, after Mr. Rosen and Mr. -- 19 THE COURT: Just a second. 20 (Discussion had off the record.) 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, after Mr. Pope and 22 Mr. Rosen said, "We're willing to talk about a 23 global settlement," it was then up to us to go back 24 to them and say, "Okay, let's sit down the week of 25 February 15th or 16th," whatever.
1164 1 And eventually, you know, I went back through 2 Mr. Howie and said, you know, "Before we even think 3 about sitting down, we'd like to see what you 4 propose in writing." 5 And they said, "Get a hat." 6 THE COURT: Right. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm learning, your Honor. I'm 8 sorry. 9 THE COURT: All right. 10 THE WITNESS: So then no further contact was 11 had until that Saturday, March 16th, at which time, 12 sometime around noontime, you know, to give it 9 13 o'clock in the morning California time, I called 14 Rinder. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Why would you feel so comfortable about calling 18 Mike Rinder, when you were represented at that time by at 19 least two attorneys, and Stacy Brooks was represented by an 20 attorney and, of course, Mr. Rinder is represented by at 21 least Mr. Rosen, Mr. Pope, Mr. Drescher, Mr. Abelson? I 22 mean, why would you just get on the phone and call Rinder? 23 A Why not? You know, I mean, clearly Mike Rinder is 24 somebody that -- that I have demonized more than almost 25 anybody else in the Church of Scientology. You know, when I
1165 1 met with them back in '98, Rinder was -- you know, Rinder 2 was very nice, courteous. You know, he kept his word when 3 we were entering into this FACTNet settlement, you know. 4 And Stacy firmly believed that, "Look, Mike Rinder 5 is a person who will keep his word. And, you know, I think 6 that if we're going to start talking with these people, we 7 have to start talking with Rinder just to let him know that 8 we want to set up something." And so -- 9 Q Stacy -- 10 A So -- 11 Q I'm sorry. 12 A And so when I called him, you know, basically what 13 I said was that, you know, that we were -- that we were so 14 overwhelmed by this whole litigation mess down in Florida, 15 that we wanted to get out of it, we wanted to get out of it, 16 we wanted to settle any outstanding differences, we didn't 17 want to bother them any more, we didn't want them to bother 18 us any more, you know, everybody just go about their life. 19 And, Mmm, he said, "Okay, I hear what you're 20 saying. I think we can -- I think we can sit down sometime 21 in the near future. I'm going to have to, you know, get the 22 lawyers lined up and I'll call you back." 23 And then sometime the Monday or Tuesday of the 24 following week he called back and -- you know, I don't know 25 which date it was, but -- the 19th or 20th he called back
1166 1 and suggested that we meet in New York on the 28th and the 2 29th. No further discussions were had, just that we're 3 going to meet in New York on the 28th and 29th. 4 He said, "Look --" one thing he did say, 5 additionally, sorry, was that, you know, "I think it's going 6 to be necessary for Jonas and Rosen to enter into some sort 7 of confidentiality agreement," he said, "because, you know, 8 that time when we met back in '98 we weren't very happy to 9 see you splash all these discussions all over the Internet, 10 so there's going to have to be some sort of confidentiality 11 agreement that keeps that from happening this time." 12 And, you know, that is the way it was set up. 13 And then, you know, he probably called back -- 14 well, I'm not sure whether he called back, or Jonas was in 15 touch with Rosen, but by the beginning of the following 16 week, the 25th of March, I think that was the date of the 17 Rosen and Jonas letter, the 25th or the 26th, the 18 confidentiality agreement. 19 And the next time any talking took place was in 20 New York on the 28th. 21 Q Okay. Now let's stop there and go back. It's 22 your testimony that Stacy Brooks told you that Michael 23 Rinder, the one that tried to get her to perjure herself in 24 1994 against Graham Berry -- 25 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor --
1167 1 THE COURT: Wait. Stop. It is too complicated 2 already. You have to break that down in pieces. 3 You can't start at the beginning and end, and stick 4 something in the middle that might have a different 5 answer. 6 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton -- do you know that 9 based upon the signed notarized -- or notarized declarations 10 of Stacy Brooks in 1994, that she stated in those 11 declarations that Mike Rinder came to her and her husband, 12 Vaughn Young, and tried to get both of them to sign 13 declarations stating that their prior affidavits were false? 14 A I -- I didn't know that at the time. But since, I 15 have learned from Ms. Brooks, that -- that she believes that 16 Rinder's affidavits about those meetings is more accurate 17 than hers. 18 Q Did she tell you she lied in those affidavits in 19 1994? 20 A She told me exactly what I just said. 21 Q More accurate? What does that mean? 22 A That it was a more truthful representation of what 23 had happened when Mr. Rinder and some other guy came up 24 there. 25 THE COURT: We'll just have to have Ms. Brooks
1168 1 back on the stand, because my recollection of her 2 testimony was quite different from that. But we'll 3 just have to see. Maybe she -- 4 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 5 THE COURT: -- wants to tell us she wasn't 6 truthful in her testimony. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Mr. Minton, as of March 16, before you made the 9 phone call from New Hampshire to Mike Rinder in California, 10 did you investigate the activity of your banks in 11 Switzerland that you had told me previously about you were 12 concerned about? 13 A No. 14 Q You just let it go? 15 A There wasn't anything to check. 16 Q Well, what was the reason why you called me up and 17 asked me if the Court had issued any type of interrogatory 18 or subpoena to your banks in Switzerland? 19 A This was -- it wasn't Switzerland. It was Los 20 Angeles, as I recall. 21 Q That is another matter. That is where there is a 22 branch of the Dresdner Bank, correct? 23 A Yes. That, I think, is what we were asking 24 about -- talking about. 25 Q No. There is another phone call, Mr. Minton,
1169 1 where you called me up, after I left New Hampshire, and 2 said, "Did the Court issue any type of commission or 3 interrogatory or subpoena to banks in Switzerland that 4 caused you a lot of concern?" 5 A Well, Dresdner Bank is a bank in Switzerland. And 6 the way it was being gone about, as I have determined from 7 seeing the document, was that there was an attempt to get 8 information about Switzerland from Los Angeles. 9 THE COURT: What documents have you seen? 10 THE WITNESS: I think it was a motion for 11 discovery of -- to get checks that were issued to 12 Ken Dandar. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q And that was from the -- that was in March of 15 2002? 16 A No, I don't think I saw it then. 17 Q Mr. Minton, do you recall calling me up, after I 18 left New Hampshire, telling me that you had heard or 19 received information that someone -- there was a new 20 prosecutor and a new judge in Switzerland who were -- had 21 renewed interest in your financial dealings, either in 22 Switzerland or Nigeria? 23 A There was a new judge and a new prosecutor who had 24 a renewed interest in the Abacha case. 25 Q And in that conversation, did you ask me to find
1170 1 out if someone from this Court, either Mr. Moxon or the 2 judge or somebody, had caused any type of letter, 3 interrogatory, commission or subpoena to be issued to your 4 banks in Switzerland? 5 A No. It was concerning Dresdner Bank Los Angeles, 6 to try to get to Dresdner Bank Switzerland. 7 Q By the way, do you know why the Church of 8 Scientology stopped in their efforts to get to those bank 9 records? 10 A I don't. 11 Q Did that have any -- did that have any -- was that 12 discussed at your meetings with Mr. Rosen? 13 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is that a statement 14 based on the 2d DCA? What -- he just said, "Do you 15 know why the Church stopped?" And is he testifying? 16 I mean, what -- 17 MR. DANDAR: I'll -- 18 MR. WEINBERG: What are you talking about? 19 MR. DANDAR: I'll rephrase the question. 20 THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Minton indicated 21 it's his belief that -- well, maybe -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: No, his statement was -- his 23 question -- 24 THE COURT: Wait a second. 25 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry.
