4                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
 6   Representative of the ESTATE OF
 8             Plaintiff,
 9   vs.                                     VOLUME 2
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
15   PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                         Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                         Testimony of Kennan Dandar.
     DATE:               July 17, 2002.
     PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
19                       St. Petersburg, Florida.
20   BEFORE:             Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
                         Circuit Judge.
     REPORTED BY:        Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
22                       Notary Public,
                         State of Florida at large.
 3   5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
     Tampa, FL 33602
 4   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 6   112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
     Tampa, FL 33602-4108
 7   Attorney for Plaintiff.
 9   1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
     Clearwater, FL 33755
10   Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     MR. LEE FUGATE and
13   101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
     Tampa, FL 33602-5147
14   Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
     740 Broadway at Astor Place
17   New York, NY 10003-9518
     Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
18   Organization.
     980 Tyrone Blvd.
21   St. Petersburg, FL
     Attorneys for Mr. Minton.
 2                                                  PAGE   LINE
 3   CROSS               Mr. Weinberg               114      2
     Recess                                         184     13
 4   Recess                                         245     12
     Reporter's Certificate                         246      1
 2          (The proceedings were reconvened at 9:08 a.m.)
 3             THE COURT:  Good morning.
 4             All right.  Are we seeing the end, perhaps?
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  I think we're getting there.
 6             THE COURT:  All right.  Couple of questions --
 7        a couple things came to mind last night.
 8             Number one, you probably better put in your
 9        closing, or on a separate paper, the discussion that
10        I indicated real early on, about having both the
11        complaint and the counterclaim heard at the same
12        time.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
14             THE COURT:  You know, I have mixed feelings
15        about it.  Still do.  But I might as well hear from
16        you all.  So put it somewhere.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Would you like it in like a
18        separate document?
19             THE COURT:  Maybe.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  I think that would make more
21        sense.
22             THE COURT:  It makes more sense.  It's really
23        not part of the closing argument.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
25             THE COURT:  I think we can -- we can conclude a
 1        couple of things.
 2             Number one, if the case -- if the complaint and
 3        the counterclaim are tried together, Mr. Dandar, you
 4        would have to address in that pleading how you would
 5        be able to remain as, I believe -- especially in
 6        light of Mr. Minton's allegations that tend to
 7        support the counterclaim -- that you would be
 8        probably a necessary witness for the estate, since
 9        you refute his allegations.  And therefore I would
10        assume -- there's a canon, I believe, that suggests
11        that if you're a material witness, you can't be the
12        lawyer.  So you would certainly need to address that
13        as part of your --
14             Regardless of the -- the first part of this,
15        that would certainly affect your ability to be
16        counsel on a consolidated claim, sort of.  I call it
17        a consolidated claim for lack of a better word.
18             Let's see.  The other thing I would need to
19        address, I suppose --
20             And I think counsel for Mr. Minton is present?
21             MR. WEIN:  Yes, your Honor.
22             THE COURT:  As of now, I believe he's a
23        defendant.  There may be some question of that.
24             MR. WEIN:  He's a party to the counterclaim.
25             THE COURT:  Right.  He's a party to -- so as to
 1        the counterclaim, he's a defendant, I guess, then.
 2        So --
 3             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, may I interrupt you just a
 4        minute, though?
 5             THE COURT:  Yes.
 6             MR. DANDAR:  There has not been a counterclaim
 7        that has been filed yet with Mr. Minton named as a
 8        defendant.  All you've done is entered an order
 9        adding him on, but for some reason -- I can only
10        surmise -- they have not filed that amended
11        counterclaim to add him in as -- as served.  He
12        hasn't been served with any papers.
13             THE COURT:  Well, he's filed a motion to
14        dismiss, so --
15             MR. DANDAR:  By mistake.
16             THE COURT:  I don't know if it's by mistake or
17        not.  It hasn't been withdrawn.
18             I'm assuming for now that he is a defendant to
19        this counterclaim.  I've given them permission to
20        file it.  I've added him.  There's a motion to
21        dismiss pending.
22             So one of the things that I would assume is
23        that if this is consolidated, this case cannot be
24        tried in September; that it would have to be, at the
25        very earliest, January; number one, because it would
 1        be doubtful that Mr. Minton could be ready, since
 2        his lawyers have just come on board, and they
 3        certainly most likely would not be available for the
 4        September date, if he's not dismissed out based on
 5        the motion to dismiss.
 6             So I'm going to assume that.
 7             Would that be a good assumption?
 8             MR. WEIN:  That would be a fair assumption,
 9        your Honor.
10             THE COURT:  Okay.
11             MR. WEIN:  Would you like us to -- I almost
12        hate to volunteer to do this, but if you're going to
13        hear from the parties on whether or not the
14        counterclaim needs to be severed from the main
15        action --
16             THE COURT:  I think --
17             MR. WEIN:  -- would you like to hear from us
18        on --
19             THE COURT:  I would, yes.  Because I think he
20        is a party to that.  Therefore he would have a -- in
21        my mind.  Now, maybe he needs -- an amended
22        counterclaim needs to be filed and he needs to be
23        named and he needs to be served and all that.  But
24        that's going -- if it doesn't occur, I don't need to
25        worry about it.  If it does occur, then I would need
 1        to hear from him as well.
 2             MR. WEIN:  Yes, ma'am.
 3             THE COURT:  So they've asked for three weeks
 4        for a closing argument.  Mr. Dandar has a week to
 5        respond and they have a week to reply.  So you might
 6        consolidate with -- I don't care which side you
 7        consolidate with, either at the end of the third
 8        week after we're done --
 9             I'm going to figure that I want three weeks
10        from Friday, done or not.  I mean, we're close
11        enough to being done where you all can get started,
12        whoever's going to --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Would it be possible to be three
14        weeks from Monday instead of Friday?
15             THE COURT:  You know, it helps me if I have it
16        three weeks from Friday.  'Cause I need the
17        weekends.  That's when I get to work with this, so
18        three weeks from Friday.  'Cause I think we're going
19        to be done before Friday.  I'm an eternal optimist.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Oh, I'm eternally optimistic
21        about that.
22             THE COURT:  So if -- if you would like to
23        perhaps file your response to that three weeks from
24        Friday, no later than -- you can file it earlier if
25        you want to.
 1             MR. WEIN:  Yes, your Honor.
 2             THE COURT:  And if you would in there -- I
 3        would assume that Mr. Minton's need to be prepared
 4        for the -- for the complaint itself is probably
 5        somewhat minimal.  The counterclaim is very
 6        separate.  It's an abuse of process, I think.
 7        There's no question you have to be familiar enough
 8        with it to know what it's all about, but I don't
 9        know that you would need to be in a position to
10        cross examine the medical experts and all that sort
11        of stuff.
12             So I would like some idea as to when you could
13        be ready --
14             MR. WEIN:  Yes, your Honor.
15             THE COURT:  -- if it -- if it is -- if it is
16        severed, okay?  All that bears, I suppose, on the
17        decision.
18             MR. LIEBERMAN:  And your Honor, we will take a
19        look at the pleadings, and if they need to be
20        adjusted we'll --
21             THE COURT:  It may well be.  I mean, I gave him
22        permission to amend, to add him --
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  -- so I suppose he needs to be
25        added --
 1             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
 2             THE COURT:  -- in some fashion.
 3             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yeah.
 4             THE COURT:  You know, I don't know about
 5        service, frankly.  Once a motion to dismiss is
 6        filed, seems like somebody's accepted the fact
 7        they're a party to a lawsuit and they're responding.
 8             MR. WEIN:  To help you on that, your Honor,
 9        reviewing the pleadings -- which we're still trying
10        to get through, because there is a load of them, as
11        your Honor's well aware --
12             THE COURT:  Yes.
13             MR. WEIN:  -- it appears that the motion to
14        dismiss and strike filed by Mr. Howie on
15        Mr. Minton's behalf indicated that he accepted
16        service of a copy of the counterclaim as it then
17        existed, but that counterclaim is not named.
18        Mr. Minton is a separate party.  His name happens to
19        appear in the document.
20             THE COURT:  Maybe that made the motion to
21        dismiss a lot easier.
22             MR. WEIN:  That wasn't one of the grounds.  I
23        think it needs --
24             THE COURT:  I think --
25             MR. WEIN:  -- to be --
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2             MR. WEIN:  -- in writing.
 3             THE COURT:  Well, we'll assume that the
 4        pleadings need to be --
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Adjusted.
 6             THE COURT:  -- adjusted.  And that if a motion
 7        dismiss is filed, then we can hear it rather
 8        readily.
 9             That's the second thing I wanted to raise.
10             I -- because, of course, thought I was going to
11        be in trial, had lined up Judge Beach.  I don't know
12        whether you all have lined up depositions for next
13        week.  But if you haven't, I've got a couple of
14        motions pending that affect the first half of this
15        lawsuit.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, we haven't, but we're
17        trying to arrange them for -- we're trying to get
18        dates from our --
19             THE COURT:  Okay.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  -- experts.
21             THE COURT:  Well, what I'm trying to figure is,
22        if you're not going to be taking depositions next
23        week, I don't know why I can't hear those two
24        motions you have pending.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  That would be a good idea.
 1             THE COURT:  On the net accumulations, and the
 2        motion for summary judgment on the battery.
 3             Is there more?
 4             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Is there a motion for summary
 5        judgment on the battery?
 6             MR. DANDAR:  No.  Negligence.
 7             THE COURT:  Oh, I'm sorry.  On the negligence.
 8        On one of the counts, remaining counts.  Negligence.
 9             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Well, your Honor, actually -- I
10        mean, I was planning on being up in New York next
11        week.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.  It doesn't have to be done.
13        I'd like -- I'd like to get it done when I have
14        senior judge coverage --
15             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yes.
16             THE COURT:  -- because otherwise we're going to
17        have to fit those motions into my regular calendar,
18        and it's --
19             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
20             THE COURT:  -- full, as you might --
21             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
22             THE COURT:  -- well imagine.  So since I have
23        the benefit of Judge Beach --
24             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Right.
