CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
 5   Representative of the ESTATE OF
 7             Plaintiff,
 8   vs.                                     VOLUME 1 of 1
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
15   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                         Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
     CONTENTS:           Testimony of Kennan G. Dandar.
     DATE:               July 16, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
     PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
20   BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
                         Circuit Judge.
     REPORTED BY:        Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22                       Deputy Official Court Reporter,
                         Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
 3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
     Tampa, FL 33602
 4   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
     Tampa, FL 33602-4108
 7   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 9   1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
     Clearwater, FL 33755
10   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
14   Tampa, FL 33602-5147
     Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
15   Organization.
     740 Broadway at Astor Place
18   New York, NY 10003-9518
     Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
19   Organization.
     150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870
22   St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381
     Attorney for Stacy Brooks.
     (Page 2)
 4   Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
     980 Tyrone Boulevard
 5   St. Petersburg, Florida  33710
     Counsel for Robert Minton.
 1             THE COURT:  All right.  You may call your next
 2        witness.
 3             MR. LIROT:  Judge, we would like to recall
 4        Mr. Dandar.
 5             THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Dandar, you were
 6        placed under oath.  You understand that oath
 7        continues?
 8             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 9             THE COURT:  You may continue.
10             MR. LIROT:  Thank you, Judge.
11             ______________________________________
12                       KENNAN G. DANDAR,
13   the witness herein, having been previously duly sworn, was
14   examined and testified as follows:
15                      DIRECT EXAMINATION
16   BY MR. LIROT:
17        Q    Mr. Dandar, you heard testimony and are familiar
18   with the position of the defendants in this case relative to
19   I guess what we have come to call Paragraph 34 of your fifth
20   amended complaint?
21        A    Yes.
22        Q    And can you tell me how you formulated the
23   allegation that is contained in Paragraph 34 of your
24   complaint -- of the fifth amended complaint, to be specific?
25        A    That was formulated based upon the testimony
 1   through the affidavit of Jesse Prince of August '99, as well
 2   as the information provided to me by Vaughn Young, and my
 3   review, with Jesse Prince, of some of the red and green
 4   volumes.  I couldn't possibly tell you which ones at this
 5   time.
 6             THE COURT:  What are the red and green volumes?
 7             THE WITNESS:  The red, I believe, is called the
 8        technical volumes.
 9             THE COURT:  These are the policy letters?
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes.
11        A    And I had Stacy Brooks' declarations from other
12   cases.  And the things that we filed in support of the
13   motion to add on parties, such as the Sea Org News, showing
14   the power of Sea Org to take over any corporation of
15   Scientology it wanted to, throw out officers of the
16   corporation, whatever they wanted to do.
17   BY MR. LIROT:
18        Q    At some point did you make a determination as to
19   Vaughn Young's knowledge, training, skill or experience in
20   the Church of Scientology and in the policies that they
21   have?
22        A    Yes.  In fact, Vaughn Young was the person I was
23   referred to by someone early on in March of '97 who I met
24   with several times in Seattle where he lived with his wife,
25   Stacy.  And I saw, you know, TV interviews of him.  I talked
 1   to him at length, hours and hours and hours, concerning his
 2   background.  And I was impressed with his credentials.
 3        Q    All right.  As far as Jesse Prince, did you make a
 4   determination about his knowledge, skill, training and
 5   experience with the Church of Scientology?
 6        A    Yes, I did.  Jesse Prince was the only one that I
 7   met who had the knowledge and experience that I was looking
 8   for, for the entire case.  And he also had the only -- the
 9   only one that had the inside knowledge as to the executives
10   of Scientology, such as Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Rinder and
11   Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Mithoff.
12             Vaughn Young, although he was a national
13   spokesperson for Scientology, although he was in the
14   Guardian's Office, he had very little experience.
15             But Jesse Prince was -- as far as being in an
16   executive position -- was far more advanced in the position
17   of the executives of Scientology.
18        Q    All right.  And you'd talked about reviewing some
19   of the declarations of Stacy Brooks.  Did you come to a
20   conclusion about her knowledge, training, experience and, I
21   guess, skill in being familiar with the policies of
22   Scientology?
23        A    Yes.  Her declarations which were used by an
24   attorney such as Mr. Leipold, who had a lot more experience
25   at litigating with the Church of Scientology than I did
 1   since it was my first case and only case, I relied upon him
 2   and his knowledge of Ms. Brooks, Vaughn Young and others, as
 3   well as her declarations which were very detailed.  And
 4   she's never, ever said that they were slanted, that they
 5   were skewed to reflect a theory of the case.  It was just
 6   verbatim black and white, based all on the documents of
 7   Scientology, just like Mr. Prince, just like Vaughn Young,
 8   it was just black and white, their experience within the
 9   organization.
10        Q    Did you ever find that Ms. Brooks had been
11   discredited by any of the courts in which her declarations
12   had been submitted?
13        A    Never.  In fact, to this day I believe she has
14   never been discredited by a court yet, which I'm sure may
15   change in this hearing.  But I have never seen her testimony
16   anywhere discredited.
17        Q    All right.  Did you rely on any of the medical
18   testimony and research that you had done?
19        A    Well, of course I totally relied even more so on
20   the medical testimony -- you know, I have two sides of
21   this -- like there are two sides of the bridge, I have two
22   sides of the case.  There is the medical aspect.  There is
23   the Scientology aspect.
24             And I went to as high as I could go on the
25   Scientology aspect with Mr. Prince because he was so
 1   technically trained, so far advanced than anyone that was
 2   available who would be willing to testify.  And he was
 3   Scientology's own expert, according to Mr. Rosen in the
 4   FACTNet case.  So I thought that I had finally found someone
 5   who could encompass the -- the issues of this case.
 6             And the medical experts, I totally rely on them.
 7   I mean, I couldn't even come close to trying to figure out
 8   what they're talking about except they were very earnest,
 9   they showed again, black and white, this is what happened.
10             The same with the entomologist on the
11   insects/cockroaches.  You know, I hired six -- six -- I
12   believe six of the eight nationally board certified
13   entomologists in the country.  And they all said the same
14   thing:  These were all cockroach feeding sites.
15             So I was very comfortable with the allegations
16   that I had.  In other words, I had, in my opinion, clear and
17   convincing evidence of the allegations that support the
18   complaint.
19        Q    Did you find the statements made by Mr. Prince in
20   any affidavits relevant to Paragraph 34 to be consistent
21   with similar statements in Ms. Brooks' affidavits and
22   declarations?
23        A    Yes.  The main one -- which I still don't
24   understand why Scientology wants to make an issue of this --
25   is that David Miscavige is the top person, highest-ranking
 1   person, there is no equal, there is no one greater than he,
 2   in reference to the Sea Org.  And that is where his power
 3   is, in the Sea Org.
 4             And the Sea Org is what staffs all of the
 5   corporations, especially management.  Their newsletter said
 6   it's the management.  And he's the only ranked captain.
 7   Everyone else with a captain is a brevet rank, which is
 8   honorary.  And Mr. Miscavige is it.  And he runs everything.
 9             What I didn't know from the documents is that he's
10   a micromanager like Mr. Hubbard was.  He's an alter ego like
11   Mr. Hubbard was.  And he just stepped into the shoes as best
12   he could when Mr. Hubbard died and assumed that role.  And
13   I'm not here to talk about the power struggle because I'm
14   not interested in that.
15             And so Mr. Miscavige, in that role -- I was very
16   comfortable with the people I was consulting with and their
17   knowledge to convince me that they had the evidence and the
18   experience to allege what I alleged in Paragraph 34.
19        Q    Did you base the allegations of Paragraph 34 in
20   part on your knowledge as you inquired of the bypass
21   formula?
22        A    Yes.  Again, this is not something anybody can
23   just open up a book and figure out from the Church of
24   Scientology.  That is why I needed all these consultants to
25   help me figure this out.
 1             And I had to know about the PR flap and how
 2   important that was to Scientology.  I didn't know about the
 3   danger condition and bypass.
 4             But what I -- as I went through all this material,
 5   it became evident, even in Lisa's own handwriting, I believe
 6   a typed letter in October I believe of '95, where she said
 7   that Int Management was involved in her care back in
 8   February of '95.  So the logical conclusion is --
 9             THE COURT:  In whose handwriting?
10             THE WITNESS:  It was a typed letter of Lisa
11        McPherson in her OW, overt withhold, which is in
12        evidence in the case we marked as an exhibit.
13        A    There she's admitting that she was in this black
14   hole of -- I think that is the word she used -- in February
15   of '95.  And she was very grateful for Int Management coming
16   in.
17             But, then again, she was also again -- this
18   self-imposed guilt that Scientologists have, it was all her
19   fault and she was sorry that Int Management had to take time
20   out and get involved in her case, similar to the Heidi Degro
21   Committee of Evidence that I found where Int Management and
22   Mr. Mithoff overruled Mr. Kartuzinski on someone's
23   introspection rundown and started the introspection rundown
24   even though Mr. Kartuzinski didn't want it to go forward.
25             So all this logically lined up to come down to
 1   this -- and support this allegation of Paragraph 34 that the
 2   Lisa McPherson situation in Clearwater, this huge PR -- PR
 3   flap, taking off her clothes in public, someone who already
 4   tested to be clear, showing that testing of clear can't
 5   guarantee you weren't going to go psychotic or do strange
 6   things.
 7             Then I also wrestled with the fact was she really
 8   psychotic or, as she said to the ER doctor and EMS, "Look,
 9   I'm not crazy.  I took off my clothes because I need help.
10   I need to get your attention."
11             And all that is documented in the reports and the
12   deposition of the emergency room physician and the EMS
13   nurse.
14             So all of these things started to fall in line to
15   support this allegation of Paragraph 34.
16             And we've always alleged, even from the very
17   beginning of the complaint in February of 1997, that the --
18   this death was not just what I'm used to in a nursing home
19   negligence type of death or hospital type of death.  That
20   this type of death, someone who is that severely dehydrated,
21   came from -- and so obvious dehydrated, "obvious" is the key
22   word, came from someone deciding not to do something that
23   needed to be done.
24        Q    Did you base your allegation in Paragraph 34 on
25   your knowledge of rooting (sic) forms and the report
 1   requirements and policies of the Church of Scientology?
 2             THE COURT:  What kind of form?
 3             MR. LIROT:  Routing.  Routing.
 4             THE COURT:  Routing.
 5             MR. LIROT:  Routing.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Routing.
 7             THE COURT:  Routing forms.
 8             MR. LIROT:  Routing.  Did I say rooting?
 9             THE COURT:  You said rooting.
10             MR. LIROT:  I'll try to get out of the farm
11        yard.
12   BY MR. LIROT:
13        Q    Routing forms.
14        A    Actually, no, I didn't.  That is just ancillary.
15   That is just more support about the routing forms.
16             Even in this hearing I requested again the 1995
17   routing forms for Lisa McPherson.  And over much to-do, we
18   got another copy of the routing forms.  And, of course,
19   there is nothing in there that has anything to do with
20   November and December of 1995.
21        Q    Did you become aware of any lay testimony of
22   people that might have seen Mr. Miscavige near or in the Ft.
23   Harrison during those early days of December 1995 when Lisa
24   McPherson passed away?
25        A    Yes.  When the police dropped their charges --
 1   when the prosecutors dropped the case and the police files
 2   were made public, there in the Clearwater Police Department
 3   index of all of the evidence they gathered in the case was
 4   an interview by Detective Carrasquillo of the Clearwater
 5   Police Department interviewing four, I believe, public
 6   members of the Church of Scientology who stayed in the
 7   cabanas in November and December of 1995.