1171 1 THE COURT: Was it your belief the Church of 2 Scientology was trying to dig into your bank records 3 over in Switzerland? 4 THE WITNESS: Well, my belief was they were 5 trying to use Dresdner Bank in Los Angeles to dig 6 into Dresdner Bank in Switzerland specifically 7 concerning this transfer that came from Dresdner 8 Bank Switzerland to the LMT. 9 THE COURT: And you didn't want the Church of 10 Scientology digging into your Swiss bank account. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, I was interested if they 12 were doing that. 13 THE COURT: Well, let me just make this clear. 14 You didn't want them to be doing that. You wouldn't 15 want me looking into your bank accounts in 16 Switzerland, would you? 17 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't want you looking in my 18 bank accounts anywhere. 19 THE COURT: No. So you had a concern that they 20 were doing that? 21 THE WITNESS: Well, I was just wanting to know 22 if they were. 23 THE COURT: You don't seem to want to answer 24 this question. 25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor.
1172 1 THE COURT: It seems real simple. 2 THE WITNESS: I'll try. 3 THE COURT: You had a concern that they were 4 doing this? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 THE COURT: Yes. So your objection is 7 overruled, counsel. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was a different 9 objection. It was -- 10 MR. DANDAR: We don't need to talk about it. 11 The question was withdrawn. 12 THE COURT: Yes, I think the question was 13 asked, the question was answered, and I think it is 14 relevant -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I had no problem with what you 16 just discussed with Mr. Minton. It was a different 17 question. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q How did the Church of Scientology discover that 21 you had banking relations or accounts with the Dresdner Bank 22 in Switzerland? 23 A I don't believe that is in evidence. 24 Q Well, what you know -- 25 A What they discovered, which they discovered from
1173 1 Ms. Brooks, was that Dresdner Bank Switzerland sent money to 2 the LMT. 3 Q And when Ms. Brooks testified about getting money, 4 did she mention the Dresdner Bank in her testimony, getting 5 money from Switzerland, the anonymous $500,000? 6 A Mmm, you know, I think it was always talked about 7 as just Dresdner Bank because, you know, it was on the -- in 8 the bank records. 9 Q What bank records? 10 A The LMT bank records. 11 Q So when the Church of Scientology subpoenaed the 12 bank records of Bank of America on the account of LMT, those 13 bank records then showed that the LMT received a wire 14 transfer of $500,000 from Dresdner Bank? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q And did it also show that the LMT received the 17 $300,000 check from Operation Clambake? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q And don't you think that if the LMT records showed 20 $300,000 from Operation Clambake, that would raise a big 21 question mark in anybody's mind, since the man that operates 22 Operation Clambake has no way to afford a $300,000 check? 23 A I don't know what he can afford. The Church of 24 Scientology knows more about him than I do. 25 Q How do you know that?
1174 1 A Well, because they have had a lot of interaction 2 with him because of his website, you know. Copyright 3 infringement notices in Norway, I believe. 4 Q So the Church of Scientology, out of any other 5 organization in the world, since they had all this 6 interaction with him, would know that man no way would have 7 $300,000 to donate to the LMT? 8 A Well, let's -- 9 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, excuse me, I don't 10 know what the basis for the question is, how he 11 would know what the Church would know. 12 THE COURT: Well, he can ask to see what this 13 man thought, because I think that is what is 14 important. 15 A You know, I don't know what Mr. Heldal-Lund's 16 financial situation is. I know he's in -- that he is, from 17 what I understand, in a senior position in a major oil 18 company. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Isn't he a computer tech kind of person? 21 A Well, he may be a senior computer tech kind of 22 person in a high position in a major oil company, but he's 23 very -- I mean, Norway has a huge offshore oil industry. He 24 lives in the middle of this offshore oil industry in 25 Scarvinguner (phonetic) or something, Norway.