25             THE COURT:  And once I get back into my regular
 1        docket, getting him in -- he'll be off doing with
 2        you all or he'll be off helping someone else.
 3             So if you were planning on being in New York,
 4        why, you know, that's fine.
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Okay.
 6             THE COURT:  But if -- if we could -- see if you
 7        can change your plans.  If you can't, you can't.
 8             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Yeah.
 9             THE COURT:  And we'll schedule them for some
10        other time.
11             But it needs to be done and it needs to be
12        done -- I believe you all would want it done soon
13        because, you know --
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Before --
15             THE COURT:  -- if you all are going to take all
16        these interlocutory appeals --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
18             THE COURT:  -- or somebody -- there have been a
19        lot of interlocutory appeals taken.
20             So the case right now is set for trial in
21        September, and we need to press forward.  That would
22        be the complaint only.  So we need to assume for now
23        that that is all we're trying, if we try it, and
24        that all matters relating to that need to be
25        resolved.
 1             That's my third thing that came to my mind.
 2        And that is, with -- yesterday Mr. Moxon indicated
 3        that certain people will now maybe become witnesses,
 4        and I presume they'll be deposed.  I do not want
 5        those depositions to interfere with the depositions
 6        on the complaint --
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 8             THE COURT:  -- because that case now is set for
 9        trial, and I don't want it to be necessarily
10        postponed because a whole slew of depositions on the
11        counterclaim, which really isn't set, are set.
12        So --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
14             THE COURT:  -- work toward the depositions that
15        need to be taking for the complaint --
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
17             THE COURT:  -- first.
18             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, that brings to mind,
19        Mr. Moxon wants to take Jeff Jacobsen's deposition
20        again, and I told you his deposition's already been
21        taken.
22             I talked to Mr. Jacobson, who lives in Arizona.
23        He's willing to fly here.  But he said, "Look, I
24        already turned over the videotapes that I had, to
25        Mr. Moxon, in the first deposition."  So -- I don't
 1        remember what happened in the first deposition, but
 2        I think if he did turn over documents, they need to
 3        tell us what they have so I can tell Mr. Jacobson
 4        what they have and what they don't have.
 5             He says there's only six videotapes, and it's
 6        just him videotaping Scientology's PIs videotaping
 7        him.
 8             THE COURT:  Well, has he turned those over?
 9             MR. DANDAR:  He said he turned them over
10        previously in his first deposition.
11             THE COURT:  Oh.
12             MR. FUGATE:  Your Honor, I took that
13        deposition, and I don't recall that.  But again,
14        I'll say I think it didn't happen, and I'll check
15        it, and if that's the case, I'll let Mr. Dandar
16        know.  But I believe that he had nothing to turn
17        over at that time.
18             And this is only for the videos.  It's not to
19        go into anything else.  I think that was already
20        indicated to your Honor.
21             THE COURT:  Well, if -- if -- then it seems
22        like if the -- there's a better way to do that.  It
23        seems like that if -- if there are videos that you
24        already have, then you don't need --
25             MR. FUGATE:  No.  I --
 1             THE COURT:  But if you don't have them, a
 2        subpoena duces tecum, perhaps, just to produce them,
 3        if he's willing to produce them, look at them and
 4        see if he's just simply videoing another videoer
 5        taking a video.  I don't know how many questions one
 6        would need to ask about that.
 7             You know, there's all kinds of allegations
 8        about abuse of process by the Church of Scientology.
 9        It doesn't behoove the church to take an unnecessary
10        deposition.
11             MR. FUGATE:  Don't have any interest in doing
12        that --
13             THE COURT:  Right.
14             MR. FUGATE:  -- either.
15             It's just really because when we made the
16        request that they be produced, they -- to
17        Mr. McGowan, because they were covered in the order,
18        he said he would get in touch with Mr. Jacobson and
19        request it; did; and Mr. Jacobson told him, "I'm not
20        giving you anything," as I understand it.  So we
21        filed a -- the motion for the out-of-state
22        commission, and that's the only reason we did it.
23             THE COURT:  But now he says he turned them over
24        at the first deposition.
25             MR. FUGATE:  I'll check it, but --
 1             THE COURT:  Check it out.  And if he didn't,
 2        maybe we could just ask him to produce them.  And if
 3        he does --
 4             MR. FUGATE:  Sure.
 5             THE COURT:  -- then you could look at them --
 6             MR. FUGATE:  Right.
 7             THE COURT:  -- and see if there's any real need
 8        to depose the man.
 9             MR. FUGATE:  That would certainly be a lot
10        easier.
11             THE COURT:  And again, as I said, I think that
12        before duplicate depositions are taken, that it just
13        makes good sense for both sides to get permission.
14             MR. MOXON:  I think that's -- that's a good
15        idea.  Maybe Mr. Dandar can give us his number.  I
16        don't know if Mr. Dandar's representing him.  He
17        didn't in the past.  But I'd be happy to talk to
18        Mr. Jacobson and see what I can straighten out
19        formally, rather than going through Mr. Dandar as
20        to, "Mr. Jacobsen told Mr. Dandar this," so --
21             MR. DANDAR:  I --
22             MR. MOXON:  -- so give me his number and I'll
23        talk to him.
24             MR. DANDAR:  I do not represent him, but I do
25        not feel comfortable giving his phone number out, so
 1        let me call him and see if it's all right first.
 2             THE COURT:  All right.
 3             MR. MOXON:  Or have him call me.
 4             MR. DANDAR:  Or have him call Mr. Moxon.
 5             THE COURT:  That would be good.
 6             Okay.  So those are some thoughts I had last
 7        night.  I think I've covered them.
 8             I do want -- I would like to -- I think, when I
 9        settle in to try to read what I need to read and
10        make a decision in what we've been hearing for the
11        last however many days it's been -- forever --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  It's in the 30s.
13             THE COURT:  It's in the 30s.
14             MR. LIROT:  34 today, Judge.
15             THE COURT:  I would like to -- to contemplate
16        the other motions as well.  So I would really like
17        to have you all set those.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
19             THE COURT:  And if you don't, I'll probably set
20        them myself.  So -- so best you all get together and
21        figure out a day.
22             Assume I can get senior judge coverage, so
23        assume --
24             MR. WEINBERG:  You're pretty available.
25             THE COURT:  Well, I am if I have senior judge
 1        coverage.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Oh.
 3             THE COURT:  Because as long as I have senior
 4        judge coverage, I can let the senior judge do my
 5        calendar.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Yeah.
 7             THE COURT:  Sue tells me it's full.  So I
 8        really won't have time without senior judge
 9        coverage.
10             MR. DANDAR:  Tuesday, July 30th, would be fine.
11        I know Mr. Weinberg's on vacation next week.  So we
12        can do it July 30th when he gets back.  That's the
13        Tuesday after he gets back.
14             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I'll check and get back --
15             THE COURT:  Okay.  Check and get back.
16             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- your Honor.
17             I'm also concerned about -- I only have these
18        three weeks to get all this work done.
19             THE COURT:  Well, just think about me.
20             MR. LIEBERMAN:  I know, Judge.
21             THE COURT:  Would you think about me?  Because
22        that's why I'm saying, let me have the weekends --
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  No, I know.
24             THE COURT:  -- because that's what I --
25        weekends and nights.  So whatever your problems,
 1        mine are worse.
 2             (A discussion was held off the record.)
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, there's one other
 4        thing.  There's some -- if you remember, some
 5        additional e-mails had come up --
 6             THE COURT:  Yes.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  -- and you said we could go back
 8        to Mr. Minton.  So we went to Mr. Battaglia, and he
 9        got an affidavit from Mr. Minton, which I'm handing
10        up, which identifies -- one, two, three, four, five,
11        six, seven, eight -- nine e-mails that he's pulled
12        off his computer.
13             THE COURT:  Okay.
14             MR. FUGATE:  Authenticates.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Huh?
16             MR. FUGATE:  He authenticates.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  That he -- that he
18        authenticates.
19             I guess -- what have we been doing with the
20        affidavit?  Have we been filing them as exhibits?
21             THE COURT:  Yes.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Is that what we've been doing?
23             We mark this as our next exhibit.
24             THE CLERK:  264.
25             THE COURT:  I did have one other thought too.
 1        This document yesterday, Mr. Dandar, that you
 2        offered, that I did not accept, did you say you were
 3        offering it to show a pattern of conduct of the
 4        church and lawyers and --
 5             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 6             THE COURT:  -- lawyers opposing them?
 7             MR. DANDAR:  Yes.
 8             THE COURT:  Okay.  And then you all said that
 9        you had a -- something where this person withdrew
10        this -- this affidavit.
11             MR. MOXON:  That's right.
12             THE COURT:  Yeah.  I better have that.
13             MR. MOXON:  Okay.
14             MR. DANDAR:  But they also have another one,
15        according to Mr. Moxon, where he reinstates the
16        affidavit.
17             THE COURT:  Whatever you have.  Bring it in.
18        Let me take a look at it.  I haven't read the -- I
19        haven't read it yet, but I need to know whether the
20        man even says that it's a valid affidavit or not.
21             MR. MOXON:  Yeah.  I think maybe he goes back
22        and forth.
23             MR. DANDAR:  Judge, I'm handing -- I handed --
24             THE COURT:  And then I will consider that.
25             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
 1             THE COURT:  But I have to see what the
 2        documents are --
 3             MR. DANDAR:  All right.
 4             THE COURT:  -- as to whether or not that would
 5        be admissible on that theory; not a theory of
 6        relevancy otherwise.