 8             And there is one in particular, Mr. Ortner and his
 9   wife, who told the detective that they, indeed, saw David
10   Miscavige there in November and December of 1995.
11        Q    Did the --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Just for the record, the date
13        that that report would have been released?
14             THE WITNESS:  June of 2000, I believe.  That
15        is, at least, the date when the charges were
16        dropped.
17   BY MR. LIROT:
18        Q    Did you draw any conclusions relative to missing
19   documents from the PC folders and other items that appeared
20   to be missing?
21        A    Well --
22             THE COURT:  Let me stop you just a minute.  I
23        just saw Mr. McGowan come in.  He called me at the
24        break.  And I told him to come on over.  So if he's
25        out there, ask him if he could step in.  He probably
 1        figured this was a long --
 2             Mr. McGowan, thanks for coming over.
 3        Mr. McGowan indicated he found a whole lot of
 4        E-Mails of Ms. Greenway that had previously been
 5        undisclosed somehow.
 6             And -- and I asked him whether he had looked
 7        through them to see if there was anything that
 8        remotely could be considered consulting material.
 9        He said there was not.
10             I also asked him if there was any of the types
11        of matters where it would have been comment to an
12        undisclosed unknown person coming to the Lisa
13        McPherson Trust for help.
14             He said those had been severed, those had been
15        removed.  And so he's prepared to turn these over to
16        Mr. Keane, or else I guess they are at Mr. Keane's,
17        and he wanted to know what he should do with them.
18             I told him it would be my intention to tell
19        Mr. Keane that they could be released if anybody was
20        interested.  But I said I'd better bring this up in
21        court.
22             MR. DANDAR:  The only thing I would say, if
23        they are one-on-one correspondence between
24        Ms. Greenway and one other person, I think that
25        should remain under the privilege of privacy.  When
 1        you write E-Mail or mail, you expect it to be
 2        private.
 3             But if it is to a whole bunch of people, like
 4        you said the other day, then I couldn't make that
 5        argument.
 6             THE COURT:  I don't know what they are, to tell
 7        you the truth.
 8             MR. McGOWAN:  They are both.  Some are to
 9        people usually within the LMT --
10             THE COURT:  But you said some were to Bob
11        Minton?
12             MR. McGOWAN:  Bob Minton.  Stacy Brooks.
13        Almost all of them goes to one or the bulk goes to
14        both.
15             THE COURT:  What I have to remember, there have
16        been some orders indicating that these records
17        should be produced.  I'm not sure that Ms. Greenway
18        has been listed as a witness, however, on anybody's
19        witness list.
20             MR. DANDAR:  That is correct.  She has not.
21             THE COURT:  And that is what I recall the --
22        the orders of the previous judges saying is release
23        witnesses' --
24             MR. McGOWAN:  That is correct.  All her E-Mails
25        have been segregated out.  Some are obviously to
 1        witnesses.  And basically what happens, as I
 2        discovered within the LMT, a lot of the stuff gets
 3        recirculated among witnesses.  And it is hard to
 4        tell who the originator of certain E-Mails is.
 5             But there are -- they are certainly just
 6        one-on-one from her to individual people, which
 7        could be pulled.
 8             THE COURT:  Okay.
 9             MR. MOXON:  I just wanted to note that, you
10        know, the orders are different, some of the orders,
11        as to what is the scope of the witnesses.  But
12        several on them -- I think the last one also
13        includes people who could reasonably be expected to
14        be a witness.
15             THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Dandar said she won't be
16        a witness for him.  And I can't imagine that you-all
17        are going to call Ms. Greenway as a witness.
18             MR. MOXON:  Well, actually, we will.  I think
19        we will be calling her because she had a whole lot
20        to do with this whole thing with The Profit and the
21        agreement, contract with -- with Mr. Minton and
22        with -- with the people at LMT.
23             She was kind of knee-deep in all of this and
24        knee-deep in any activities of LMT.  She was one of
25        their board members.  She had -- she had a lot of
 1        involvement.
 2             And her communications with Mr. Minton could
 3        certainly corroborate Mr. Minton's testimony one way
 4        or the other.
 5             So statements to or from Mr. Minton, whoever
 6        they are from, I think would be relevant.
 7             THE COURT:  Well, frankly, I read a whole lot
 8        of this stuff, and a lot is just bogging yourselves
 9        down in people's correspondence, it has nothing to
10        do with the case at all.
11             Anything that was published, everything that
12        was on the web, hand over.  Anything that was
13        one-on-one, bring it by me.
14             MR. McGOWAN:  I'll do that.  I'll separate it
15        out that way.  That is fine.  A number of them --
16             THE COURT:  You have no information that any of
17        those things have anything to do with this hearing
18        or anything going on in this hearing?
19             MR. McGOWAN:  It seems nothing to do with
20        anything.  It is mostly --
21             THE COURT:  That is kind of what I figured.  It
22        is just one of these things where it just seems
23        like -- you know, it honestly does seem you just
24        want to find stuff that is otherwise private and has
25        nothing to do with anything.
 1             However, they said they'll call her as a
 2        witness, so we'll see.  They have gotten a lot of
 3        information based on their assertion that certain
 4        people are witnesses.
 5             MR. MOXON:  Judge, I don't know for sure that
 6        we're absolutely going to call her as a witness.
 7        But we certainly intend to.  We're using a lot of
 8        information during this hearing -- these hearings
 9        that revolve around Patricia Greenway.
10             THE COURT:  The only thing I know that has been
11        in this hearing that involves Patricia Greenway --
12        well, yes, there have been things involving Patricia
13        Greenway in this hearing.
14             But the only thing relevant is that which deals
15        with this movie which, in my mind, you are wasting
16        your time spending a lot of time on the movie.  You
17        do what you want in your case.
18             MR. MOXON:  Let me give you one good example
19        that has come up in some of the things I have seen
20        recently we're going to put in, in our rebuttal case
21        here for this motion.
22             There is correspondence between a lot of these
23        people in LMT, including Ms. Greenway, where she's
24        talking about, you know, the purpose of the movie
25        and bringing the Church to its knees, that sort of
 1        thing.  And disputes between -- remember, there is a
 2        lot of disputes between Ms. Greenway and Minton and
 3        Brooks.  And there is the whole thing with the last
 4        check where the last check that was given to
 5        Mr. Dandar up in New Hampshire was as a result of an
 6        agreement with Mr. Dandar that he would stop
 7        Ms. Greenway from continuing to attack Mr. Minton.
 8             So there is this whole issue of why he did what
 9        he did, why he, quote, changed his testimony or
10        reversed his position and decided to go ahead and
11        tell the truth, as he says, because of the attacks
12        by the other people kind of within his camp.
13             And Ms. Greenway --
14             THE COURT:  Because of the attack?  Or because
15        he stopped giving money?
16             MR. MOXON:  No.  Because of the attacks.
17             THE COURT:  The attacks -- the attacks at that
18        time were attacks on him because of his stopping to
19        fund the Lisa McPherson case.
20             MR. MOXON:  No, I'm talking about in 2001.
21        Around September of 2001, June of 2001, there are a
22        lot of -- a lot of disputes in this group, the LMT,
23        Greenway, Brooks.
24             Remember, Ms. Greenway, too, was kind of fired
25        from LMT because of these disputes.  Some of the
 1        things that they were saying are pretty revelatory.
 2        I'll show you tomorrow when we have our case.
 3             But my whole point is 98 percent of everything
 4        in these E-Mails that has been produced is
 5        completely useless.  But some of it is not.  Some of
 6        it is -- is important.
 7             THE COURT:  All right.
 8             MR. MOXON:  We think it is important.
 9             THE COURT:  Anything written one-on-one I want
10        to review.
11             MR. McGOWAN:  Okay.
12             THE COURT:  Anything that was posted or
13        anything like that, it can be made available --
14             MR. McGOWAN:  Okay.
15             THE COURT:  -- immediately.
16             MR. McGOWAN:  There is kind of a third
17        category.  And those are --
18             THE COURT:  Well, the ones that obviously --
19        anything that you would think would even be remotely
20        related to consulting -- you said there wasn't --
21             MR. McGOWAN:  There isn't.
22             THE COURT:  -- can be set aside.  Anything that
23        had to do with communication from a person seeking
24        help from LMT, that should be set aside, that is not
25        available.  The rest, if it is posted, sent to a lot
 1        of folks, turn it over.
 2             MR. McGOWAN:  Okay.
 3             THE COURT:  If it's a one-on-one, and if it is
 4        to Minton, turn it over.  If it is one-on-one to
 5        Stacy Brooks, turn it over.  If it is one-on-one to
 6        anybody else, segregate it and bring it to me.
 7             MR. McGOWAN:  That answers my question.
 8             Thank you very much, your Honor.
 9             THE COURT:  When I say turn it over, you know
10        what I mean by that, make it available.
11             MR. McGOWAN:  Make it available to Mr. Keane
12        and put it in a pile anybody can have.
13             THE COURT:  Exactly.  Anybody can have it if
14        they want to.  I don't know what Mr. Keane is
15        charging them for these E-Mails, but if somebody
16        wants them, they can have them.
17             I presume Mr. Keane is keeping the master copy
18        of everything.
19             MR. McGOWAN:  Yes, he is.  He's keeping a
20        master copy.  And lately there have been two
21        copies --
22             THE COURT:  One for you, one for him?
23             MR. McGOWAN:  Right.  So that is what he's
24        doing.
25             THE COURT:  But thank you for bringing that to
 1        my attention.  And thank you for coming over.
 2             MR. McGOWAN:  Sorry for the interruption.
 3             THE COURT:  I'm sorry, you want the court
 4        reporter to read back where you were, Counselor?
 5             MR. LIROT:  Certainly, please.
 7             "Question:  Did you become aware of any lay
 8        testimony of people that might have seen
 9        Mr. Miscavige near or in the Ft. Harrison during
10        those early days of December, 1995 when Lisa
11        McPherson passed away?
12             "Answer:  Yes.  When the police dropped their
13        charges -- when the prosecutors dropped the case and
14        the police files were made public, there in the
15        Clearwater Police Department index of all of the
16        evidence they gathered in the case was an interview
17        by Detective Carrasquillo of the Clearwater Police
18        Department interviewing four, I believe, public
19        members of the Church of Scientology who stayed in
20        the cabanas in November and December of 1995.
21             "And there is one in particular, Mr. Ortner and
22        his wife, who told the detective that they, indeed,
23        saw David Miscavige there in November and December
24        of 1995."
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Just a statement, that was in
 1        June of 2000 or thereabouts.
 2             THE COURT:  I think -- did you know where you
 3        were now, Counsel?
 4             MR. LIROT:  Yes, Judge.  I'll pick up from
 5        there.  Thank you.
 6   BY MR. LIROT:
 7        Q    Mr. Dandar, the police reports may have come out
 8   after the fifth amended complaint was filed.  But did the
 9   allegation in Paragraph 34 result from just a hunch or a
10   guess on your part?
11        A    No.  No.  I relied heavily upon the personal
12   experience, knowledge and expertise of Mr. Prince.  He was
13   my number one source because he was the only one who worked
14   that closely with David Miscavige, he was the only one that
15   saw these end cycle orders.  And -- and his testimony on the
16   way the organization works was consistent with everything I
17   was told by Mr. Young.
18             And Mr. Young looked at his affidavit, looked at
19   the complaint, and he agreed with it.  He said, "This is
20   what most likely happened."  And that is why I put it in
21   there.
22        Q    Was Paragraph 34 drafted just to be a personal
23   assault on David Miscavige?
24        A    I could care less about David Miscavige.  I have
25   no interest in him, assaulting him, humiliating him or
 1   anything.
 2             This testimony by Ms. Brooks about putting David
 3   Miscavige in and it would make the case go away or settle
 4   the case, that is -- that is something I heard here.