1175 1 Q Isn't it true that when Ms. Brooks answered the 2 question about the money from Operation Clambake and the 3 anonymous $500,000 wired into the account of LMT, you were 4 furious? 5 A No. 6 Q Didn't you become agitated because you wanted her 7 to plead the Fifth Amendment to that? 8 A Let me just tell you something, Mr. Dandar. A 9 corporate representative cannot plead the Fifth Amendment. 10 Let me tell you where the Fifth Amendment started 11 being pled by me. As a result of that chart, that RICO 12 chart or whatever you want to call it, John Merrett and I 13 figured out, well, we'll just say we are afraid of being 14 prosecuted under RICO so we'll just plead the Fifth 15 Amendment. 16 Stacy Brooks couldn't do that. This is why we 17 didn't want Stacy Brooks to know about the $300,000 or the 18 $500,000, to protect her from having to answer any questions 19 about it. 20 Q Well, you certainly could have been deposed about 21 it as chairman of the board of the LMT. 22 A At the time, I was chairman of the board. But she 23 was the president, shareholder, 100 percent shareholder and 24 chief operating officer of the company. 25 Q So are you telling me somebody like Stacy Brooks,
1176 1 in that position at LMT, would have no source of knowledge 2 of these funds when she was deposed? 3 A She didn't. She didn't know they came from me. 4 Q Another thing you were worried about being 5 criminally prosecuted for in a spin of the truth was the 6 loan that you made to Ursula Caberta? 7 A I have near been at all concerned about being 8 prosecuted in any way, civilly or criminally, concerning 9 that innocent $75,000 loan to Ursula Caberta. 10 Q I know it is innocent. That is why I said spin. 11 But the money loaned to Ursula Caberta, you plead the Fifth 12 Amendment to that, too, didn't you? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q Because you were worried -- 15 A No. No. Just listen here. 16 THE COURT: You have to be real careful once 17 you start justifying your basis for pleading the 18 Fifth Amendment. You may have waived it. I mean, 19 he doesn't have any business getting into -- maybe 20 you don't want to claim the Fifth Amendment on that 21 any more. If you don't, that is okay. 22 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't on that. 23 THE COURT: But if you want to claim the 24 Fifth -- 25 A Well, all I want to explain is on what basis the
1177 1 Fifth Amendment basis was claimed. 2 In that Heller versus Caberta case, when Dan 3 Leipold represented me in Boston -- you know, if I was being 4 accused, in Germany, of having unduly influenced a foreign 5 government official, perhaps this was an issue here in the 6 United States in terms of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 7 which I was very familiar with because of my dealings in 8 third world debt activities. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Okay. You -- 11 THE COURT: I just have to ask -- oh, I didn't 12 want another little -- whatever this was, this last 13 little revelation was. 14 But do you recall that Mr. Moxon wanted to ask 15 you whether or not Mr. Lund was involved in money 16 laundering? 17 THE WITNESS: I don't remember him asking me 18 that. But Mr. Moxon, you know, was pretty -- 19 THE COURT: Your deposition of 9/18/01, Page 20 142, question, line 6: "Did you have any discussion 21 with Mr. Lund --" wait a second. Well, this is all 22 about Mr. Lund, lots and lots of questions about 23 Mr. Lund. 24 Page 143, line 14: "Do you know if Mr. Lund is 25 involved in money laundering?