 7             MR. DANDAR:  In a filing that we made, I
 8        believe, yesterday, it included the affidavit of
 9        Sandra Anderson, the Hospice worker for Fannie
10        McPherson.  Counsel -- Mr. Weinberg objected and
11        wanted the deposition, so I gave the clerk the
12        deposition this morning of Sandra Anderson.  And I'd
13        like to hand a copy to the court --
14             THE COURT:  Okay.
15             MR. DANDAR:  -- and just attach it to that
16        joint -- that exhibit that's called a notice of
17        filing --
18             THE COURT:  Was it an affidavit?
19             MR. DANDAR:  It was an affidavit of Sandra
20        Anderson.  Now here's the deposition.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.  What I'm going to do, then,
22        in the light of the fact there's a deposition, I'm
23        just going to add it.
24             MR. DANDAR:  Okay.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.  That -- that's --
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.  I don't know how to do that.
 2        I'm just -- maybe we better make it the next number.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Make it B.  Make it B of
 4        whatever that exhibit was.
 5             THE COURT:  Do you have --
 6             My poor clerk.
 7             Do you happen to know what number that is,
 8        Madam Clerk?
 9             I told the chief judge it would be nice if I
10        could have some senior judge coverage for my having
11        to write an order, and he thought maybe two days
12        would be -- he said, "I'll give you a couple days."
13        So I have to have another chat.
14             (A discussion was held off the record.)
15             THE COURT:  Madam Clerk, find it.  If you find
16        it, let us know so we will not be held up.  We
17        talked about it yesterday.
18             THE CLERK:  Yes.
19             THE COURT:  It was a big lot of things.
20             THE CLERK:  Yes, ma'am.
21             THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm sorry.  What is this --
22        Mr. Minton -- what is this, again, this --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  These are e-mails that
24        Mr. Minton took off of his computer that were sent
25        to him.  And he's authenticated the e-mails --
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  -- including several that you've
 3        seen that couldn't be authenticated until you told
 4        me to go get an authenticating affidavit from him.
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.  So these may have been
 6        mentioned before.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  A number of them have.  And
 8        we'll go over it in our rebuttal case, maybe, with
 9        Mr. Dandar.
10             THE COURT:  All right.  All right.  Mr. Dandar,
11        let's have you retake the stand.
12             (A discussion was held off the record.)
13             THE COURT:  All right.  Let's go ahead.
14             And please let's remember what I said
15        yesterday.  You all had a lot of --
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I will.
17             THE COURT:  -- communication about some of what
18        he's testified to.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  And there were few points we
20        were going to call Mr. Dandar on our rebuttal, so I
21        don't think this is going to be all that long, but
22        what I was going to do, if it's okay with the court,
23        is just complete what I needed to do with
24        Mr. Dandar.
25             THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead.
 1                        CROSS EXAMINATION
 3        Q    Now, Mr. Dandar, Jesse Prince was on the payroll
 4   of FACTNet, remember that, sometime in the summer and fall
 5   of 1998?
 6        A    Only if that's what he said in his deposition.
 7   Otherwise I wouldn't know.
 8        Q    Right.
 9             And then after that, you remember that Mr. Minton
10   began to pay him around $5,000 a month in the spring of
11   1999?
12        A    No.  I had no knowledge of that.  I mean, it
13   depends on what his deposition says.
14        Q    And then on -- as of June 30th, 1999, you gave
15   Mr. Prince the first check -- the first $5,000 check, which
16   you continued to pay him on a monthly basis until May of
17   2000, correct?
18        A    Correct.
19        Q    Now, you were aware that in July -- on July 27th,
20   1998, Mr. Prince filed an affidavit in the FACTNet case.
21        A    I can't -- no, I can't say I'm aware of that.
22        Q    That wasn't one of the affidavits that you had
23   reviewed with Mr. Prince?
24        A    I don't recall.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Mark this as our next exhibit.
 1             THE CLERK:  265.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  This is 265, your Honor.
 3             THE COURT:  All right.
 5        Q    This'll be 265.
 6             THE COURT:  On these affidavits, it would be
 7        very helpful to me if, somehow or another, you all
 8        could, when you get toward the end, so -- maybe it's
 9        late.  But a lot of times you all have something on
10        the front that identifies what they're connected
11        with.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Could I possibly take that one
13        that --
14             THE COURT:  Yes.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  -- has your name on it, and give
16        you this?
17             THE COURT:  You're going to have to tell me the
18        number again.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  265.
20             THE COURT:  Thank you.
22        Q    And if you turn to -- if you look at the back of
23   265, it's dated July 27th, 1998.  And does --
24             Do you see that?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    And does that refresh your recollection that this
 2   would have -- that this was done and ultimately identified
 3   in Mr. Prince's August, '98 deposition; that this was done
 4   in the FACTNet case?
 5        A    No.
 6        Q    And that was the first thing he worked on when
 7   he -- when he first appeared in --
 8        A    I --
 9        Q    -- in --
10        A    I can't swear under oath.
11        Q    All right.
12        A    I have no knowledge of this.
13        Q    And then if you go to page 14, paragraphs 28 and
14   29, you see that's the same, almost exact same, PC folder
15   allegation that appears in the affidavit that Mr. Prince
16   filed in this case on August -- the one that's dated
17   August 20th, 1999, correct?
18        A    Well, this is sworn testimony, so I don't think I
19   would call that an allegation.
20        Q    Okay.  In any event, you remember that at the time
21   that -- in 1999, when Mr. Prince went on your payroll, that
22   Mr. Prince filed a declaration in the Larry Wollersheim
23   case.  Do you remember that?
24        A    No.
25             And he wasn't on my payroll.  He was an
 1   independent contractor.
 2        Q    In June of '99?
 3        A    Yes.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  Well, let me -- and --
 5        let me have the reporter (sic) -- reporter.  I'm
 6        sorry, Madam Clerk -- clerk mark as our next
 7        exhibit --
 8             THE CLERK:  266.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  -- 266 --
10             Your Honor, this is 266.
12        Q    Now, 266, that refresh your recollection that --
13             THE COURT:  He just -- his recollection was, is
14        that he was not on his payroll.  He objected to your
15        use of the word --
16             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
17             THE COURT:  -- he was on his payroll.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  I'll rephrase the
19        question.
21        Q    This was executed on June 30th, 1999, correct?
22        A    That's what it says.
23        Q    And that happens to be the day of the first check
24   to Mr. Prince, that came from your office.  Do you remember
25   that?
 1        A    If that's what the check says, that's probably
 2   correct.
 3        Q    All right.  And if you look on -- on page 7,
 4   paragraph 16, the same PC folder accusation appears that
 5   subsequently appeared in the August 20 affidavit, right?
 6        A    Well, it's similar.
 7        Q    Okay.  Now, throughout -- throughout this period
 8   of time, with regard to Mr. Prince, you were getting money
 9   from Mr. Minton to fund the litigation, correct?
10        A    That's correct.
11        Q    And in fact on May 22nd, 1999 -- and we can pull
12   the checks if you want to -- there's a
13   hundred-thousand-dollar check dated May 22nd, 1999.
14        A    Okay.
15        Q    And shortly thereafter, Mr. Prince began to be
16   paid by you all, by the Dandar and Dandar law firm.
17        A    Okay.
18        Q    And then right after Mr. Prince began to be paid
19   the $5,000 a month, there was this Key West meeting in
20   August 8th or 9th through the 13th --
21        A    Well --
22        Q    -- of 1999 --
23        A    -- I --
24        Q    -- right?
25        A    I believe -- first of all, I don't remember the
 1   exact date, but if you say it's August 8th or 9th, that's
 2   fine.
 3        Q    All right.  And -- and regardless of what
 4   Mr. Prince says, there was certainly -- this was certainly,
 5   among other things, a strategy -- a strategy session where
 6   you, other members of the trial team in the Lisa McPherson
 7   case, and lawyers from California discussed Scientology
 8   litigation, right?
 9        A    False.
10             That's a multiple question anyway.
11             There was -- a meeting -- it was not a meeting.
12   It was a fishing trip.  They were already down there
13   fishing.  I just came down there to meet these attorneys
14   from California.
15             And there was no strategy session.  Had nothing to
16   do with Lisa McPherson.
17        Q    All right.  So you never discussed with
18   Mr. Leipold or Mr. Greene them working with you on the Lisa
19   McPherson case.
20        A    Not in Key West.  I mean, we did talk about
21   Scientology, and we talked about their tactics.  They told
22   me what I can expect to happen to me and my brother and my
23   family and my law firm.  But we didn't talk about strategy
24   or them working for me.
25        Q    All right.  And you were there for a number of
 1   days, right?
 2        A    No.  I think it was a -- I may have spent two
 3   nights.  But I didn't stay with them.  I was by myself on a
 4   different island.
 5        Q    Now, by the way, yesterday you said -- I believe
 6   you said that you didn't care about adding David
 7   Miscavige -- that wasn't something that -- that you really
 8   cared about -- as a defendant to the lawsuit.
 9        A    Not because he's David Miscavige.  I cared about
10   adding people onto the lawsuit who were responsible.
11        Q    Well, I -- I think -- and correct me if I'm
12   wrong -- that you said that it wasn't that -- it wasn't a
13   big deal because you couldn't get money out of -- out of
14   Mr. Miscavige.
15        A    Did I say that?
16        Q    I think so.
17        A    When?
18        Q    Yesterday.
19        A    I don't think so.
20        Q    Okay.
21        A    But anyway, you know, if it was the janitor -- if
22   he was a janitor and he was responsible, I would try to move
23   to add him on.  It didn't matter to me what position he had
24   in Scientology.
25        Q    Okay.  And you said, I think, again, that one of
 1   the reasons it didn't matter is that you already -- at that
 2   point you already had been given the permission to have
 3   punitive damages.  Do you remember saying that?
 4        A    No.
 5        Q    All right.  But that would be -- if you said that,
 6   that would be incorrect, because you didn't seek punitive
 7   damages -- you sought punitive damages authorization at the
 8   same time, in the same motion that you sought to add -- to
 9   file the fifth amended complaint and add David Miscavige.