 5        Q    Was Paragraph 34 designed to try to increase the
 6   settlement possibilities in this case?
 7        A    No.  No.  It has no effect on the settlement
 8   possibilities whatsoever.  There is liability.  There is
 9   liability.  You have punitive damages from early on.  That
10   set the stage for the value of the case.
11             If I add David Miscavige or Mr. Mithoff or
12   whatever, that doesn't increase the value of the case at
13   all.
14        Q    Did you think adding Paragraph 34 would increase
15   the media attention given to the Lisa McPherson wrongful
16   death case?
17        A    No.  No.  I don't believe that at all.  In fact, I
18   still haven't seen any media attention from it because of
19   Paragraph 34.  All I have seen is the appearance of
20   Mr. Rosen because of Paragraph 34.
21             And as you know, I didn't pursue Mr. Miscavige.
22   Once he evaded service of process, his lawyers wouldn't
23   accept service for him even at the urging of Judge Moody
24   when we had that hearing because Mr. McShane lied to our
25   process server and accepted service for him, we let it go
 1   and we haven't pursued Mr. Miscavige.
 2             If I was on a vendetta or trying to get
 3   Mr. Miscavige for any other reason other than his liability
 4   for Lisa McPherson, I would still be pursuing him.
 5        Q    Was there ever a discussion between you and
 6   Mr. Minton where Paragraph 34 was added at his request or
 7   demand?
 8        A    Never.  Mr. Minton was not involved at all in the
 9   litigation process at all.  He was aloof.  You couldn't even
10   talk to the guy about it.  He was just -- he was in his own
11   world.
12        Q    Was Paragraph 34 designed to try to bring down the
13   Church of Scientology or cause damage to the Church as a
14   whole?
15        A    Well, you know, I don't have an ego that big to
16   think one case would bring down anything.  It is just a
17   wrongful death case.  It does involve reckless and
18   intentional conduct, punitive damages, but it certainly
19   wasn't designed to bring down Scientology.
20        Q    Was it your intent to try to bring the Church down
21   by that paragraph or anything in the filing of this
22   complaint?
23        A    No.  It wasn't my intent.  It doesn't even pose to
24   be that.  And it wasn't Mr. Prince's idea.
25             It wasn't even Ms. Brooks' idea, although she was
 1   in favor of adding Miscavige because she knew that his
 2   involvement would be something that was absolutely true.
 3   She agreed with Mr. Prince on that.  I agreed with
 4   Mr. Prince on that.  But we had no hidden agenda.
 5        Q    Did the estate have the intent of bringing down
 6   the Church through the filing or prosecution of this
 7   complaint?
 8        A    No.  No.  The sisters and the uncle -- or the
 9   sisters and the brother of Fannie McPherson only wanted to
10   do what Fannie wanted, and that was to expose Scientology
11   and let the truth be known.
12        Q    Now, we've -- we've heard extensive testimony
13   about an alleged agreement to distribute the bulk of the
14   proceeds of any award in the wrongful death case to the Lisa
15   McPherson Trust.  Was there ever such an agreement?
16        A    No.  Mr. Minton always spoke truthfully about the
17   non-existence of any such agreement.  That was a Scientology
18   invented story.  And Mr. Minton pursued that story knowing
19   that they were all excited about it, by going, doing
20   interviews on the media, talking about an agreement that
21   didn't exist.
22             But in his deposition when he's under oath, he
23   told the truth.  There was no agreement.
24        Q    Did Mr. Minton have a habit of doing things during
25   that period of time simply to provoke or antagonize the
 1   Church?
 2        A    Yes.  There were times when Mr. Minton got -- you
 3   saw on some of these video clips -- his -- he was sincere in
 4   his picketing, but also times once in a while he would get
 5   riled up and get excited about picketing.
 6        Q    Was that his primary interest?
 7        A    You know, I don't know that much about Mr. Minton.
 8   You know, I know he picketed.  I know he picketed once -- he
 9   told me he was going to go picket.
10             I told him, "Please don't do that."  I'm trying to
11   think where that was.  I think that is the night he got
12   attacked by Mr. Howd by the Ft. Harrison.  That is when it
13   was.  He said he was going to go picket the Ft. Harrison.
14             I said, "You know, it is dark.  Don't go picket
15   the Ft. Harrison."
16             He did.  He got attacked, arrested.  He called me
17   up, he said, "Please, I'm in jail.  Come bail me out."
18             He was very embarrassed by that.
19             THE COURT:  Did you say Mr. Howie?
20             THE WITNESS:  Howd.
21             THE COURT:  H-O-W-D?
22             THE WITNESS:  Right.  He works for Mr. Shaw.
23        He's with OSA.
24   BY MR. LIROT:
25        Q    Did you ever picket the Church of Scientology or
 1   participate in any picket against the Church?
 2        A    No.  No.  And I don't call a vigil a picket.
 3             THE COURT:  You make a distinction obviously
 4        between a vigil and a picket?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Right.
 6             THE COURT:  I have seen a lot of pickets.  I
 7        don't know I have actually seen a vigil.
 8             Can you tell me what is different between a
 9        vigil and a picket?
10             THE WITNESS:  With a vigil, there is a prayer.
11             THE COURT:  Where do you do one of these?
12             THE WITNESS:  You saw a little bit of it when
13        Mr. Oliver was testifying, at night, they showed
14        the -- Mr. Oliver or somebody had a light shown up
15        on the side of the Ft. Harrison that said, "We'll
16        never forget you" or something like that.  That was
17        the beginning of the vigil.  My clients were there.
18        Mr. Oliver had candles made, I believe, that had
19        Lisa's picture on it.
20             It's a solemn occasion.  We don't engage
21        anyone.  It was next door to the Ft. Harrison Hotel
22        at the Methodist Church.  They gave us -- not us,
23        Mr. Jacobsen, I believe, is the one that organizes
24        this.  They gave him permission to stand right at
25        the edge of their property on the grass, and then we
 1        walk over to the back side of the Ft. Harrison Hotel
 2        and a wreath is laid, because that is where the
 3        Church of Scientology told us Lisa was.
 4             And my clients and I, we just show up.  We had
 5        no part -- participation in organizing it, setting
 6        the agenda, what is going to happen.  We just show
 7        up.  And it is usually -- I think twice -- I don't
 8        really recall, twice, I think -- my client and I
 9        participated in the vigil, I think twice.
10             THE COURT:  Do you carry signs?
11             THE WITNESS:  No.
12             THE COURT:  Does anybody carry signs?
13             THE WITNESS:  I can't say that.  I'm not
14        positive.  I mean, I'm sure that everyone has videos
15        of these vigils.  That is the only way I could be
16        for sure.  But as far as I recollect, I don't think
17        anyone carries a sign.
18             THE COURT:  This candle and -- this candle with
19        Lisa McPherson's face on it, where -- where are
20        you -- this church, this Methodist church you are
21        at, then you go over where the Scientologists are,
22        and how long does this thing last?
23             THE WITNESS:  It lasts about maybe fifteen or
24        twenty minutes.  We stay across the street on the
25        property of the Methodist church.  We walk down the
 1        Methodist church sidewalk.  We cross over the street
 2        where the Ft. Harrison Hotel is at the rear of the
 3        building, and that is where the wreath is laid.
 4             Mr. Jacobsen gets a permit for this in advance.
 5        There is always a police officer, one or two, there
 6        just to make sure that everything goes smoothly.
 7        And a prayer is said at the end and a prayer is said
 8        at the beginning.
 9             THE COURT:  In the six years, you have been
10        there two times, you think?
11             THE WITNESS:  Is it six years already?
12             THE COURT:  December of '95.
13             THE WITNESS:  No.  No.  This started in '97,
14        December of '97.  I believe that is the first time I
15        was there.  I think I was there for December of '97
16        and December of '98.  I can't remember -- I had to
17        be there December of ' 99, I would think, and
18        December of 2000 -- Mmm -- most likely -- that is
19        four then, right?  That is four.  2001 for sure
20        there wasn't any at all.  So maybe it is four then.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.
22   BY MR. LIROT:
23        Q    Let me go back --
24             THE COURT:  Excuse me.  One more.
25             Are there confrontations between --
 1             THE WITNESS:  No.  Not at a vigil.  Never.
 2             THE COURT:  Okay.
 3             THE WITNESS:  In fact, there aren't any
 4        Scientologists around -- well, as far as I know.  I
 5        mean, it's just a small group of people, 15, 20
 6        people.  I think the first year there were maybe 40.
 7        Well, I can't -- I'm just guessing.
 8             But it is not a confrontation.  There are no
 9        Scientologists, as far as I know.
10             THE COURT:  Okay.
11   BY MR. LIROT:
12        Q    Were there ever any secret meetings with
13   Mr. Minton about amending the complaint or adding David
14   Miscavige to the complaint?
15        A    Never.
16        Q    Was there ever any discussion or attempt made by
17   you to conceal any agreement regarding the distribution of
18   any award in the wrongful death case to the Lisa McPherson
19   Trust?
20        A    No.
21        Q    Now, Mr. Minton testified that you had requested
22   that the checks be issued to you in a way that would be
23   untraceable.  Is there any truth to those allegations?
24        A    No.  That is all false.
25        Q    Now, the first USB (sic) check, did Mr. Minton in
 1   any way tell you, "This is the check coming from me, we just
 2   want to hide the source of these funds so I can do whatever
 3   it is I need to do"?
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection as to the form, your
 5        Honor.
 6             THE COURT:  Sustained.
 7   BY MR. LIROT:
 8        Q    Was there ever any information given by you that
 9   the first USB (sic) check was drawn from funds --
10             THE COURT:  Is it USB?  Or UBS?
11             MR. WEINBERG:  UBS.
12             MR. LIROT:  Did I say USB?  If I root around
13        long enough, I'll find the correct pronunciation,
14        Judge.
15        A    There was never any mention by Mr. Minton that it
16   was his money.  In fact, he was -- it was just the opposite.
17   He said they were from friends of his in Europe who wanted
18   to remain anonymous.
19             And if there was any kind of conspiracy to hide
20   the check, it didn't make any sense now with the
21   allegation -- it makes no sense at all, because Mr. Minton
22   testified in May of 2000 that he had given me, loaned me,
23   over a million dollars.  So why would you -- what is the big
24   deal of hiding another check for $500,000?  That doesn't
25   make any sense.  You tell him he gave over a million bucks,
 1   a million bucks could be anything over a million bucks.  So
 2   a $500,000 check that doesn't have his name on it anywhere,
 3   and him telling me and Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks, which
 4   of course she denies, I guess, that it's from friends in
 5   Europe, I believed him, it was from friends in Europe who
 6   wanted to remain anonymous.  I had no further questions.
 7   BY MR. LIROT:
 8        Q    And had you gotten information at that point in
 9   time that other anonymous funds from Europe had been given
10   to the LMT?
11        A    Not then.  Mmm --
12             THE COURT:  This is in what, May of 2000?
13             THE WITNESS:  This is in May of 2000.
14        A    You know, I don't know if I ever heard that before
15   until all of this -- until their depositions.  That is
16   probably the first time I heard about Clambake giving the
17   LMT the money, which surprised me.  Then the anonymous
18   $500,000.  Well, that didn't surprise me anymore.  But that
19   is the first time I heard it was in a deposition.
20   BY MR. LIROT:
21        Q    Now, originally you talked about the fact that
22   when Mr. Minton apparently first came to you, you sought an
23   opinion from the ethics hotline at the Florida Bar?
24        A    Right.
25        Q    And I think that your testimony was that the two
 1   instructions they gave you were that you couldn't allow
 2   Mr. Minton to control the case or interfere with your
 3   professional judgment?