1178 1 "Answer: I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment 2 privilege." 3 So there was quite a curiosity, it seems like, 4 in this deposition of -- of 9/18/01. 5 THE WITNESS: That was September? 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, practically anything to do 8 with money in that, I believe I was taking the Fifth 9 Amendment on. 10 THE COURT: Yes, that is true. And I didn't -- 11 I didn't want to get that on the record. 12 I think I may have with your lawyer last night, 13 that you did say that at the very beginning of that 14 deposition on Page 12: "First of all, let me just 15 say generally at this stage I don't intend to answer 16 any questions concerning my financial affairs. I 17 will be asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege on 18 each and every question concerning payment of money 19 to anybody who fits within the general framework of 20 Scientology's 'Enterprise chart.'" 21 And you did? 22 THE WITNESS: Right. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q When they found out about the Dresdner Bank, the 25 bank to which you -- today you plead the Fifth Amendment to
1179 1 in identifying it as being one of the sources to the UBS 2 checks, that -- 3 A Mmm -- I don't think I -- I don't think I revealed 4 any bank. 5 Q Okay, then I stand corrected. Let me back up and 6 try to think. 7 THE COURT: Well, the record will speak for 8 itself on that. I think whatever you want to ask, 9 if you could maybe ask the question. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Isn't it true that the Dresdner Bank was one of 12 the sources of funds that has your account that resulted in 13 one of the checks, that -- the UBS check? 14 A No. 15 Q Was the Dresdner Bank involved at all in any way 16 with either the UBS checks or the wire transfer to the LMT 17 of $500,000? 18 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object to the 19 first part of that. He just answered it. He said 20 it didn't have anything to do with the UBS checks. 21 So can you ask the second part? 22 MR. DANDAR: I don't understand why the defense 23 Church of Scientology is objecting to questions, 24 rather than his own counsel. 25 THE COURT: Well, because there is a dual fold
1180 1 here. One of them is relevance. Too many questions 2 and on and on. 3 Apparently, Mr. Howie is only here to see if he 4 gets into a privilege or that type of thing. But he 5 is really not a party to this particular hearing. 6 MR. DANDAR: All right. 7 THE COURT: They are. So there is really -- 8 you are up against two folks. 9 MR. DANDAR: All right. Well, actually more 10 than two here. 11 THE COURT: Well, yes, that is very true. 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 THE COURT: Five lawyers, six lawyers. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Two. 15 THE COURT: Two lawyers against six. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q The Dresdner Bank had nothing to do with the UBS 18 checks, correct? 19 A As far as I know. 20 Q Well -- 21 A No, I don't -- no, I don't think they did. 22 Q Well, how come you are not certain? 23 A I'm certain. I'm certain. I don't think they 24 did. 25 Q All right. Did the Dresdner Bank have anything to
1181 1 do with the $500,000 wire transfer to the LMT? 2 A It came from the Dresdner Bank. It's on the 3 statements. It's transferred by Dresdner Bank New York, by 4 order of Dresdner Bank Switzerland. 5 Q In January 2002 did you have a telephone call with 6 Jesse Prince where you were expressing to him that you were 7 extremely upset and -- and maybe expressed to him that you 8 didn't want to live anymore? 9 A I might have. I might have. I have had suicidal 10 thoughts at times. 11 Q What caused that? 12 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. What was the date? 13 MR. DANDAR: January 2002. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Sorry. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q What caused you to become that way in that month 17 on that day? 18 A It wasn't something that happened on that day. 19 Q All right. 20 A People don't get so depressed so quick. 21 Q What -- 22 A So there wasn't anything particularly that 23 happened that made me feel that way -- 24 Q All right. 25 A -- other than the cumulative effect of this
1182 1 litigation mess that I'm in here in Florida. 2 Q When you called Mike Rinder on March 16, 2002 to 3 try to begin discussions of this global settlement, had 4 anyone told you, up until that point in time, that you could 5 get out of the contempt orders of Judge Schaeffer and Judge 6 Baird by making a deal or global settlement with the Church 7 of Scientology? 8 MR. HOWIE: Objection to the extent it touches 9 on attorney-client privilege. 10 THE COURT: Sustained as to that. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q Outside of your attorneys, had you had any 13 understanding that by trying to make a deal with 14 Scientology, you could get out of two different contempt 15 orders with two different judges? 16 A It was never discussed with anyone. And the first 17 time it was discussed was in New York. 18 Q All right. So you -- 19 THE COURT: Did you hear what he said? 20 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q So now let's go to New York. First, before you go 23 to New York, in Mr. Rosen office on March 28, 2002, you had 24 your attorney, Mr. Jonas, from Boston, enter into a written 25 agreement with representatives of the Church of Scientology,