10   That was one joint motion, wasn't it?
11        A    Is that -- is that how we did that?  I thought the
12   punitives were already added, but the record will speak for
13   itself.  I mean, you know --
14        Q    Well, I just want to clear it up.
15             THE COURT:  It doesn't matter.  You don't need
16        to file another -- a copy of the complaint.  The
17        punitive damages were asked for whenever they were
18        asked for, it's a part of the record in this case.
20        Q    All right.  Well, what I'm referring to is a
21   motion to file amended complaint to allege claims for
22   punitive damages and motion to add party defendants, filed
23   September 7th, 1999.
24        A    Right.  But -- and I'll take you at your word.  If
25   you say that's the first time I asked for punitive damages,
 1   then fine.  But as I sit here right now, I can't tell you
 2   that's accurate.  But --
 3        Q    Okay.
 4        A    -- let's just assume it is.
 5        Q    In any event, after the Key West meeting, right
 6   after the Key West meeting -- we talked about this
 7   yesterday -- you had a meeting with Ms. Brooks and
 8   Mr. Minton in Philadelphia on August 26th, 1999.
 9        A    Yes.  They did meet me in Philadelphia, I believe,
10   on the 20 -- 21st, 23rd, something like that, of August.  So
11   that's like a couple weeks later.
12        Q    And Mr. Minton -- remember Mr. Minton testified
13   that he told you that -- at this meeting, he testified that
14   he told you that -- that he wanted more focus on
15   Scientology, and that he wanted better -- you to use better
16   Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks?
17        A    That's with a --
18        Q    That was his testimony.
19        A    Yeah.
20             That's incorrect testimony.
21             THE COURT:  And we went through this.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Just --
23             THE COURT:  We went through this on --
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Just bear with me for a minute,
25        your Honor.  I'm getting there.
 2        Q    And you -- and in any event, at that meeting he
 3   gave you $250,000.
 4        A    Well, either he did or he mailed it to me and I
 5   got it the next day.  It's one or the other.  I mean, it
 6   makes sense that he would have given it to me, since I was
 7   there.  And the check's dated the next day.  But I don't
 8   remember him giving me the check then.  And that's -- to me,
 9   it's not a big issue.
10        Q    Now, in any event --
11             And by the way, that motion we just looked at to
12   add parties and to add punitive damages, Mr. Prince's
13   August 20th affidavit was -- was filed in behalf of both of
14   those motions, right; as evidence with regard to both of
15   those motions.
16        A    It's probable, although Judge Moody only relied on
17   Dr. Minkoff's statement, being shocked and appalled at the
18   state of -- physical state of Lisa McPherson, as the basis
19   for punitive damages.
20        Q    And remember, when we -- when I -- when we talked
21   about this a number of weeks ago, I -- I asked you whether
22   or not, at that Philadelphia meeting, there had been
23   discussion about adding David Miscavige, or expanding the
24   lawsuit, and -- or discussion about the Jesse Prince
25   affidavit, and you made the point that the Jesse Prince
 1   affidavit had already been done before the meeting.
 2        A    Well, yeah.  There's -- Jesse Prince had been
 3   working on that affidavit for a long time.  And -- I mean,
 4   it wasn't a day job; it was like a couple weeks, as I
 5   recall.
 6        Q    And that affidavit, you testified, was executed on
 7   August 20th, 1999.
 8        A    Well, whenever it says.  The document speaks for
 9   itself.  Whatever it --
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Do we have that?
11             THE COURT:  If somebody knows the date,
12        whatever it says it says.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I need to -- I need to
14        pull that document, and one other --
15             THE WITNESS:  I'm going to assume
16        Mr. Weinberg's correct on the date.  All you have to
17        do is look at the affidavit.
18             THE COURT:  If he isn't, why, it'll be
19        reflected in the record.
20             THE WITNESS:  Right.
22        Q    Now, you sent a copy by fax of the Jesse Prince
23   affidavit to Doug Crow at the State Attorney's Office,
24   correct?
25        A    Well, I don't know, but I may have.
 1        Q    And the point -- and you -- you actually sent it
 2   to Mr. Crow before it was ever filed in this case, didn't
 3   you?
 4        A    Can't say that one way or the other.
 5             I mean, look; you're trying to connect all these
 6   dots.  There's no connection.  But you got to show me
 7   documents on when I sent things out in the mail three years
 8   ago, or by e-mail or fax or whatever.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  We'll mark as the next
10        exhibit --
11             THE CLERK:  267.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  -- 267.
13        A    This says September 1st of '99.
15        Q    All right.  And this is a fax that you sent from
16   your law firm --
17             You see at the top of each page --
18             You sent to Mr. Crow, correct?
19        A    That's correct.
20             And his affidavit is not dated on this one.
21        Q    No, it's not, is it?
22             Now, the reason that you sent this to Mr. Crow was
23   to see if it was possible to get Mr. Miscavige indicted with
24   these new allegations by Mr. Prince?  Was that the purpose?
25        A    No.
 1        Q    Was it to enhance your case to see if they could
 2   put more pressure on the Church of Scientology?
 3        A    No.  Mr. Crow, sometime before this, had a request
 4   of me that if I came up with any information that I thought
 5   he would like to see, to send it to him.
 6        Q    Now, let me show you the August -- let me show you
 7   the affidavit that you filed in your motion of Mr. Prince
 8   and that you filed in this court in this hearing.  And this
 9   is the same affidavit that you sent to Mr. Crow, if you look
10   at the -- at the fax.  You want to compare them?
11        A    Mr. Weinberg, I'll take you at your word.
12        Q    All right.  But on the -- on the affidavit that
13   was filed in this case, in the motion, we have a notary seal
14   indicating that it was sworn to and subscribed on
15   August 20th, 1999 by Donna West, who's your assistant.  Do
16   you see that?
17        A    Right.
18        Q    But the one that you sent to Mr. Crow, which is
19   the same affidavit -- and you'll see that the signatures
20   are -- is absolutely identical -- the one that you sent to
21   Mr. Crow, same signature, it's not notarized, is it?
22        A    So?  Just --
23        Q    11 days later or whatever it is.
24        A    Just means it was copied before it was notarized.
25   That's all.
 1        Q    Well, does it mean that the -- that the document
 2   was backdated --
 3        A    Well, you know, I'm not going to --
 4        Q    -- by -- by Ms. West?
 5        A    No.
 6             What I'm going to say to you right now is that I
 7   cannot say that what I e-mailed to Mr. Crow did not have a
 8   notary signature on it -- signature on it, and a stamp.
 9        Q    Well, you know that it is a violation of the law,
10   for a notary to notarize a document not signed in the
11   presence of the signatory, or to backdate a notary.  You
12   know that that's a violation of the law, don't you?
13        A    Sure.
14             You know what?  Donna West is sitting right here,
15   so you're free to put her on the stand.
16        Q    Well --
17             THE COURT:  What's the relevance of this?
18             THE WITNESS:  I'd like to figure that out too.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, I think that --
20        that --
21             THE COURT:  What are you trying to do; get
22        Ms. West into some sort of trouble or --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  No, I'm not.  I'm not at all.
24             THE COURT:  It really is irrelevant to this
25        case.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  I think that --
 2             Well, let me just do this.
 4        Q    I mean, isn't the truth that Mr. Prince's
 5   affidavit was -- was -- had not been finalized and had not
 6   been completed prior to the Philadelphia meeting, and it was
 7   only -- and -- as indicated by the fact that a few days
 8   later, it was sent to Mr. Crow?
 9        A    No.  The truth is that when Donna West puts a date
10   on an affidavit, whether it's this one or any other one,
11   that's the date the person's standing in front of her
12   swearing under oath to the affidavit.  Period.  There's no
13   shenanigans on my part.  You know, I don't have to do
14   anything in this case, of shenanigans, you know.
15        Q    All right.
16        A    There's no --
17             THE COURT:  It is --
18        A    -- conspiracy.
19             THE COURT:  Irrelevant, Counsel.  Move on to
20        some other area.
22        Q    Okay.  Now, you -- let's get to the issue as to
23   whether or not you had reason to doubt Jesse Prince.
24             THE COURT:  Counselor, you've put this up here,
25        and I'm not sure --
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Oh, I'm sorry.
 2             THE COURT:  -- whether you want it back.  I've
 3        got so many copies of affidavits of Jesse Prince --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Another --
 5             THE COURT:  -- that I don't need another one.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  And we offer into evidence, your
 7        Honor, the Exhibit -- Exhibit 265, which is the '98
 8        affidavit of Mr. Prince; 266, which is -- I mean --
 9        266, which is the '99 affidavit of Mr. Prince; and
10        267, which is the fax transmittal that we just --
11             THE COURT:  Any objection?
12             MR. LIROT:  Judge, you've already ruled 267 is
13        irrelevant.
14             THE COURT:  Well, no, I didn't rule 267 was
15        irrelevant.  That may have some bearing on the fact
16        that he sent this to Mr. Crow, and what his reason
17        for doing this was.  They'll have their impression
18        of that; you'll have yours.
19             That -- what I ruled was irrelevant was
20        whatever it was he was showing me about the fact
21        that Ms. West may have backdated or may have not
22        signed a notary stamp -- that's a problem between
23        the state attorney and Ms. West.  If you want to
24        file a complaint, do it.  Has nothing to do with
25        this.
 2        Q    Did you send it to Mr. Crow in order to enhance
 3   the position of your case by --
 4             THE COURT:  Asked and answered.  You've already
 5        asked him that.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
 8        Q    Now, let's talk about whether or not you had
 9   reason to doubt Mr. Prince or Mr. Prince's August, 1999
10   affidavit.  You've told -- you've repeated this a number of
11   times --
12             THE COURT:  Counsel, you've been into this so
13        many times, about Mr. Prince, his reasoning -- I
14        mean --
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  Just bear with me.  It's
16        really not going to take that long.