 4        A    Right.
 5        Q    And I guess the second aspect was you couldn't
 6   divulge any confidential information to Mr. Minton?
 7        A    Right.
 8             THE COURT:  He had to get permission from his
 9        client.
10        A    Right, unless the client said it was okay.
11   BY MR. LIROT:
12        Q    And, obviously, you got the approval of your
13   client?
14        A    Right.
15        Q    And did you ever divulge any confidential
16   information to Mr. Minton in violation of that ethics
17   hotline advice?
18        A    No.
19        Q    Did Mr. Minton ever participate in any activity
20   that controlled the case or interfered with your judgment as
21   to how to run this case?
22        A    No, but -- I didn't hear your question.  Can you
23   repeat it?
24        Q    Did Mr. Minton ever participate in any activity to
25   control the case or interfere with your judgment as to how
 1   to run this case?
 2        A    No.  Mr. Minton could care less about the case.
 3        Q    Now, you had spoken at one point about the funds
 4   that Mr. Minton had given you.  And as your efforts and
 5   obligations had increased, did the character of the
 6   relationship between you and Mr. Minton, as far as, I guess,
 7   whatever label you want to put on the funds provided to you,
 8   ever change?
 9        A    The character changed.  In the beginning -- I had
10   been financing the case out of my pocket, my brother and I,
11   our law firm, from -- you know, from early -- well, late
12   January '97 through the remaining part of '97.  So all of
13   '97.
14             And so I got this money from a stranger.  And
15   after I went through all that with the Florida Bar, I still
16   was not sure who he was.  And after I got to meet him and
17   got to see who he was, I got more comfortable with him.  And
18   I continued -- once in a while, he would send a check.
19             The conditions under which he gave me the check
20   were very vague, not really -- nothing in writing.  That is
21   the way -- just that little letter he wrote me.  That is the
22   way he wanted it.  And, you know, I -- a trust built up
23   between us.
24             And when this thing was set for trial in June of
25   2000, either at the end of '99 or the beginning of 2000,
 1   the -- we had a conversation somewhere where he said -- I
 2   said, "You know, I'm cancelling my trials.  When I cancel a
 3   trial, I'm not making any income and I'm spending all my
 4   time on this case, or a lot of my time on the case, you
 5   know.  Does it matter to you how I spend the money?"
 6             He said, "No.  I trust you 100 percent.  You can
 7   spend the money any way you want."
 8             And that is how the relationship continued on
 9   after that until even when I got the last check in March of
10   2002.
11        Q    Now, Mr. Minton testified about some alleged
12   conversation you and he had about a $60,000 expenditure?
13             THE COURT:  Did you tell me when this -- when
14        this discussion with Mr. Minton was, this discussion
15        over the kind of a change in the -- what he had told
16        you the money was for and how it was to be used?
17             You indicated the trial was to happen in June
18        of 2000?
19             THE WITNESS:  Right.
20             THE COURT:  A $500,000 check, no matter who it
21        came from, came in May of 2000?
22             THE WITNESS:  Well, that is true, that is
23        right.  But it was before that.
24             THE COURT:  So it was before --
25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 1             THE COURT:  All right.  You were obviously --
 2        when did the trial in June of 2000 get continued?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Oh, right at the last moment.  As
 4        I remember, it was right at the last moment.  And I
 5        had like four or five trials set for the beginning
 6        six months of the year 2000.  And -- just like I did
 7        for this 2002, I cancelled them all, I moved them
 8        around, rescheduled them.
 9             And so all we were doing was this case.  And
10        that is why things changed.
11             THE COURT:  So you said you might -- you might
12        need the money, meaning, "I used it for to
13        substitute for the money I am losing for not doing
14        these other cases."  It was a loan, I take it?
15             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.  It has always been a
16        loan and it has to be paid back.
17             THE COURT:  But the question was did you have
18        to hold it in reserve just to use for the Lisa
19        McPherson case, or could you use it to subsidize
20        yourself?
21             And you are saying he agreed to that in --
22        somewhere around 2000?
23             THE WITNESS:  That is right, at the beginning
24        of 2000, end of '99.  It could have been in the
25        December of '99 vigil.  It could have been at that
 1        time that we had that conversation, because by that
 2        time I had already cancelled these trials.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.
 4             THE WITNESS:  But I can assure the Court that
 5        contrary to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder's statements to
 6        Mr. Minton, I did not go out and buy homes, boats,
 7        planes.  I didn't go to the Cayman Islands and open
 8        up a bank account.  I didn't do any of those things.
 9             I did buy a 200,000 square foot warehouse in
10        Odessa, Florida.  I didn't buy my parents a house in
11        Florida or in North Carolina.  Those are all lies.
12   BY MR. LIROT:
13        Q    Mr. Minton testified certainly in a way adversely
14   to your position about $60,000 that you apparently conceded
15   to him that you'd spent inappropriately, or testimony along
16   those lines.
17             THE COURT:  No, he didn't.  What he basically
18        said was that he had agreed that -- well, maybe I
19        misunderstood what he said, sometimes I'm writing
20        notes and I'm not hearing as clearly as I should so
21        I need to look at the transcript.
22             I just thought he said -- sort of at the end of
23        his testimony indicated there had been this $60,000
24        I think he had agreed Mr. Dandar could have for
25        attorney fees.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  We looked.  That is what he
 2        said, basically.
 3             THE COURT:  Is that what he said?
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
 5             THE COURT:  Just kind of -- it was like, "Is
 6        there anything else that you haven't been exactly
 7        truthful about?"
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  I think his testimony was
 9        Mr. Dandar told him that he had taken some of it,
10        $60,000 for attorney fees, and, you know -- and
11        something like that.
12             THE COURT:  All right.  Well, the record will
13        speak for itself.  But it had to do with $60,000 in
14        attorney fees.  And he said that was okay.  So I
15        didn't gather that there was any wrongdoing.  Maybe
16        there was.  But that wasn't my remembrance.
17             MR. LIROT:  Judge, I will certainly trust your
18        recollection better than my own.  I got the
19        impression there was a bad spin to it so I wanted to
20        give Mr. Dandar an opportunity to explain that if it
21        ever happened.
22             THE WITNESS:  Well, the conversation never took
23        place.  He mentioned it taking place before his
24        deposition.  In this courtroom he said it took place
25        in September or October of 2001.
 1             It didn't happen then.  It happened back in
 2        '99, beginning of 2000.  And there was never any
 3        mention of a figure.  I don't know where he came up
 4        with the $60,000.  That is just -- that is not true.
 5        But the conversation never took place as he
 6        described it.  We never talked about money.  We
 7        never talked about how much this, how much that.
 8             Mr. Minton was, "How much do you need?"  Write
 9        a check.  Here it is.  He could care less.  If it
10        was my money, I would care a lot.  I would, you
11        know, be on top of it day after day to see the money
12        and what is going on.
13             Mr. Minton, he's not like that.  "How much do
14        you want?"  He writes a check.  That is it.
15             He comes back a year later, "You need more
16        money?  How much do you need?"  Writes another
17        check.
18             It is not like, "How did you spend that money?
19        Where did it go?"
20             In his depositions he told the truth.  He said,
21        "I could care less how he spent the money."  And
22        that is the way it was.  And there was no pressure
23        from Mr. Minton whatsoever.
24   BY MR. LIROT:
25        Q    Did you ever tell Mr. Minton about any
 1   confidential mediation information?
 2        A    Never.  The only thing I may have said one time,
 3   that their offer was insulting to my client, and that was
 4   it.
 5        Q    Now, there was testimony regarding the -- the, I
 6   guess, early 2002 trip that you and Dr. Garko had made to
 7   New Hampshire.
 8             And I think that Mr. Minton apparently -- he gave
 9   the impression in his testimony that you were dying for this
10   meeting.
11             Can you tell us your recollection about the
12   circumstances of that particular meeting in New Hampshire in
13   early 2002?
14        A    Well, early 2002, I would say since I know I was
15   going on vacation with my family to the Cayman Islands, that
16   was in January for my wife's birthday, I would say that in
17   January he was calling me up, saying, "I need to meet with
18   you."
19             I said, "Fine."
20             This is a man I haven't heard from for a while.
21             I said, "Fine."  I said, "What is it?  What is it
22   about?"
23             He wouldn't tell me.  It was like he called me on
24   a Friday -- I remember this now.  He called me on a Friday
25   and he wanted to meet with me right then and there.  I'm not
 1   in any condition just to hop on a plane and fly anywhere,
 2   because I have responsibilities.  And he wanted to meet me
 3   like Saturday morning.
 4             I said, "Fine, you fly down to Tampa where I'm at,
 5   or St. Petersburg where I'm at, and we'll meet."
 6             He said, "No.  I can't come to Florida."
 7             I said, "Okay."
 8             So he wanted me to fly to Atlanta on Monday
 9   morning.  And I agreed to do that.  Then I thought about it
10   some and I -- I even talked to Dr. Garko about it.  And I
11   called him back up and I said, "Look, I can't just fly up
12   there to Atlanta, even though that is only an hour or so
13   away on a jet.  Let's do something else."
14             So at this particular time what was coming up was
15   the Vanderbilt University -- they were taking my doctor
16   expert deposition.  And I said, "I'm staying at this new
17   hotel right next to the Vanderbilt.  The deposition is right
18   around the corner.  Why don't you come and meet me there?"
19             He said, "Fine."
20             I said, "Would you like me to book a room?"
21             He said, "Fine."
22             So I booked him a room.  What he told you, not
23   true at all.  So I booked him a room.  Dr. Garko was in a
24   room.  I had three rooms booked.  And Dr. Garko and I flew
25   to Nashville for the deposition.  And the day that we
 1   arrived, Mr. Minton called and said he wasn't going to make
 2   it.  And his excuse was Mr. Bunker had heart problems and
 3   was in the hospital.  So I had to cancel his room.
 4             And I didn't know he had relatives in Nashville.
 5   This was news to me when I heard that.  But he's the one
 6   that cancelled that, and he's the one that wanted to meet
 7   with me.
 8             Then I went to the Cayman Islands.  I said, "Well,
 9   you can't meet in Nashville.  I'm going to the Cayman
10   Islands."
11             He said, "Well, I'll think about that."  He said,
12   "Let me know when you get there."
13             So, I called him when I got there.  I said, "You
14   still need to meet with me?"
15             "I need to meet with you right away."
16             I said, "Do you want to come to the Cayman
17   Islands?"
18             He said, "I'll call you back."
19             He didn't come there.
20             And then we had more calls like this in February.
21   And still the man is not telling me why he needs to meet
22   with me.
23             Then finally he picks a weekend and he said, "Why
24   don't you just come up to New Hampshire?"
25             I made a joke on the phone.  I said, "You know,
 1   out of all of the people, you know, that tell me about you,
 2   Mr. Minton, here it is 2002.  I have known you since '97.  I
 3   am the only one that hasn't been invited to your house in
 4   New Hampshire."  That was a joke.
 5             He said, "Then come to New Hampshire."
 6             So that is when I went, I believe February 22nd,
 7   2002.  Again, I didn't know until I got there -- and do you
 8   recall what I said what happened when I got there, Judge?
 9   Do you want me to go through that.
10             THE COURT:  You mean the last time?
11             THE WITNESS:  When I went up to see him at his
12        house in New Hampshire.
13             THE COURT:  You're talking about the last time
14        you testified?
15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16             THE COURT:  You mean the last time when you
17        were put on the stand by the defendant, there was a
18        lot of testimony what happened at the house?
19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
20             THE COURT:  I do remember that.
21             THE WITNESS:  See, I'm sitting here and this is
22        35 days and I can't remember everything, either.