1183 1 Mr. Rosen, to keep all of the discussions confidential. Is 2 that right? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q And it's because the Church of Scientology wanted 5 the confidentiality. Is that right? 6 A That's right. They felt that I violated, to some 7 extent, the general confidentiality of these discussions 8 that had happened back in 1998. And they didn't want to 9 have a repeat of it. 10 Q And that letter just says we're going to keep it 11 confidential, there is no penalty clause on what the penalty 12 would be. Is that right? 13 A That is right. 14 Q Is there another letter that has a penalty clause? 15 A That is the only letter. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I think that is the only communication. 18 Q Okay. So you showed up in Mr. Rosen's office at 19 what time on March 28, which is the Thursday before Easter? 20 THE COURT: Are you getting ready to get into, 21 finally, whatever this is you wanted to get to? 22 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 23 THE COURT: Because, you know, it's 4:15. And 24 I'll bet we could just stop, rather than go for 15 25 minutes, and all just get out a little early and let
1184 1 you start that fresh. What can you do in 15 2 minutes? 3 MR. DANDAR: Let me have the witness identify 4 these E-Mails which -- 5 THE COURT: No, counsel. Save them. I don't 6 want to hear any more about that this week. I heard 7 all I can stand for one week. Thank you. 8 Mr. Minton, you are excused. 9 Have a nice weekend, everybody, three days. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 11 THE COURT: And we're going to meet Tuesday at 12 9. 13 MR. WEINBERG: That will be 9? 14 THE COURT: The request to produce I have yet 15 to hear. However, there is no requirement that 16 anything be produced until I rule on that. 17 Apparently, it's been brought into question, and 18 somebody will ask me to look at it some day and then 19 I'll rule on it. 20 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I do have a short 21 memorandum that we would like to file. 22 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. MOXON: Which is -- if I may -- 24 THE COURT: Wait, let's let Mr. Minton get off 25 the stand. I'm sure he would like to get on his
1185 1 way. 2 Okay. Go ahead. 3 MR. MOXON: It is a courtesy copy, your Honor, 4 which is entitled "Bench memorandum regarding the 5 film "The Profit" -- 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. MOXON: -- to aid the Court's 8 understanding. And I have a -- I made several 9 references in there to a book which gives further 10 information to show why it concerns Scientology. 11 And I have a copy of that for the Court. 12 THE COURT: I have that. 13 MR. MOXON: You have that? Okay. Good. 14 THE COURT: I was given that back when I was a 15 judge in a criminal case, and I figured I might need 16 it so I have it. 17 MR. MOXON: Good. Now is the time. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. MOXON: Thank you. 20 THE COURT: It is in with all of the rest of 21 the materials I have. 22 I also have another -- I think I was given 23 three books. 24 MR. MOXON: This one is kind of a large 25 compendium with a lot of information on Scientology Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Fl= orida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9= 500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224= -9500 =0C 1186 1 that has some of the things that have been discussed 2 here in court, so -- 3 THE COURT: Whatever -- if you will speak, I 4 don't know who is doing the motions. But there is a 5 lot of references made to a book to show that these 6 were not things just being made up, that these truly 7 were part of the Scientology religion. And there -- 8 you know, there were little tabs on it. 9 And I have that book and two other books. So I 10 have it. 11 MR. MOXON: I assume Mr. Lirot -- 12 MR. LIROT: I have the film, Judge. And also 13 our memorandum to accompany the film. And I have a 14 courtesy copy for you. This is for your viewing 15 only. 16 I guess in response to what Mr. Moxon said, I 17 would prefer you view the film first. And if you 18 can't tell, from just viewing it, what the 19 connection is, I don't think you need to read Mr. 20 Moxon's memorandum to tie it in. It is the film 21 itself that is really at issue, so I leave that to 22 your discretion. 23 THE COURT: All right, thank you. 24 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I filed with the clerk 25 submission of confidential mutual release agreement,
1187 1 which is the Franks agreement you had requested. 2 THE COURT: Oh, yes. 3 MR. FUGATE: It's a memorandum that really 4 addresses that. 5 THE COURT: Is it in here? 6 MR. FUGATE: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Basically, I hoped to have 8 that yesterday afternoon or this morning, but I have 9 got it now. Okay. 10 MR. FUGATE: You asked for it. There it is. 11 Have a nice weekend. 12 THE COURT: You, too. Is that it? My court 13 reporter is told she's done. 14 (WHEREUPON, Court stands adjourned at 4:20 15 p.m.) 16 _____________________________________ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1188 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 26th day of May, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index