17             THE COURT:  Well, I beared with you the last
18        time, and when you finally got to it, it absolutely
19        had nothing to do, except to perhaps to smear the
20        secretary.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, no.  That wasn't the
22        purpose.
23             THE COURT:  Well, I don't know what other
24        purpose you had.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  He sent it to Mr. Crow.  I
 1        mean --
 2             THE COURT:  Well, that was fine.  But you went
 3        on beyond that.  And you really wanted to get to a
 4        lawyer's secretary and whether she signed the thing
 5        or whether she didn't; whether there was some, you
 6        know -- you know -- that just isn't really
 7        necessary.
 8             So I'll listen, but you better connect it up,
 9        because you've been through this and been through
10        this and been through this.
12        Q    All right.  You were aware that he had left in
13   disgrace from the Church of Scientology, correct?
14        A    No.  Just quite to the contrary.
15        Q    You were aware of the gun story.  Mr. Prince had
16   told you that early on?
17        A    Yeah.  And it was a -- no one was afraid of
18   Mr. Prince with loaded guns.  And I heard that from several
19   people.
20        Q    And you knew that --
21        A    Especially in front of Judge Moody.
22        Q    And you knew he had a deep bias against the
23   church --
24        A    No.
25        Q    -- and against Mr. Miscavige.
 1        A    No.  Not at all.
 2        Q    You learned at some point that Mr. Miscavige was
 3   meeting with Mr. McCabe with regard to the case, in the
 4   fall -- regard to the criminal case, in the fall of '99,
 5   correct?
 6        A    I think I learned that when it came out in the
 7   newspaper, so whenever that came out.
 8        Q    Well, you were actually quoted in the newspaper
 9   being very critical of Mr. McCabe meeting with -- with --
10   with Mr. Miscavige.  Do you remember that?
11        A    No.
12             THE COURT:  Counsel, you know, you had a
13        document that they wanted to introduce that I kept
14        out at your request.  You go into this and that
15        document becomes admissible.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Let me just make my point.
17             THE COURT:  Well, make your point on that, and
18        I'm telling you, that document will become
19        admissible.
20             I mean, yes, Mr. Miscavige met with Mr. McCabe.
21        There's no question about it.  He followed up with a
22        letter.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.  And there's nothing
24        wrong --
25             THE COURT:  And the letter, I kept out at your
 1        request.
 2             You want to get into this area, I'm going to
 3        let that letter in.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm not even sure what letter
 5        you're talking about.
 6             THE COURT:  Okay.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm just going --
 8             THE COURT:  Well, I know.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm going to go ahead.
11        Q    You -- your case would have been greatly benefited
12   if Mr. Miscavige had been indicted, wouldn't it have?
13             MR. LIROT:  Judge, that asks for speculation.
14             THE COURT:  I'll allow it.
15        A    I don't know.  I mean, I had no idea.
17        Q    You had a duty -- you have a duty as a lawyer to
18   have something more than speculation to support a complaint,
19   allegations in a complaint, right?
20        A    Sure.
21        Q    You --
22        A    Yes.
23        Q    You knew, in 1999, at the time that you filed this
24   complaint making these allegations against Mr. Miscavige,
25   that the state attorney had conducted a long investigation,
 1   and it had been conducted by many fine prosecutors, who --
 2   whose integrity was beyond reproach.  You knew that, didn't
 3   you?
 4        A    Yes.
 5        Q    And you knew --
 6        A    As far as -- I mean, that's limited knowledge,
 7   because I don't know what they know.
 8        Q    And you knew that they had charged the church in
 9   the -- I think it was the fall of '98, correct?
10        A    I assume so.
11        Q    And you knew that they had not charged
12   Mr. Miscavige.
13        A    Well, you know, there're two different standards
14   of proof.
15             And I also know they charged him with the most
16   flimsiest of criminal charges they could possibly come up
17   with.
18        Q    Well, the point is, when you learned from the
19   newspaper, if it was the newspaper, that Mr. McCabe was
20   meeting with Mr. Miscavige, you didn't actually believe
21   Jesse Prince over Bernie McCabe, who had conducted this
22   two-year investigation, as to the involvement of individuals
23   at the Church of Scientology with regard to the death of
24   Lisa McPherson, did you?
25        A    Well, the state attorney doesn't -- they tried to
 1   learn about Scientology, but as far as I know, they didn't
 2   talk to high executives like Mr. Prince, who were no longer
 3   associated with the church, to get the truth about how the
 4   church operates.  And I was very happy to have Mr. Prince
 5   working for me, vouched by Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, and
 6   other former executives of Scientology, as being a very
 7   truthful individual.
 8             And Mr. -- I still believe today that Mr. Prince
 9   is not so biased against the Church of Scientology that I
10   wouldn't believe what he says, and when he proves them with
11   the documents of the Church of Scientology.
12        Q    Well, you certainly don't believe that someone
13   like Mr. McCabe would have been meeting with an individual
14   who his investigation had demonstrated had committed murder.
15   You don't believe that, do you?
16        A    I didn't understand your question.
17             THE COURT:  All right.  Counselor, that's
18        enough.  That document is coming in --
19             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm going on.
20             THE COURT:  -- into evidence.  It's in.  It's
21        now admitted.
22             That meeting had to do with settlement -- it is
23        as clear as a bell -- and a settlement offer by the
24        church.
25             That document is admissible.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Fine.
 2             THE COURT:  Whatever it was, Madam Clerk, it's
 3        now admissible.
 4             You can't --
 6        Q    Now --
 7             THE COURT:  -- imply things like that and not
 8        have that document admitted.  I tried to tell you
 9        that.  It's coming in.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Fine.
11             THE COURT:  So Madam Clerk, find it so I can
12        put on the record what it is.  And it is admissible.
13             And I have to assume that, from this letter,
14        it's a follow-up to their meeting where they
15        discussed settlement of the criminal charges.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.  Which of course were not
17        settled, as it turned out.
18             THE COURT:  Because Mr. McCabe didn't accept
19        the offer.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
21             THE COURT:  I mean, you're -- you're --
22             MR. WEINBERG:  'Cause --
23             THE COURT:  Mr. Miscavige made an offer to
24        settle the criminal charges.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.  Without --
 1             THE COURT:  PTI.  And all the whole thing is in
 2        there.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 4             THE COURT:  To imply somehow otherwise in this
 5        case is improper.  That letter comes in.
 6             Find it.
 7             Go on ahead.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't think we have anything
 9        improper --
10             THE COURT:  I don't know what you did, but I
11        know what David Miscavige did, based on the letter.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
13             THE COURT:  Because the letter is from him.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  And the letter speaks for --
15        speaks for itself and we have no problem with that.
16             THE COURT:  All right.
18        Q    You denied that the LMT was used to be closely
19   associated and affiliated with the wrongful death case.  Do
20   you remember saying that on --
21        A    And I still say that.  That's absolutely true.
22        Q    And you said that you had nothing -- virtually
23   nothing to do with the LMT and the LMT had virtually nothing
24   to do with the case, right?
25        A    Did I say virtually?
 1        Q    I'm saying virtually.
 2        A    Ah.  Thank you.  So don't quote me, then, if it's
 3   your words.
 4             I said that the LMT and the wrongful death case
 5   were totally separate.
 6        Q    Okay.  But --
 7        A    Now, of course I had my expert witness,
 8   Mr. Prince, working at the LMT.  I had phone calls back and
 9   forth between he and I and LMT's lawyer, because you and
10   Mr. Moxon were so intent on bringing the LMT into this
11   litigation.
12        Q    All right.  But Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince,
13   Mr. Oliver, Brian Haney --
14             THE COURT:  You're going over old, old stuff,
15        Counsel.  Honestly, you've explored this so much
16        when he was on the stand.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  It's one question.  I mean
18        yesterday he'd said again about the LMT.  He was
19        asked that.
20             THE COURT:  Okay.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Start over.
22             THE COURT:  But I mean, just because he was
23        asked it doesn't mean you haven't fully explored it.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  It -- I really don't have that
25        long.  I mean --
 1             THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead.
 3        Q    But despite that, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince,
 4   Frank Oliver, Brian Haney, David Cecere and Patricia
 5   Greenway -- all people that were affiliated with the LMT, at
 6   one time or another, were your trial consultants, correct?
 7        A    Well, over a broad statement like that, over one
 8   time or another, that would be a correct statement.  Put
 9   them all together at one time, no.
10        Q    Peter Alexander, Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, Jeff
11   Jacobsen -- all have been designated in this case -- in this
12   case by you at one time as experts.
13        A    As experts.  Experts on -- as a former
14   Scientologists, that's right.  Except Jeff Jacobsen.  I
15   don't think he was designated as an expert on anything.
16        Q    And then Mr. Prince, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Oliver,
17   Teresa Summers, Dan Leipold, John Merrett and Brian Haney,
18   they all testified in this proceeding and they all were
19   affiliated with the LMT, weren't they?
20        A    At one time or another.
21        Q    And Ray Emmons, your investigator -- you saw the
22   parrot video -- he was affiliated with the AMT (sic),
23   correct?
24        A    At one time and then not afterwards.
25             THE COURT:  You said the AMT.  I presume you
 1        meant the --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  LMT.
 3             THE COURT:  -- LMT.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  LMT.
 6        Q    And that amicus brief that was filed by Keith
 7   Henson, he was on the LMT advisory board, wasn't he?
 8             MR. LIROT:  Objection.  Relevance.
 9        A    I don't think so.
10             THE COURT:  Well, we'll just go ahead and admit
11        his brief too, if we're going to talk about things
12        that I kept out.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
14             THE COURT:  And we're going to see then what it
15        is that he's saying.
16             I mean, the truth of the matter is, Counsel, is
17        that these people, I have to presume, are the people
18        who were willing to be used.
19             Are there a lot of people besides the lady that
20        came in here yesterday, that you know of, that you
21        can use, other than the people that were also
22        connected with LMT, as either expert witnesses or
23        consultants on the Church of Scientology?