23             THE COURT:  No, you talked at some great length
24        about being up there, what had happened.  I don't
25        think you need to go into it.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 2             THE COURT:  It is up to you, but I don't think
 3        you do.  I think it has been explored fully.
 4   BY MR. LIROT:
 5        Q    Just a couple things.
 6             MR. LIROT:  Judge, I'll apologize in advance if
 7        I retread the same ground, but --
 8   BY MR. LIROT:
 9        Q    Did you and Mr. Minton ever advise the name Fred
10   to hide funds or set up some kind of code for the transfer
11   of funds?
12        A    No.  Fred is my invention.  Fred has been going on
13   for years with Mr. Minton.
14             Mr. Minton and I are firmly convinced that our
15   phones are bugged:  Possibly my office, possibly his home.
16   I'm convinced my office is bugged somehow.  And I'm not
17   saying who.
18             So anytime Mr. Minton would call me, no matter
19   where I was, in my office, in my car, anywhere, and -- and
20   there were people standing around me, I would always call
21   him Fred.
22             And he would think that is funny until he made his
23   deal with Scientology.  He doesn't think it is funny
24   anymore.  But I would always say Fred.  And it had nothing
25   to do with money.  It just had to do with I didn't want
 1   anybody to know who I was talking to on the phone.
 2        Q    When you were in New Hampshire did you ever tell
 3   Mr. Minton you wanted to receive funds in the form of a bank
 4   check or untraceable funds?
 5        A    No.  I could care less how the money arrived.  But
 6   remember, by -- by -- I have to make sure I get my dates
 7   right here -- by -- when there was a court order to produce
 8   copies of checks from Mr. Minton over $500, we complied
 9   fully with that order.
10             And then we had another hearing on it without an
11   order.  And we complied with that order.  And that brought
12   the checks up to January of 2000.
13             So the defendants had copies of either checks or
14   deposit slips or bank statements showing the deposit of all
15   those funds.
16             But then a year and a half later or so, September
17   of 2001, we had an order entered again to produce checks.  I
18   got a stay on that, and then I appealed it, and I got a stay
19   from the 2d DCA, which resulted in the final orders of April
20   and May of 2002 that they are not allowed to get any of this
21   information about how I fund my litigation.
22             So, you know, Mr. Minton could have given me cash,
23   he could have wrote a check out in his own name.  I could
24   care less.  And even when I had to disclose the information,
25   I didn't like doing it, but we complied with the court
 1   orders and disclosed it.
 2        Q    Was there ever any discussion about him sending
 3   you a secret check when you left New Hampshire?
 4        A    No -- well, let me think.  Secret check?  Secret
 5   check?  No, I don't remember him saying -- no, there was no
 6   reason on my part to keep anything secret.  As far as I
 7   knew, there was no reason for him to keep anything secret.
 8             THE COURT:  Well, this is a check, though,
 9        isn't it, Mr. Dandar -- I'm not sure if this check
10        is even an issue in this case, to tell you the
11        truth.  But this is his check that had something to
12        do with the "Fat Man," right?
13             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry, okay.
14        A    This is the check that, when I was in New
15   Hampshire in February of this year, he said, "I have no more
16   money for you."
17             I said, "I understand that.  That is what I heard
18   before.  That is fine."
19             He said, "But I have my friend in Europe, but he
20   doesn't like the way that I'm being treated on the Internet
21   with all these people criticizing me and, you know, the way
22   they're writing about me."
23             I said, "Well, I don't have anything to do with
24   that."  And I don't.
25             He said, "If you can get that stopped, then I can
 1   ask my friend to -- to send you money."
 2             I said, "Well, who is your friend?"
 3             And he hesitated and he said, "Well, let's just
 4   call him the 'Fat Man.'"  And that is when that came up.
 5   That was the first time.
 6             So I said, "Fine.  Call him the 'Fat Man.'"  I
 7   said, "I'll see what I can do about the Internet."
 8             He said, "Also, you have to write me a letter so I
 9   can show it to him expressing what you think about the help
10   that I have given you so far."
11             And so I did.  Of course, at this hearing now, he
12   calls it the suck-up letter.  But at least I think he
13   admitted that was his idea for me to send him that letter.
14   I think he admits that.  So I sent him that letter.
15             I went and -- and asked, however, you know, people
16   to stop criticizing him on the Internet.  I have no control
17   over these people.  But they -- they listened to my request
18   and they stopped criticizing him.  Then I got the check.
19             THE COURT:  You didn't seem to distinguish
20        between a check for half a million dollars -- now,
21        mind you, as I said once before, if I got a check
22        for $10,000 that would be a huge check.  But this is
23        half a million dollars, one which he said came from
24        friends in Europe, one of which he said came from
25        the "Fat Man."
 1             My recollection of your testimony was is that
 2        you didn't -- you didn't think that sounded odd, the
 3        "Fat Man," in particular?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Well, he said, "Let's call him
 5        the 'Fat Man.'"
 6             THE COURT:  Okay.
 7             THE WITNESS:  I joked with him.  I said, "Let's
 8        call him the 'Skinny Man.'"
 9             He said, "No, let's call him the 'Fat Man'
10        because the 'Skinny Man' is somebody else."
11             THE COURT:  Then you clearly didn't know who
12        this money was coming from?
13             Didn't you think that there was some problem
14        there that you might ought to know who it was coming
15        from, either friends in Europe, him under some guise
16        of the "Fat Man"?  That is a lot of money.
17             THE WITNESS:  The second check?
18             THE COURT:  Yes.  Half a million dollars.
19             THE WITNESS:  The second check is 250.  That is
20        a lot of money, too.
21             THE COURT:  I thought it was half a million.
22             MR. LIROT:  The first --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  May of 2000 is $500,000.
24             THE COURT:  Sorry.  Quarter of a million
25        dollars.  To me, that is a lot of money.
 1             THE WITNESS:  It's a lot of money to me, Judge.
 2             THE COURT:  "Let's just call it coming from the
 3        'Fat Man.'"  I mean, I just can't imagine.  Did you
 4        think it was coming from him and this was just his
 5        way of wanting not to -- to tell -- so you wouldn't
 6        know it was coming from him?
 7             THE WITNESS:  No, because I'm -- I'm sitting
 8        right across the table from him.  He just had this
 9        huge psychological mental breakdown in front of me,
10        which is the second time I have ever seen that.  And
11        it had me all upset.
12             And we got -- I got him calmed down and he was
13        okay.  But he's sitting right across from me in his
14        dining room, and he's looking at me, almost like you
15        are looking at me right now.
16             And he said, very plainly, "I have no more
17        money for you."
18             Now, I didn't think he was joking.  And I took
19        him 100 percent.
20             I said, "Well, that is fine."  I said, "I
21        appreciate all the help you have given me."
22             Because who else is going to send me the money
23        that he had sent me.  And I said, "Well, you know,
24        that is just the way it is and I appreciate it."
25             But he said, "But the 'Fat Man'-- "he said, "I
 1        have friends in Europe, we'll call him the 'Fat
 2        Man,' who will send you money.  But these things
 3        have to happen first."
 4             I didn't question him.  I didn't think he was
 5        pulling my leg because of the way he was talking to
 6        me.  And the man just had this mental breakdown.
 7        You know, everything was extremely serious at that
 8        point.
 9             THE COURT:  I mean, you know, you don't seem to
10        want to answer my question.
11             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.
12             THE COURT:  My question is who did you think it
13        was coming from?  It was not coming from somebody
14        called the "Fat Man."
15             THE WITNESS:  No.
16             THE COURT:  It was either coming from him, his
17        friends in Europe, somebody else.  You are a lawyer
18        getting ready to get a quarter of a million dollars.
19        Who did you think was sending you the money?
20             THE WITNESS:  His friends in Europe.  I thought
21        it was --
22             THE COURT:  Why did -- why would you have
23        thought that he wouldn't have said the same thing
24        when he gave you the half a million dollars, "I'll
25        call my friends in Europe"?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Wait.  I'm confused here.
 2             THE COURT:  You said, when you got the $500,000
 3        check, you said, "This came from my friends in
 4        Europe," or, "I'll ask my friends in Europe."
 5             THE WITNESS:  No.  It came from his friends in
 6        Europe.
 7             THE COURT:  His friends in Europe.  Now, he's
 8        saying -- why didn't -- why didn't you think he just
 9        would have said, "I'll call my friends in Europe.  I
10        have no more money for you.  I'll call my friends in
11        Europe to see if they do"?
12             THE WITNESS:  He said that.  I said, "Who is
13        this?  Who are your friends in Europe?"
14             He said, "Let's just call him the 'Fat Man.'"
15             That is it.  I questioned him and he wouldn't
16        tell me.  That was the end of the story right there.
17        I said, "Fine."
18             So I questioned him, "Who are these friends in
19        Europe?" in this February of 2000.  I did question
20        him the first time.
21             He just said, "Friends in Europe."
22             I said, "Fine."
23             But I did question him the second time.  And
24        that is all I got from him is the "Fat Man."
25             THE COURT:  I believe you testified to this
 1        before and I find this just incredible.  And I --
 2        you know, just incredible.
 3             You are just going to write Mr. Minton a check
 4        for $2 million, assuming that things turn out well
 5        and just assume he would distribute this money back
 6        to whomever it is who gave it to you?
 7             THE WITNESS:  That, or he would tell me who the
 8        $750,000 came from.
 9             THE COURT:  And if he didn't, you were going to
10        just turn over $750,000 to him and assume somehow or
11        another that these -- these friends in Europe were
12        going to get repaid?
13             THE WITNESS:  Well, I would assume that if I
14        didn't find out the identity of the friends in
15        Europe.
16             But I figured that with these friends in
17        Europe, if they trusted him enough to send in
18        $750,000, they would trust him to send it back.  I
19        mean, he's -- he deals in circles that I don't deal
20        in.
21             THE COURT:  I mean, it is obvious now, we all
22        know that Mr. Minton had a foreign bank account.  He
23        never discussed this with you?
24             THE WITNESS:  No.
25             THE COURT:  Or did he discuss this with you?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Well, he -- no.  I knew he had
 2        foreign bank accounts.  I knew that.  Oh, I didn't
 3        know where they were.
 4             But this year I found out more than I had ever
 5        known.  I mean, I never thought -- I never felt
 6        comfortable to question him about his financial
 7        dealings and how much money he has or where they
 8        come from.
 9             THE COURT:  But in your mind, you didn't think,
10        well, this is money that he really doesn't want me
11        to know about came from me?
12             In other words, you are really telling me you
13        believe this money came from friends in Europe?
14             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely, because it didn't
15        make sense -- it didn't make sense -- actually, to
16        be honest with you, it still doesn't make sense --
17        why he did that.  I have all of the other checks.
18        Even after the $500,000 check, he wrote a check on
19        his Clearwater bank account to me in May of 2001 in
20        his name.  So I don't understand why he did this
21        one, the $500,000 UBS and one this year, UBS, why he
22        didn't just write it on his own account.
23             I mean, I can speculate, and I can speculate
24        based on what he told me this year when -- right
25        after -- in the process of getting this last check.
 1        You know, he said, "There is something going on in
 2        the court today.  They sent something over to
 3        Switzerland."
 4             I said, "No.  What is going on?"
 5             He said, "Well, there is some movement at the
 6        prosecutor's office in Switzerland.  There is a new
 7        prosecutor.  There is a new judge.  They have
 8        expressed new interest in this Nigerian thing."
 9             I said, "There is nothing going on in Florida."
10             And he said, "There is some inquiries being
11        made at one of my banks."
12             And I said, "What are you talking about?"
13             He said, "I can't talk to you about it."  He
14        said, "When you get this check, hurry up and deposit
15        it."
16             I said, "Okay.  What does that mean?"
17             He said, "The man that is sending you the check
18        is nervous about something and I can't tell you what
19        it is."
20             THE COURT:  That still didn't occur to you it
21        might be him who was --
22             THE WITNESS:  Never.
23             THE COURT:  -- upset and nervous?
24             THE WITNESS:  No.  Because it didn't make any
25        sense for it to be him to -- for me to think it was
 1        him, because I had already received those other
 2        checks from his personal account.
 3             THE COURT:  Well, yes, you received the other
 4        checks.  But that is three-quarters of a million
 5        dollars.  Three-quarters of a million dollars.  I
 6        mean, are you naive or what, Ken?
 7             THE WITNESS:  You told me that before.
 8             THE COURT:  Well, you still are, apparently.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Well, on this particular
10        transaction, Judge --
11             THE COURT:  You are either naive, or you simply
12        don't want to, for whatever reason, tell me what any
13        reasonable person would have thought.
14             I mean, in my mind I would have instantly
15        thought some friends in Europe, some unnamed friends
16        in Europe, aren't going to send me half a million
17        dollars.
18             THE WITNESS:  No, I really believed that.  And
19        this is why.  This is why.  Let me tell you.  I'm
20        trying to -- there is nothing for me to hide here.
21             Why I believe that is, number one, the first
22        time I got this case, Scientology thought the
23        Clearwater Police Department was funding the case.
24        Then they thought the German government was funding
25        the case through the Clearwater Police Department to
 1        me.  And I thought that was pretty funny.
 2             And as the years go on, I'm learning that the
 3        German government and the French government, they
 4        have people in business who are interested in this
 5        case.  And they're interested in funding this case.
 6             And when -- when Mr. Minton -- when I found out
 7        his background about Nigeria and international
 8        banker and he was telling me just a little bit of
 9        that, you know, I believed and I still believe that
10        he deals in this circle of people who have several
11        hundred millions of dollars or more.
12             And when you have -- you are talking about
13        sending someone $250,000 or $2 million and you have
14        $500 million or more, or a couple hundred million
15        dollars, that is -- that is not a lot of money to
16        them.  So --
17             THE COURT:  Well, you wonder why these friends
18        in Europe would care that people were picking on
19        Mr. Minton on the Internet?
20             THE WITNESS:  No, Mr. Minton cared.  And he
21        said this one person cared, the one person that was
22        interested in sending me a check.  I believed that.
23             THE COURT:  Whew.
24             THE WITNESS:  I know.  I know.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 1             THE WITNESS:  What I don't want, Judge, is to
 2        walk out of here and something hasn't been answered
 3        fully.
 4             THE COURT:  It has been answered.  You have
 5        answered it the same way every time.  It is frankly
 6        inconceivable to me.
 7             But, then again, I never dealt in cases, never
 8        in my entire life, where somebody would -- would
 9        tell me that they were going to -- I would be
10        getting some money from some unnamed -- in the first
11        place, I wouldn't take money from an unnamed person.
12        It wouldn't happen.  It simply wouldn't happen.
13             I would say, "Who is it?"  I would get down in
14        enough detail -- I would finally say, "Is the money
15        coming from you," or something.  It wouldn't happen.
16             But I can't envision a lawyer would take money
17        from an unknown bunch of friends and -- and have it
18        as a loan that he had to repay and didn't know who
19        to pay it back to.
20             THE WITNESS:  Judge --
21             THE COURT:  What if Mr. Minton dropped dead?
22        You are a lawyer.  You owe him $750,000.  Mr. Minton
23        is dead.  You are going to do one of two things.
24        You're going to keep this money that is not yours --
25             THE WITNESS:  No.
 1             THE COURT:  -- three-quarters of a million
 2        dollars.
 3             Are you going to pay it back?  To whom?
 4             THE WITNESS:  I'm sure the person would figure
 5        out a way to show me it is his money.
 6             THE COURT:  It is not a person, it's a bunch of
 7        friends from Europe.  It never occurred to you
 8        Mr. Minton could get hit by a car?  Could be in a
 9        train wreck?  Or have a heart attack?
10             You are a member of the Bar, for God sakes,
11        with three-quarters of a million dollars, and you
12        just don't even care to find out who to send it back
13        to.  That is what I am having trouble with.
14             That isn't how I'm used to lawyers doing work.
15        As I said, nobody ever loaned me any money when I
16        was a lawyer.  It was always a fee.  I knew who I
17        was getting it from.  But it would just be
18        inconceivable to me.
19             I mean, I'm not saying you are lying, Ken.  I'm
20        not saying you are not lying.  What I'm saying, it
21        is inconceivable for me for a lawyer to do business
22        like that, to take that kind of money from a source
23        you didn't know what it was and apparently feel some
24        obligation to pay it back.
25             THE WITNESS:  Well, I do.  I do have that
 1        obligation.  But, Judge, you know, you have to
 2        understand -- and you do -- I'm dealing with a case
 3        that is not like any other case.  Everything is
 4        different about this case.
 5             I'm dealing with a case where I already know
 6        the defense attorney hired private investigators to
 7        contact every client I ever had and accuse me of
 8        these terrible crimes.  I don't even want to go into
 9        that.
10             But I already know that I have things on my
11        credit report, accounts, that -- of phone bills that
12        have been run up that I never opened up in
13        Minneapolis and Dallas, Texas from the phone company
14        where Lisa worked, and out in California, and it
15        shows up on my credit report when I go to buy a
16        house, and I have to figure out how I'm going to get
17        these bills that I never incurred removed from my
18        credit report.
19             There are a lot of strange things happening.
20        So when somebody in Europe said, "I want to send you
21        money but you're not going to know who I am and it
22        is going to be anonymous," in this case that is not
23        that strange to me.
24             THE COURT:  In just this case?  Because of the
25        allegations that are made about how the Church of
 1        Scientology would feel about suppressive persons who
 2        would be people supporting you, as far as you're
 3        concerned?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely.  I mean, I know I'm
 5        on their hit list.  I know I'm their suppressive
 6        person of the year since 1997.  I'm accusing them of
 7        wrongful death.
 8             You know, I got the letter from Mr. Abelson
 9        when I filed suit warning me that they would bury me
10        if I continued on the case.  Of course, that just
11        had the opposite effect on me back then.
12             So I got -- this is not a case like suing
13        General Motors.  I mean, this is a case where all
14        these things behind the scenes are going on.
15             And so when I understand somebody doesn't want
16        to be my expert witness anymore, when I understand
17        somebody wants to send money and they want to remain
18        anonymous, that didn't shock me, it didn't surprise
19        me.
20             But I never, ever had anyone say, "Oh, you are
21        suing this person.  Here is some money."  Never
22        had -- this is a case that will stand forever in its
23        own category.
24             THE COURT:  Unique?
25             THE WITNESS:  Unique.
 1             THE COURT:  All right.  Well now, that is the
 2        first time any of that made sense.  You see, when
 3        you say these strange people just obviously didn't
 4        want to be named and you thought there could be some
 5        truth to that because of all of the things going on,
 6        that is the first time that made any sense.
 7             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 8             THE COURT:  Continue on.
 9   BY MR. LIROT:
10        Q    Very good.  I guess that was the question I was
11   going to ask.  Do you think that any anonymous donors or
12   people depicted as anonymous donors might have feared
13   repercussion from the Church and that is the reason they
14   want to maintain anonymity?
15        A    Absolutely.  I mean, I read the cases.  And there
16   is all kinds of criminal activity that goes on when you sue
17   the Church of Scientology.  And sometimes they get caught
18   and sometimes they don't.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Objection, your Honor.  I just
20        object to the statement.  I move for it to be
21        stricken.
22             THE COURT:  It is not going to be stricken, and
23        the reason is because he's here explaining himself
24        and he's trying to say why he did not lie and
25        Mr. Minton is lying.
 1             Therefore, his explanation as to what he thinks
 2        is relevant.  It may not be true, but it's relevant
 3        as to what he thinks.  And it is not going to be
 4        stricken.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  I have no problem with him
 6        testifying what is going through his mind.  But he
 7        was testifying as if it was a fact.
 8             THE COURT:  In your mind is that a fact?
 9             THE WITNESS:  That is an absolute fact.
10        Mr. Shaw knows it.
11             THE COURT:  It is a fact in his mind.  And he's
12        entitled to say it about based on the motion that
13        has been filed.
14   BY MR. LIROT:
15        Q    Now, returning your attention to the visit to New
16   Hampshire and the questions -- apparently Mr. Minton had
17   taken the Fifth Amendment or declined to answer a number of
18   deposition questions, and you had an opportunity to go over
19   those with him.
20             Did you at any time tell him to perjure himself or
21   give any answer that was untruthful to any of those
22   questions?
23        A    No.  In fact, I told him how stupid he was for
24   pleading the Fifth Amendment when he didn't have to plead
25   the Fifth Amendment.
 1             I said -- I went through all these 80 or 90
 2   questions one by one and I said, "Do you have something to
 3   hide?  Something going on that you need to hide this?  Why
 4   are you pleading the Fifth Amendment?"
 5             "Well, I just don't want to tell them the answer."
 6             I said, "Tell them the answer.  You are facing
 7   contempt.  Tell them the answer.  Why are you being so
 8   stubborn?"
 9             So he went through these 90 questions.  And I
10   thought -- I came to the opinion, again, that he was
11   agreeing with me, he was going to come down and answer all
12   of the questions.
13        Q    Did you ever advise Mr. Minton ever to give
14   untruthful testimony in any deposition or court proceeding?
15        A    Never.  That was the only time -- in New Hampshire
16   was the only time he and I sat down and went over questions
17   that were posed at his deposition.
18             I have never talked to him ahead of time for any
19   of his depositions.  I never prepared him for any of his
20   depositions.  He always had his own lawyers.
21             THE COURT:  Different lawyers?  New lawyers?
22             THE WITNESS:  Well, today he has new lawyers.
23             THE COURT:  Right.  Did you and Mr. Merrett
24        ever talk about this $300,000 -- you said it was a
25        surprise.  Did you and Mr. Merrett ever talk about
 1        this $300,000 Clambake donation, whatever you want
 2        to call it, to the LMT?
 3             THE WITNESS:  Only -- only in this hearing in
 4        preparation -- well, I called --
 5             THE COURT:  Not when it happened?
 6             THE WITNESS:  Not when it happened.  No.
 7             THE COURT:  Mr. Merrett never mentioned that
 8        Mr. Minton -- Mr. Merrett never said, "Mr. Minton
 9        sent me on a wild trip here," or anything?
10             THE WITNESS:  No.
11             THE COURT:  You-all ever talked about anything
12        going on like that?
13             THE WITNESS:  No.  No.  I had nothing to do
14        with the LMT.  I had nothing to do with their
15        finances or what they were doing over there as far
16        as things like that.
17             In fact, all I did was tell them -- try to
18        convince them not to picket.
19   BY MR. LIROT:
20        Q    Let me ask you this.  Did you ever view the LMT as
21   a stable of witnesses for the wrongful death case?
22        A    Never.  Never.  Mr. Prince -- I knew, in fact I
23   suggested to him, that, you know, "I don't need you
24   full-time now.  Go work for the LMT."
25             And he did because his background and experience
 1   is a great asset for the purpose of the LMT and how they
 2   help people.  And that is what he did.
 3             But as far as, you know, "Go work for the LMT and
 4   stay there and wait until I take you to trial so I don't
 5   have to pay you," you know, that wasn't ever discussed.  It
 6   was not the intent, as Scientology alleges.  It was
 7   Mr. Prince could be useful at the LMT and that is where he
 8   went.
 9        Q    Do you know of any instance where an employee of
10   the LMT that might have some participation in this wrongful
11   death case would have been paid by the LMT for services
12   rendered in the case?