24             THE WITNESS:  No.  It takes a rare individual
25        to come out of Scientology and then say, "I'm
 1        willing to go in and testify."
 2             THE COURT:  Are there others that you're aware
 3        of, that weren't connected with LMT, that you could
 4        use for an expert, that would be able to tell you
 5        and testify about things that went on in the church
 6        or that could consult with you about those things,
 7        same thing?
 8             THE WITNESS:  No.
 9             THE COURT:  Is there a limited number of
10        individuals that you're able to use?
11             THE WITNESS:  Extremely limited.
12             THE COURT:  And are those the same people that
13        LMT, with whatever -- whatever their purpose was,
14        whether it was as the -- as the defendants claim or
15        as you claim -- were those the people who were
16        willing to involve themselves in -- in whatever it
17        was, but anti -- we'll call it anti-Scientology
18        work?
19             THE WITNESS:  Those were the only ones.
20             I mean, Hana Whitfield is a prime example.  She
21        was in, she was out, she was in, she was out.  And
22        then she was in.  They scheduled her deposition in
23        February of 2002, this year.  And boom, they get --
24        someone -- somebody gets a copy of her credit report
25        a few weeks before her deposition, and then she's
 1        out.
 2             So I mean, it's very effective, how you -- you
 3        can make someone like her decide --
 4             THE COURT:  As you sit here today, are you
 5        aware of someone else you could have called or can
 6        call now, as an expert or consultant, that wasn't
 7        somehow or another willing to be connected with LMT
 8        in their endeavors, whatever they were?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Well, Hana Whitfield was the only
10        one.
11             THE COURT:  I asked you except for Hana --
12             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I'm sorry.
13             THE COURT:  -- Whitfield.
14             THE WITNESS:  No.  The answer is no.
16        Q    You put in that chart yesterday about the phone
17   calls, you just mentioned a few minutes ago, from the LMT to
18   your office, and you made the point about Jesse Prince?
19        A    To my cell phone, yes.
20        Q    Right.
21             And those calls for the most part were calls that
22   were made while Mr. Prince was on the payroll at LMT,
23   correct?
24        A    That's probably true.
25        Q    Okay.  Now, you say that you told Mr. Minton --
 1   you said yesterday that you told Mr. Minton or encouraged
 2   Mr. Minton -- and I think you said Mr. Prince -- not to
 3   picket.
 4        A    Correct.
 5        Q    Okay.  But you went -- you saw the video.  You
 6   went to the LMT, and you had a meeting with Dr. Garko,
 7   Mr. Minton, Mr. Prince and Mr. Brooks -- and Ms. Brooks,
 8   where you discussed the parameters of picketing under Judge
 9   Penick's order.  Do you remember that?
10        A    I was doing my best to keep them in line with
11   Judge Penick's order, so that, you know, you couldn't use
12   some -- something they did against the order in the criminal
13   courtroom.
14        Q    But you didn't tell them in that video not to
15   picket, did you?
16        A    No.  We had already exhausted that effort, and I
17   knew Mr. Minton's -- wasn't going to listen to me about
18   picketing.
19        Q    Well, what about Mr. Prince?  He was your trial
20   consultant.
21        A    Well, you know, I didn't see Mr. -- I never seen
22   Mr. Prince picket until you produced those videos.
23        Q    So that was a revelation to you when you saw
24   these -- all these videos, and Mr. Prince was out there with
25   Mr. Minton and others, shouting obscenities and making a lot
 1   of noise and carrying pickets in front of the church
 2   buildings in Clearwater?
 3        A    I only knew one thing for sure, and demonstrated
 4   by your videos, that Mr. Minton and Mr. Prince were quiet,
 5   well-mannered picketers until your minsters of your client
 6   started to shout --
 7             THE COURT:  The truth of the matter --
 8        A    -- obscenities at them.
 9             THE COURT:  -- is, Counselor, surely any lawyer
10        would not want his consultant out there saying and
11        doing the things Mr. Prince was doing, knowing that
12        he's going to have to be confronted with those in
13        court, as a showing of bias.  I mean, he's already
14        said he's going to try to eliminate those under 401,
15        whatever that section of the evidence code is that
16        the prejudice outweighs the probative value.  He's
17        not likely to prevail in that.
18             But surely you can't think that he's very
19        pleased about that.
20             THE WITNESS:  That's for sure.
22        Q    Did you have any conversations with the other
23   consultants, Frank Oliver, Patricia Greenway, David Cecere,
24   not to participate in pickets?
25        A    They weren't my consultants then.  Best of my
 1   recollection.  I mean, Patricia Greenway just became -- and
 2   I misspoke a couple weeks ago.  I mean, she really started
 3   to talk to me more daily --
 4             THE COURT:  I don't even know --
 5        A    -- Mr. Cecere --
 6             THE COURT:  Excuse me just a second.
 7             Was Patricia Greenway a member of the Church of
 8        Scientology?
 9             THE WITNESS:  No.
10             THE COURT:  I don't even know that.
11             THE WITNESS:  No.  No.  She --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  She was not.  Peter --
13             THE COURT:  What was --
14             MR. WEINBERG:  -- Alexander --
15             THE COURT:  -- she consulting with you about?
16             THE WITNESS:  She knows quite a bit about it
17        because her boss, Peter Alexander, is a -- was that
18        Celebrity Center Scientologist.  And she had to go
19        over to Flag to take Scientology courses in order to
20        work for his company, which was a WISE company, a
21        company that ran under the Hubbard tech.
22             So she's quite familiar with Scientology.
23        She's a quick learner.
25        Q    In any event, every opportunity you had, you
 1   aligned yourself with the critics or the anti-Scientologists
 2   at the LMT, correct?
 3        A    False.
 4        Q    Well, you represented Mr. Oliver at the PSTA
 5   meeting.
 6             THE COURT:  Don't have to go through what
 7        you've already been through.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
 9        A    That had nothing to do --
10             THE COURT:  Make your point in closing
11        arguments.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
13        A    Nothing to do with LMT.
15        Q    Now, you said that -- that you and your client
16   were not enthusiastic -- this is when you were on the stand
17   earlier -- that you and your client were not enthusiastic
18   about the opening of LMT or about the LMT itself.  Do you
19   remember that testimony?
20        A    That's correct.
21        Q    Yet -- you saw the video -- you were at the
22   closing of the building in January of 2000, right?
23        A    Well, I was invited over, and I went over there.
24   Doesn't change my opinions.
25        Q    And do you remember what you said on the video,
 1   that it's a great day for Clearwater?  Do you remember
 2   saying that?
 3        A    Yes.  I thought it was a good idea on what they
 4   said they were going to do, as far as helping people who
 5   needed to leave Scientology.
 6        Q    And do you remember, during that video, that the
 7   person selling the building asked Mr. Prince what he -- what
 8   his involvement was?  This was in January of 2000, when he
 9   was your consultant on -- being paid by you.  And he said,
10   "I'm working as the VP at LMT"?  Do you remember that?
11        A    Right.  He was a volunteer at that time with the
12   LMT.  But he wasn't the big boss, as you alleged.
13        Q    Now, you said that no one at the LMT was doing
14   things for you with regard to the case.  Leaving Mr. Prince
15   aside.
16             THE COURT:  I don't -- I don't recall him
17        saying that.
18        A    I don't either.
20        Q    Well, let me ask the question.
21             THE COURT:  I remember lots of folks from LMT,
22        as you just pointed out, were either his expert at
23        one point in time or a consultant --
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
25             THE COURT:  -- at one point in time.  I have to
 1        presume --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  Did --
 3             THE COURT:  -- they were doing something --
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Let --
 5             THE COURT:  -- for him.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Let -- let me put the question
 7        more -- more clearly.
 9        Q    Did you use the -- any employee at the LMT to
10   assist you with -- with regard to setting up witnesses for
11   the wrongful death case; getting witnesses for the wrongful
12   death case?
13        A    Not in their capacity as an employee of the LMT.
14   So you're going to have to be more specific.
15        Q    Did you --
16        A    You mean, did I use Jesse Prince to help me find
17   somebody?  I don't think so.
18        Q    Did you send e-mails back and forth?  Were e-mails
19   sent back and forth between your office and the LMT about --
20   about witnesses for the wrongful death case?
21        A    You got to be more specific.
22        Q    All right.  Teresa Summers was not your
23   consultant, was she?
24        A    No.
25        Q    And she was an -- she was an employee at the LMT,
 1   wasn't she?
 2        A    I believe she was, after I took her first
 3   deposition, about four or five months later.  Or after
 4   Mr. Moxon took her deposition.  I believe May of 2000 was
 5   the deposition, and she became employed --
 6        Q    Like --
 7        A    -- October or November of 2000.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  If I could have the
 9        next exhibit marked, please.
10             THE CLERK:  268.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  This is 268, your Honor.
12             THE COURT:  All right.
14        Q    This is Exhibit 268, Mr. Dandar.
15        A    Okay.
16        Q    Now, this is a document that -- you see it -- I
17   put in yellow, "The top document is an e-mail received from
18   Dandarlaw@aol.com -- that's your e-mail address, correct?
19        A    Correct.
20        Q    It says, "For T. Summers at lisatrust.net, re:
21   Woodcrafts.  Do you see that?
22        A    Right.
23        Q    Now, Leslie Woodcraft is a Scientologist who is
24   one of the people who stayed with Lisa McPherson during the
25   17 days, correct?  You were aware of that, right?
 1        A    Sure.
 2        Q    You took her deposition.
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Now, this particular e-mail, which is dated
 5   October 25th, 2000, from the lisatrust -- this particular
 6   e-mail from you to Ms. Summers says, "Will her family talk
 7   to me, question mark, Ken."  Do you see that?
 8        A    Right.
 9        Q    So you were --
10             And then if you go to the second page --
11        A    All right.
12        Q    -- that's an e-mail back to you from Teresa
13   Summers, correct?
14        A    Correct.
15        Q    And that e-mail is dated October 25th, 2000 as
16   well.  Do you see that?