13        A    No.  Not at all.
14        Q    Did the people working at the LMT that were
15   witnesses in this case work at the LMT and actually perform
16   services for the LMT?
17        A    Yes.  One of the most -- well --
18             THE COURT:  Now, all of that we've gone
19        through, haven't we?  I mean, really, how much do
20        you know about that?
21   BY MR. LIROT:
22        Q    Did you ever have an office at the LMT?
23        A    No.
24        Q    Do you know of any secret agreement that Dell
25   Liebreich or any of her siblings may have had with
 1   Mr. Minton about the distribution of any bulk of the
 2   proceeds --
 3        A    No.
 4        Q    -- in the wrongful death case?
 5        A    No.  There was never an agreement.
 6        Q    And I guess we may have asked this before.  But
 7   the affidavit -- I think Mr. Merrett testified that
 8   Mr. Minton's affidavit alleging or stating that there was no
 9   such secret agreement, that was prepared by Mr. Merrett?
10        A    Oh, yeah.
11             THE COURT:  Was --
12        A    Yes.
13             THE COURT:  Was Stacy -- Stacy -- it is 4:30.
14        The Stacy Brooks affidavit he also sent, was that
15        ever filed?
16             THE WITNESS:  I believe it was.  I think both
17        of them were filed by Mr. Merrett.
18             THE COURT:  You actually filed one from
19        Ms. Liebreich.  And then did you file one, too?  Was
20        yours filed in the appellate court?
21             THE WITNESS:  No.  Mine was --
22             THE COURT:  I'm not sure I ever saw Stacy
23        Brooks'.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm blanking.  I --
25             THE COURT:  I mean, I have seen it here.  But I
 1        don't know whether it was ever filed.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  There was a Dell Liebreich
 3        affidavit, a Ken Dandar affidavit a year later.  And
 4        a Bob Minton affidavit.
 5             THE COURT:  But actually, according to
 6        Mr. Merrett, I believe he testified he sent one to
 7        Stacy Brooks.  I believe Stacy Brooks said she got
 8        one, too.
 9             THE WITNESS:  She did.
10             THE COURT:  Executed one.  But I don't know if
11        it was ever filed.  Do you know for sure?
12             THE WITNESS:  I don't know for sure.  I know
13        Mr. Minton's was filed.  I don't understand why
14        Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks had to make this false
15        accusation that I typed up their affidavit and sent
16        it to them to have it signed.  I mean, didn't they
17        know their own lawyer would come in and testify he's
18        the one that typed it up and hand-delivered it to my
19        office and -- I mean, I don't get it.
20             But, anyway, I'm sorry.
21   BY MR. LIROT:
22        Q    Mr. Minton testified that you directed him to
23   backtrack on the agreement.
24             Did you ask him to correct the statements that he
25   had made on that radio interview that -- I think that has
 1   been introduced as an exhibit.  There is a transcript of a
 2   radio interview.
 3        A    Right.  That is what I talked to Mr. Minton about
 4   why -- about why did he lie to the media.
 5             And I said, "You know, you have to quit that."
 6             And he just thought it was a funny thing.  But he
 7   told the truth in his deposition.
 8        Q    Did you ever ask him to backtrack anything that he
 9   might have said that was inaccurate with what was understood
10   about there not being any agreement?
11        A    No.  I just told him not to lie about there being
12   an agreement on the -- in the media or anywhere else.
13             THE COURT:  You know what the truth of the
14        matter is, Counsel, we have heard all this.  I'm not
15        saying you can't put him on again, because a lot of
16        what he testified to was brought out in -- in the
17        defendant's calling of him, but he was on the stand
18        a long time and testified to a lot of this stuff.
19             MR. LIROT:  I understand.  And that was so long
20        ago, Judge, I just don't want to leave any stone
21        unturned.
22             THE COURT:  All right.
23   BY MR. LIROT:
24        Q    The destruction of the LMT records, or alleged
25   destruction of the LMT records, did you have any
 1   participation in anything even related to that?
 2        A    None.  Nothing at all.
 3        Q    Now, there was some discussion about numerous
 4   phone calls.
 5             MR. LIROT:  Judge, I have an exhibit that we've
 6        marked here.
 7   BY MR. LIROT:
 8        Q    Mr. Dandar, I'm going to hand you what has been
 9   marked as Exhibit 191.
10             MR. LIROT:  I have a courtesy copy for you,
11        Judge.
12             THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.
13             MR. LIROT:  And I have one for the clerk.
14   BY MR. LIROT:
15        Q    Can you identify this document for the Court?
16        A    Yes.  When we received the Nextel phone bills by
17   the defendants in this hearing, I had Rick Spector go
18   through them and create this chart to show the Lisa
19   McPherson Trust phone number calls to me on my cell phone.
20             What this chart shows is that most of the calls
21   were made from Jesse Prince to me.  And I can be
22   99.9 percent sure that the calls coming into my cell phone
23   number were answered by me.  I just can't be sure who is
24   placing the calls to me.  But the calls by Jesse Prince on
25   his cell phone, I can be fairly sure he was on the end of
 1   the phone either all of the time or most of the time.
 2             Then we have the next highest number is Stacy
 3   Brooks.  And I think we have -- let's see --
 4             THE COURT:  Who is JM?
 5             THE WITNESS:  JM is Merrett.  John Merrett.
 6             THE COURT:  Oh, okay.
 7        A    And let's see, I think Bob Minton is here.  He's
 8   the peach-colored one.  And I think there is one or two
 9   calls --
10             THE COURT:  Tell me the other thing -- I do
11        know one thing that was kind of left uncertain in my
12        mind.  And that is all those phone calls that were
13        introduced, you'd indicated that somehow or another
14        that if there is a phone call to a cell phone and it
15        is a minute or less, that you are actually billed
16        for a minute or something?
17             THE WITNESS:  They bill for a minute --
18             THE COURT:  Or 59 seconds?  What is it?
19             THE WITNESS:  59 seconds or a minute if that
20        phone just makes that connection and starts dialing
21        and nobody answers the phone, you still get billed a
22        minute.
23             THE COURT:  Because after you said that, I
24        thought -- I really don't know what I'm talking
25        about, to tell you the truth, but whatever was said
 1        through that, I thumbed through the record and I
 2        found there were a lot of those 59-second calls.  So
 3        I didn't know whether that meant it was necessarily
 4        a hang-up, or it was a call less than a minute and
 5        it just always registered 59 seconds.
 6             THE WITNESS:  You know, I think they advertise
 7        they don't do that.  But when you get a phone bill
 8        that has 3 or 4 calls in a row and they are 59
 9        seconds, you know, to the same number, something
10        tells me they are charging you just because they
11        made a connection but no one answered the phone.
12             So my best under-oath statement to you is it is
13        my belief, based upon my experience, that is how
14        they do charge.
15             THE COURT:  But you don't know that for a fact?
16             THE WITNESS:  I can't say 100 percent.  It
17        would seem logical that when you talk to someone,
18        you most likely are going to be over a minute.  But
19        they do start charging you, as I understand it, the
20        first time that phone starts ringing on your cell
21        phone, they charge you.
22             THE COURT:  Are you introducing this, Counsel?
23             MR. LIROT:  Yes, Judge.  I would like to
24        introduce this into evidence.
25             THE COURT:  Any objection?
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  I have an objection just as to
 2        authenticity.  I can't make heads or tails of this.
 3             Did Mr. Dandar do this?
 4             THE WITNESS:  I can.
 5             THE COURT:  I can make heads or tails of it.  I
 6        know what it is.  This is the number of calls on a
 7        monthly basis made by each of these people, that are
 8        red who is Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton is peach,
 9        Merrett is blue, and Jesse Prince is yellow.  And
10        those are the four lines on there.
11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, but Stacy Brooks is actually
12        purple with a red line.
13             THE COURT:  I was just looking at the color of
14        the line.
15             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
16   BY MR. LIROT:
17        Q    I guess, Mr. Dandar, is this a summary exhibit
18   based on an accurate reference to your actual phone records?
19        A    Yes.  I actually observed and looked at the
20   tabulations.  It was a manual tabulation of each phone
21   number to my cell phone.
22             THE COURT:  And they came to your cell phone
23        but they came from different phones?
24             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
25             THE COURT:  And you knew what each person's
 1        phone number was?
 2             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 3             THE COURT:  Did you compile this then?  Or have
 4        it compiled under your direction?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Under my direction.  I saw the
 6        personal tabulation.  I saw him put it into the
 7        graph, and I checked the graph versus the
 8        tabulations.  And this is accurate.
 9             THE COURT:  Objection overruled.  This will be
10        received.
11   BY MR. LIROT:
12        Q    Is there any truth to the suggestion that the
13   number of calls to Mr. Minton or any of these other numbers
14   reflects their control or Mr. Minton's control over the Lisa
15   McPherson wrongful death case?
16        A    No.  I could talk to Mr. Minton, although I did
17   not, but I could talk to him every day for five hours.  He
18   had no control over the wrongful death case ever.
19             THE COURT:  Okay.  I do have another question
20        now.
21             There -- a couple times this has been brought
22        out by Ms. Brooks, by Mr. Minton, and I believe you
23        may have also testified about it, too.  Refresh my
24        memory or clear this up for me.
25             Mr. Minton indicated when he first became
 1        involved in this case and he first began to consider
 2        funding the case -- and this may have been either
 3        after he gave you the first hundred thousand, it may
 4        have been before, I'm not positive of the date --
 5        but there was a meeting where you and Ms. Brooks and
 6        he were there and he indicated to you he wasn't
 7        going to fund just the wrongful death case, that he
 8        wanted this to be against the Church.
 9             In other words, he wasn't interested in
10        funding -- do you remember this testimony?  He
11        wasn't interested in just funding the wrongful death
12        case, and that it was subsequent to that when the --
13        either the amended complaint was filed or -- or that
14        David Miscavige -- David Miscavige was added, or
15        there was something that would have affected the
16        Church a great deal more than a simple wrongful
17        death action.
18             Do you remember that?
19             THE WITNESS:  I think his testimony was this
20        happened in Philadelphia, when -- in August of '99
21        when I was up there on another case.  I do have -- I
22        was taking a deposition of a doctor.  And the
23        conversation as he described never took place.
24             I mean, he never came, ever, and said, "I don't
25        like the way you are doing this.  You have to
 1        emphasize Miscavige," or, "You have to make it into
 2        a Scientology case."
 3             THE COURT:  Well, it sounded to me like, from
 4        the testimony of both Ms. Brooks and Mr. Prince,
 5        that -- that there was some indication from them
 6        that they wanted this to be -- in other words,
 7        Ms. Brooks made it very clear she did not think that
 8        you were approaching this correctly.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Oh, now, that part is true.  That
10        is from Ms. Brooks.  She and I did not have -- never
11        had a good relationship.  She, from day one -- not
12        day one, actually, after Mr. Minton became involved
13        with loaning me money and she became involved with
14        Mr. Minton, she then started criticizing me on not
15        emphasizing it as a Scientology case.
16             And I said, "Look --"
17             THE COURT:  Not emphasizing the Scientology
18        aspect of the case?
19             THE WITNESS:  Right, that part is true.  She
20        was always my antagonist, even though I would, from
21        time to time, talk to her as a consultant.
22             And she would say, "You are not emphasizing the
23        Scientology aspects."
24             I would say, "You know what?  I'm in my
25        courtroom."  This is not a courtroom-courtroom.
 1        This is while we were in Tampa.  I said, "I don't
 2        know what you are used to, but we don't have a
 3        Scientology cause of action.  We've got a wrongful
 4        death cause of action.  And, you know, it's a
 5        wrongful death case."
 6             And I got criticized all of the time for
 7        treating it as a wrongful death case.
 8             And to be honest with you, as I sit here in
 9        front of you in this embarrassing hearing, I still
10        don't understand what the heck she was talking about
11        because I can't litigate a Scientology case.  I can
12        litigate a wrongful death case.
13             THE COURT:  Well now, in fact, the wrongful
14        death case normally -- normally, the wrongful death
15        case is an allegation of either negligence or gross
16        negligence.  True?
17             THE WITNESS:  Most likely.  But there are
18        intentional --
19             THE COURT:  I understand there are intentional,
20        but not all.  Most wrongful death cases allege
21        simple negligence or they allege gross negligence to
22        the extent to which punitive damages can be awarded.
23             THE WITNESS:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  Outrageous conduct, gross
25        negligence, on and on.  Rarely is it alleged they
 1        intentionally allowed somebody to die.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 3             THE COURT:  True?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 5             THE COURT:  So to that extent, apparently
 6        Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks were able to persuade you
 7        this was the way to file this lawsuit.
 8             THE WITNESS:  No.  This is why.  The
 9        intentional aspect of this lawsuit comes from my
10        pathologist -- my pathologist -- and especially
11        Dr. Spitz.  He's the one that told me, after he
12        looked at everything, he was really upset about it.
13        He said, "They watched her die."  He said, "I have
14        never seen anything like this.  They watched her
15        die."
16             I said, "What are you talking about?"
17             He said, "Look how high the level of
18        dehydration is.  This doesn't just happen on the
19        last day of her life.  This is a build-up.  Then
20        when it gets up so high, she starts to go down and
21        she gets into this somnolent state, and they watched
22        her die.
23             So the intentional aspect of this case comes
24        from my medical doctors.
25             THE COURT:  Did you not ever think it might be
 1        smart to plead this in the alternative, either
 2        intentionally, from gross and flagrant disregard for
 3        the welfare and well-being of human life of Lisa
 4        McPherson, did do such and such?
 5             You got yourself bound into an intentional
 6        death caused by David Miscavige giving an end cycle
 7        order.  Did you know that?
 8             THE WITNESS:  Well, I couldn't understand why
 9        somebody would watch somebody die.  So when I -- to
10        understand the answer to why this happened.  That is
11        when I turned to Mr. Prince, Ms. Brooks and
12        Mr. Young, to explain it to me why this would happen
13        in the Church of Scientology.
14             And that is the only answer I got.  I got a PR
15        flap.  We have to -- we have to squelch the PR flap.
16        We can't take her back to the emergency room.  Look
17        at the way she looks now.  We promised this doctor
18        we're going to take care of her.  We can't take her
19        back to the emergency room.
20             Then I have the testimony of Dr. Minkoff, who
21        was a defendant.  And he said, "They lied to me."
22        And he's an OTA, high-ranking public Scientologist
23        under oath saying that Janis Johnson and
24        Mr. Kartuzinski lied to him about the condition of
25        Lisa McPherson.
 1             So I hope I'm not stuck in a corner.  And I'm
 2        going to be briefing the Court on this.  But my
 3        allegations, I think, include recklessness,
 4        maliciousness, willfulness, wantonness.  Those
 5        are -- and I think you have already ruled on this
 6        several times in this hearing beginning May 3rd.
 7             You said this is -- after you read it again,
 8        you said, this is of a manslaughter charge against
 9        the defendant, it's not pre-meditated murder, it's
10        never been pre-meditated murder.
11             But my experts say it is a homicide because
12        their definition is, number two, premeditated -- not
13        premeditated, but number two, it is intentional
14        medical neglect, because my medical experts say this
15        is not an accidental death.
16             THE COURT:  Let me ask you a question.  In your
17        mind is there a distinction between First Amendment
18        law on an intentional matter and a reckless or a
19        negligent matter?
20             THE WITNESS:  No.
21             THE COURT:  Did you ever research that?
22             THE WITNESS:  I researched it before I filed
23        it.
24             THE COURT:  Do you think there is any
25        difference?
 1             THE WITNESS:  No.
 2             THE COURT:  Do you think there is any
 3        difference today?
 4             THE WITNESS:  No.
 5             THE COURT:  So that played no part in your
 6        decision?
 7             THE WITNESS:  No.  A church, no matter what
 8        denomination, is liable for neutral tort law,
 9        whether it is a death or a sexual abuse of a little
10        kid or a sexual abuse of a person in counseling.  I
11        have all those cases.  And I'll be giving you some
12        of the new law on that, as well.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             MR. LIROT:  I don't think I have any more, your
15        Honor.
16             THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.
17             The aspect of -- what is his name -- David
18        Miscavige, playing a role in this, and David
19        Miscavige giving some end cycle order, that was
20        added why?
21             THE WITNESS:  Well, David Miscavige actually --
22             THE COURT:  You don't have any better
23        information of that than you did when you first
24        filed it, do you?
25             THE WITNESS:  Well, the end cycle part came
 1        from Mr. Prince.
 2             THE COURT:  Right.
 3             THE WITNESS:  But the David Miscavige
 4        involvement as a micromanager, that came in the
 5        first amended complaint.  I was getting ready to add
 6        him and name him right then and there in the first
 7        amended complaint, but I was promised by the
 8        defendants that if I kept it the way it was and not
 9        add him in and bring in these other corporations of
10        Scientology, that we would get a speedy
11        resolution -- or speedy trial date and trial a lot
12        quicker, like the following year.  And that is why
13        we entered into those agreements not to add on
14        parties, which I think you'll recall even Mr. Minton
15        and Ms. Brooks didn't even know about.  So much for
16        his control over me.
17             But the -- but the idea of Mr. Miscavige's
18        involvement was back in March, April and May of
19        1997, before I ever filed the first amended
20        complaint.  I had already gained knowledge then that
21        Mr. Miscavige had this management style of
22        micromanaging.  I mean --
23             THE COURT:  I understand all that.
24             THE WITNESS:  All right.
25             THE COURT:  I understand where you are coming
 1        from.  I am telling you -- or I'm asking you -- I
 2        suppose maybe more I'm telling you than asking you
 3        at this stage of the proceedings, since you are your
 4        last witness and there is no more -- that you don't
 5        have any more to suggest that David Miscavige
 6        ordered an end cycle on Lisa McPherson today than
 7        you did back when Jesse Prince suggested this is an
 8        explanation and you put it in this affidavit, is
 9        that true?
10             THE WITNESS:  That is true.  But what I have
11        today is more information about why I don't have
12        that information, why I don't have that evidence.
13        All I have is the circumstantial evidence of the way
14        that it -- the organization works.
15             THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Dandar, you know,
16        sometimes it must be annoying to somebody on the
17        other side having to sit and listen.  The truth of
18        the matter is that David Miscavige could be a
19        micromanager, he could be everything you said.  He
20        could have absolutely known about this and he could
21        have said, "Get her well," couldn't he?
22             THE WITNESS:  He could have.  But the facts
23        indicate that didn't happen.
24             THE COURT:  Well, that is true.  But, I mean,
25        you don't know that -- that what he said was end
 1        cycle.  He could have said, "God damn it, I want her
 2        to get well," couldn't he?
 3             THE WITNESS:  And you would have had twenty
 4        people taking her to the emergency room immediately.
 5        And they didn't do it.  They lied to their own
 6        doctor, Judge.  They lied to their own doctor.
 7             THE COURT:  Look, Ken, you know and I know all
 8        of the stuff in this case, and you -- I don't know
 9        whether you are just as bad as the other side.  Both
10        sides can only see it their way.  They absolutely
11        can't see it the other way.
12             I'm telling you, and telling you, unless
13        you-all get used to watching the other side and what
14        they have got and what they don't have, it's going
15        to be a zoo if it ever gets in front of a jury.  I
16        mean, the long and short of it, you don't know what
17        Mr. Miscavige said.  So he's a micromanager.  So he
18        knew what was going on.  You don't have anything to
19        suggest he said end cycle.  That is what has got
20        them so riled up.  I mean, that is a pretty -- that
21        is a pretty -- you know, pretty outrageous
22        allegation.
23             THE WITNESS:  Well, it's an outrageous
24        allegation on anything outside of the Church of
25        Scientology.  But, you know, they have a thing
 1        called end cycle.  There is several definitions for
 2        it.
 3             And even Ms. Brooks, who was lying about me in
 4        this hearing, comes in and says, "Yes, I have seen
 5        it used in a hospice situation."  And I believe
 6        that, you know --
 7             THE COURT:  Jesse Prince had seen it used in a
 8        hospice situation.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
10             THE COURT:  You are suggesting that Lisa
11        McPherson was terminal and that is why it was given,
12        it was a hospice situation?
13             THE WITNESS:  I believe that she was in a state
14        of uremic coma, getting worse and worse and worse.
15        And I believe -- that is complicated -- when you put
16        the PR flap consideration on top of Lisa McPherson,
17        the PR flap wins, she loses.
18             And you have -- you know, if they have a belief
19        that this is just one lifetime out of many, it is no
20        big deal.  But our law doesn't say that.  I firmly
21        believe that what I said in the complaint I said in
22        good faith.  I believe that.
23             THE COURT:  What you had to base it on when you
24        filed it is the same thing you have now, which is
25        Mr. Prince and his affidavit?
 1             THE WITNESS:  And I have the Stacy Brooks
 2        declarations.  And I have the Vaughn Young affidavit
 3        and I have his testimony.  And --
 4             THE COURT:  I'm not talking about everything.
 5        I'm talking about the end cycle.
 6             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 7             THE COURT:  That David Miscavige ordered an end
 8        cycle.
 9             THE WITNESS:  What I have is Mr. Prince's
10        testimony.  That is right.
11             THE COURT:  Anything further?
12             MR. LIROT:  No, your Honor.
13             THE COURT:  All right.  Now, please, when you
14        start to cross-examine, remember you asked a lot of
15        questions and you covered a lot of this.  I was just
16        trying to get some final -- any questions?
17             MR. WEINBERG:  I have questions, yes.
18             THE COURT:  All right, go ahead.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  You want me to go now, because
20        I'll not be able to get done today.
21             THE COURT:  All right.  Well then, we'll quit
22        for today.  It is 5 o'clock.  I guess we'll quit for
23        today.  I was thinking it was 4 o'clock.  All right,
24        we'll quit for today.
25             We'll start up at 9~o'clock tomorrow.
 1             Are you your last witness?
 2             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 3             THE COURT:  For sure, you are telling me now?
 4             MR. DANDAR:  I'm telling you now.
 5             THE COURT:  I'm telling you, you told me and
 6        that means you are the last witness.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  This is it.
 8             THE COURT:  All right.  And you-all are going
 9        to be able to do your rebuttal in a day, you think?
10             MR. FUGATE:  Your Honor, we're going to try to
11        get everything in, depending upon how long the
12        cross-examination lasts.
13             MR. DANDAR:  Could we find out who their
14        witnesses are?
15             THE COURT:  Are you kidding?  After you
16        wouldn't tell them?  Don't even think about it.
17             MR. DANDAR:  Well --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  I'll give them my cell phone
19        number.
20             THE COURT:  If you play the game, they get to
21        play the game.  They don't have to tell you a thing.
22        I mean, these are the games you want to play at this
23        hearing.
24             But when we get to trial, it will be different.
25        When we get to trial, every day you'll tell each
 1        other who your witnesses are for the following day,
 2        as I said, if we get to trial.  But not for a
 3        motion.
 4             We're in recess.
 5          (WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 5:05 p.m.)
 1                     REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 3   STATE OF FLORIDA         )
 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.
               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.
11             DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.
14                             ______________________________
                                   LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index