17        A    Correct.
18        Q    And then the answer is, "Re:  Astra and the other
19   Woodcrafts --" that's Leslie Woodcraft, the witness -- our
20   witness's family, correct?
21        A    That's her -- that's her ex-husband and her
22   children.
23        Q    And --
24        A    Adult.
25        Q    -- Ms. Summer --
 1        A    Adult children.
 2        Q    I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to interrupt you.
 3             And Ms. Summers tell you in this e-mail, "Though
 4   they did not know Lisa, they are the husband and children of
 5   Leslie Woodcraft, who was one of the Lisa watchers and to
 6   whom they spoke after Lisa's death.  You have depoed --" I
 7   guess that means deposed, "-- Leslie.  Leslie told these
 8   family members that Lisa was, quote, just a nut, and it did
 9   not matter that she died."  And then there are -- "Teresa,"
10   she signs it, and then there's a footnote, "Also Greg Barnes
11   knew Lisa well and was in Scientology at the time of her
12   death.  I have asked him to get in touch with you."
13             So my question to you is, the fact is, is that you
14   did, from your law firm, ask employees at the Lisa McPherson
15   Trust to do work with regard to the wrongful death case,
16   didn't you?
17        A    No.  That's not accurate.
18             This is what's accurate:  Teresa Summers, when she
19   came across a person that she thought could help me, like
20   the Woodcraft family, who talked about all the roach
21   infestation, which is not in this e-mail -- but she would
22   say, like this e-mail says:  "I found this person."  And
23   then I write back to her and say, "Well, will they talk to
24   me?"  And then she finds out if they'll talk to me.  Because
25   I don't want to be approaching people who just left
 1   Scientology, 'cause they're not really all that mentally
 2   well, so they need some time to settle down.
 3             And she would -- apparently had talked to them.
 4   And the mother, who was an attendant of Lisa McPherson,
 5   called Lisa McPherson a nut and said that it didn't matter
 6   that she died.  And that's how that started.
 7             Greg Barnes -- he's right here in Clearwater,
 8   former Scientologist.  And I didn't know that.  And Teresa
 9   Summers is telling me this.
10             So it's not me making a request to her; she's
11   volunteering this information to me.
12        Q    Well, it sure sounds like --
13             THE COURT:  Save it for your closing argument.
14        "Sure sounds like" sure sounds like a lawyer getting
15        ready to make a closing statement.
17        Q    But you also had phone calls with Teresa Summers,
18   while she was employed at the Lisa McPherson Trust, about
19   other alleged facts, correct?
20        A    I'm sure I did.
21        Q    You talked to her about the roaches.  You asked
22   her about roaches.  Do you -- do you remember that?
23        A    Yes.
24        Q    So you were talking to her and other -- other
25   members of the trust about your lawsuit, this wrongful death
 1   case.  They were involved, weren't they?
 2        A    Of course.  They're former Scientologists.
 3             But telling me that they're involved in my case is
 4   a lot more than what you're talking about.
 5        Q    Ms. Summers wasn't working for you at the time of
 6   that e-mail, was she?
 7        A    She's never worked for me.
 8        Q    Now, anybody other than Ms. Summers, did you
 9   engage in phone calls like that, or e-mail traffic like
10   that, in which they called you and said, "I've got something
11   helpful in the case," or you called them for help in the
12   case;" anyone else?  Leaving aside Mr. Prince.
13        A    I have more than I can count, people from around
14   the world sending me information like that.
15        Q    I said the Lisa McPherson Trust, is what I said.
16        A    Oh, I'm sorry.
17             Well, Jeff Jacobsen would contact me quite often,
18   before he joined the Lisa McPherson Trust and after he
19   joined the Lisa McPherson Trust, but he wasn't working for
20   me.  And --
21             I mean, I don't know who else.
22        Q    Okay.  You testified, again yesterday, that
23   moneys -- that the moneys from Mr. Minton were loans to you
24   personally.
25        A    That's right.
 1        Q    Okay.  And that at the beginning of 2000,
 2   thereabouts, the end of '99 or the beginning of 2000, you
 3   had an oral conversation -- I guess conversations are
 4   oral -- you had a conversation with Mr. Minton where the
 5   deal or the arrangement changed and you now were authorized
 6   to use the money any way you wanted, correct?
 7        A    Correct.
 8        Q    Now, where did this conversation take place?
 9        A    It was here in Clearwater.
10        Q    And what were the circumstances of it?
11        A    My best recollection is that we were just there
12   for the vigil of Lisa McPherson.
13        Q    All right.  And you -- and --
14        A    I mean, I can't say that, 'cause of course that
15   only happens once, in December --
16        Q    And --
17        A    -- and --
18        Q    And if you didn't --
19             I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to interrupt.
20        A    So it could be -- I mean, that could be where it
21   was.
22             But he had the same reaction as he had in this
23   courtroom where he said it didn't matter to him.
24        Q    Okay.  And you didn't feel it necessary to write a
25   letter to him, copying your client, saying that, "We got a
 1   new deal, and all this money that you have already given me,
 2   and will hopefully give me in the future, I can use it any
 3   way I want to.  Doesn't even have to be used on the case --"
 4   you didn't think that was necessary to put in a letter?
 5        A    No.  It certainly wasn't necessary to my client.
 6        Q    Well, it wasn't necessary for your own protection?
 7        A    Well, 20/20 hindsight, yes, I should have written
 8   a letter to Mr. Minton.  But at that point in time, we had
 9   what I thought -- and I still believe we did have at that
10   time -- a really good relationship of trust.
11        Q    And I think -- and am I right that the -- that
12   the -- that the event or the set of circumstances that led
13   to this change was your having cancelled all your cases and
14   needing income, basically.
15        A    Correct.
16        Q    So that it was your intention to begin to take the
17   funds that were given to you by Mr. Minton and use them
18   personally as opposed to on the case.
19        A    No.  What the funds -- the funds --
20             THE WITNESS:  Well, you know, this gets into
21        that Second DCA decision, and I don't think I should
22        go there, unless, Judge, you tell me I should go
23        there.  But I don't think -- you know, what -- just
24        like the Second DCA said, it's none of the business
25        of Scientology --
 1             THE COURT:  What the Second DCA said is the
 2        moneys being given to you to fund the case and how
 3        much money you have to fund the case is irrelevant
 4        to the opposition, because it appears to the Second
 5        DCA that perhaps they were trying to bleed you out
 6        of that money, and they ought not be able to know
 7        how much you've got so that they can do that.
 8        That's basically what that said.
 9             THE WITNESS:  That's right.
10             THE COURT:  I don't think that would have
11        anything to do, that opinion, with moneys that were
12        given to you as a loan for your own business.  I
13        mean, for your own income.  I suspect they were
14        talking about moneys that you had for the use of the
15        case.  I don't know that, because I -- but I assume
16        that's the posture in which that case was.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  That's the way I read it.
18             THE COURT:  I didn't see all the briefs.  Maybe
19        they submitted --
20             But the way I read it is that they were talking
21        about moneys that you had been given in trust,
22        whatever you want to call it, somehow or another, to
23        use for the case.
24             I doubt that the Second District or me or
25        anybody else would -- would be interested or think
 1        it was relevant about money -- to write an opinion
 2        on -- moneys that somebody had given you to live on.
 3        I don't know that I'd let them go there either.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I think that's where he wants to
 5        go.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  What I want --
 7             THE WITNESS:  I don't want to answer the
 8        question.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't want to know how you
10        spent it.  I just want him to answer the question.
12        Q    So as of that time, you could -- you -- in light
13   of what you told Mr. Minton; you told him that you intended
14   to take some or all -- you can tell us what -- of the money
15   that he was giving you and use it to supplement your income.
16             THE COURT:  He said he could use it any way he
17        wanted to at that point in time.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I want to be more
19        specific.
20             THE COURT:  Oh.
22        Q    You intended, by this new agreement with
23   Mr. Minton, to be able to use the money for personal things
24   if you wanted to.
25        A    That's right.  I can use it any way I wanted to.
 1        Q    Now, you didn't see that it was necessary to go
 2   back, then, to the Florida Bar, in January of 2000, to get
 3   an opinion if it was appropriate to enter into an agreement
 4   like this with a third party with regard to a lawsuit where
 5   you could do anything you wanted to with the money?  You
 6   didn't think that that was something that you needed to do?
 7        A    No.  In fact, I confirmed that recently.  They
 8   said, "We don't care where you go borrow money, personal
 9   loans.  We're not interested in that."
10        Q    All right.  In any event, a few months later, in
11   May of 2000, Mr. Minton gave you the UBS $500,000 check in
12   that Bombay Bicycle Club, right?
13        A    Correct.
14        Q    And he didn't tell you -- you asked him who it was
15   from, and he said, "Friends in Europe."
16        A    Right.
17        Q    Now --
18             And he wouldn't tell you who the friends were.
19        A    Right.
20             THE COURT:  If he asked.  I mean, I don't
21        even --
23        Q    Did you ask him who the friends were?
24        A    I don't know.
25        Q    And you didn't have a loan agreement with them.
 1        A    With the friends?
 2        Q    Yes.
 3        A    Right.  I didn't have a loan agreement.
 4        Q    And did these European people, these friends in
 5   Europe, who you didn't know who they were -- did -- did
 6   somebody -- did they authorize and say that it was okay for
 7   you to spend this money, $500,000, on personal things, any
 8   way you wanted to?
 9        A    You know, I had no communication with these
10   people, all right?  I didn't communicate with anyone
11   except --
12             If they trusted Mr. Minton enough him give him a
13   $500,000 check, you know, I didn't worry about the friends
14   in Europe and what they were -- asking me any questions.  I
15   didn't -- didn't --
16        Q    Well, if you --
17        A    Still don't.
18        Q    And the -- and the only -- and the whole deal was
19   you only had to pay it back if you won the case.  In other
20   words, got enough money from the settlement to cover it,
21   right?
22        A    Right.
23        Q    So if you lost the case and you had already spent
24   the $500,000 from these friends in Europe, on personal
25   things, you had no obligation to pay these people back,
 1   right?
 2        A    That's right.  It's a nonrecourse loan.
 3        Q    And that makes sense to you --
 4        A    Sure.
 5        Q    -- that somebody would give you $500,000, with no
 6   loan agreement, that you could do any way you want -- you
 7   could spend it any way you want to, with no guarantee that
 8   it's ever going to be paid back if you lost the case.
 9        A    That's right.
10        Q    That made sense to you.
11        A    That's right.
12             THE COURT:  One thing that comes to my mind is
13        that -- how did you know or why did you think that
14        these people, who apparently had some interest in
15        this case -- that's what you told us -- would want
16        you to have this money to do whatever you wanted to
17        do with?
18             THE WITNESS:  Well --
19             THE COURT:  Did you ever think that maybe --
20        maybe they -- if -- if you believe that -- that they
21        had different intentions?
22             I mean, did you feel like it was okay, for a
23        half a million dollars that -- that they had given
24        to Mr. Minton, presumably for this case, it would be
25        all right for the two of you all to come to some
 1        other agreement?
 2             Did you ever ask him, was it okay with these
 3        folks that are giving this half a million dollars,
 4        for me just to take it and do whatever I want to do
 5        with it?
 6             THE WITNESS:  No, Judge.  I didn't ask the
 7        question.
 8             And by that time, Judge, I had this -- how I
 9        perceived the relationship between me and Mr. Minton
10        on money for this case for me to be such that I
11        didn't have to ask that question.  I mean, my
12        perception of Mr. Minton at that time, and still is
13        today, that he dealt in this circle of people who
14        wanted to help on the case and had an enormous
15        amount of money and didn't care about spending the
16        money.
17             THE COURT:  Okay.  I understand that, 'cause
18        that's what you told me yesterday, that somehow or
19        another --
20             As I said, I tried to, in my own mind, envision
21        if I were involved in this case, but it's hard to
22        do, 'cause I'm not.  At least not as a lawyer for
23        one side or the other.
24             This is what you said yesterday:  That these
25        people, you presume, had a fear of Scientology --
 1             THE WITNESS:  Exactly.
 2             THE COURT:  -- because they didn't want to be
 3        known.
 4             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 5             THE COURT:  And that made sense to you based on
 6        what you've learned about suppressive persons and
 7        how you believe they were treated by the church.
 8             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 9             THE COURT:  So these people wanted to help out,
10        you believe, with the case.
11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
12             THE COURT:  Well, then, how do you -- how do
13        you figure that these people shouldn't be consulted
14        if it's okay for you to take $500,000, take their
15        money, and use it for something else?
16             THE WITNESS:  Because it all goes to me in
17        pursuing this case.
18             THE COURT:  Well, it doesn't if you're off
19        doing other things with it.
20             You and Mr. Minton had an agreement,
21        apparently, about that money.  You could use it any
22        way you wanted to; that you had no obligation to use
23        it for the case.
24             THE WITNESS:  Well --
25             THE COURT:  You surely didn't think those folks
 1        just wanted to loan Ken Dandar money?
 2             THE WITNESS:  No.  Because they -- because I
 3        was the only one that was pursuing this case, and
 4        they knew -- well, I don't know what they knew, but
 5        Mr. Minton knew certainly, in -- when this
 6        conversation took place at the end of '99, beginning
 7        of 2000, that all of my time was devoted to this
 8        case.  I had cancelled all of these trials.
 9             That he knew -- anybody would know that I had
10        to survive in order to take this to trial.
11             And it goes through a lot of expenses.  And I'm
12        not going to get into what portions if any -- if
13        any --
14             THE COURT:  I'm not asking you to.  I'm just
15        simply saying -- you know, I'm not trying to get you
16        in trouble here, Mr. Dandar.  I'm really trying to
17        see whether or not I can believe what you're saying.
18             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  All right.
19             THE COURT:  I really am.
20             THE WITNESS:  All right.
21             THE COURT:  And -- and you know, that's my role
22        in this.
23             THE WITNESS:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  You and Mr. Minton disagree on
25        this.  And he says you did know it came from him,
 1        you say it didn't.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 3             THE COURT:  You say you thought it came from
 4        some of his friends in Europe that had some interest
 5        in funding this lawsuit.
 6             But now what you've sort of changed and said is
 7        that this money didn't have to be used for that.
 8        I'm not going to let them go into what you used it
 9        for, but I have to presume, if you didn't have to
10        use it for that, you were short on money because of
11        this case, that you had to use it for your personal
12        use.
13             Did you think that these folks had an interest
14        in that?  Did you ever say to Mr. Minton, "Well, did
15        you check with them to make sure this is okay, that
16        I put this money and use it for my food and payments
17        and what have you"?
18             THE WITNESS:  No.  I didn't do that.
19             THE COURT:  Well, you think maybe you should
20        have?
21             THE WITNESS:  Well, hindsight, I should have
22        done a lot of things differently with Mr. Minton.
23        I --
24             THE COURT:  You see how that causes me some
25        grave concern?
 1             THE WITNESS:  It does.
 2             THE COURT:  First of all, it's amazing to me,
 3        as I said to you yesterday, that a lawyer -- that
 4        somebody would give you half a million dollars.  I
 5        mean, I just can't -- it's hard for me to imagine
 6        that.  Huge dollars.
 7             But then to think that these same strangers,
 8        who you didn't know and didn't ask about, that you
 9        know of, would give you money to eat on and live on,
10        is even stranger.
11             THE WITNESS:  Well, that's not exactly how that
12        conversation with Mr. Minton took place, back at the
13        beginning of 2000, end of '99, to eat on.  No.  It
14        was money that I could spend any way I wanted.  But
15        Mr. Minton still trusted me to spend it correctly.
16             THE COURT:  But --
17             THE WITNESS:  But I could do whatever -- you
18        know, he gave me full discretion on how to spend the
19        money --
20             THE COURT:  So you --
21             THE WITNESS:  -- because of that trust.
22             THE COURT:  You felt that these people gave the
23        money to Mr. Minton to do what he wanted to do with
24        it.
25             THE WITNESS:  No.  I felt that these people
 1        knew Mr. Minton quite well and would rely on him as
 2        to how I would handle this money.
 3             THE COURT:  Okay.
 4             THE WITNESS:  I mean, I know this sounds
 5        bizarre.
 6             THE COURT:  It sounds very bizarre.
 7             THE WITNESS:  The first check was bizarre
 8        enough.  That was bizarre.
 9             THE COURT:  But I mean, the money's growing.
10        We're now up from a hundred-thousand-dollar check,
11        which was bizarre enough, where you wrote the
12        Florida Bar, to a half-a-million-dollar check.
13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, we are.
14             THE COURT:  Five times that amount.  That is
15        five times as bizarre.  And five times as bizarre
16        and it came from folks, you don't even know who it
17        came from, from Europe, from some country -- you
18        don't know if it's one, two, five, 10, a hundred.
19             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
20             THE COURT:  And if Mr. Minton dropped dead of a
21        heart attack, you wouldn't have a clue.  So this
22        money just obviously would then just inure to your
23        benefit.
24             THE WITNESS:  No.  I never, never, never
25        anticipated that --
 1             THE COURT:  Well, you couldn't give it back to
 2        him.  He'd be dead.
 3             THE WITNESS:  No.
 4             THE COURT:  And he wouldn't be able to tell you
 5        who these people were.
 6             THE WITNESS:  I just --
 7             THE COURT:  Where were you going to give it?
 8             THE WITNESS:  I just -- well, it didn't --
 9        honest to God, it didn't cross my mind that he -- he
10        could drop dead.  That was a silly thing for me to
11        do.
12             THE COURT:  Maybe it happens when you turn 60.
13        But I'll be honest with you, I think about those
14        things all the time.  I'm always thinking about it.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Unfortunately, at 52, I think of
16        that as well.
17             THE COURT:  Do you?  Well --
18             I mean, I would have taught of that, Mr.
19        Dandar.  Maybe that's because I'm 60, and you're a
20        lot younger than I.  But I would have thought, "Gee,
21        if that man drops dead -- this is a lot of money.
22        This is a lot of money.  I've got to know who to pay
23        this back to."
24             You had hoped to recover a substantial amount
25        of money in this lawsuit, right?
 1             THE WITNESS:  Correct.
 2             THE COURT:  You had hoped to be able to pay
 3        this whole 2-plus million dollars back to Mr. Minton
 4        and these people.
 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 6             THE COURT:  And -- and so obviously, if Mr. --
 7        if you're to be believed -- if Mr. Minton were alive
 8        and you recovered a lot of money, you'd pay back the
 9        $2 million and assume that he wouldn't put it in his
10        pocket, right?  I mean, after all --
11             THE WITNESS:  Well --
12             THE COURT:  -- if this came from these people,
13        you had some obligation to see to it they got
14        repaid.
15             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
16             THE COURT:  But it just didn't occur to you, I
17        guess you're saying, that if he dropped dead --
18             And apparently he didn't tell anybody else
19        where -- I mean, he didn't -- he -- he played
20        bizarre games with Mr. Merrett, so he wouldn't have
21        been of any help to you.
22             THE WITNESS:  That's true.
23             THE COURT:  He didn't tell Ms. Brooks about his
24        money because he was -- you know, she learned later.
25             So the only -- there would have been no one if
 1        he'd have dropped dead.
 2             Where would you have sent this money?  Where
 3        would you have sent this half-a-million-dollar
 4        check?
 5             THE WITNESS:  Judge, I didn't -- this did not
 6        go through my mind.
 7             THE COURT:  Well, you know, you ought to
 8        start --
 9             THE WITNESS:  I agree.
10             THE COURT:  -- thinking about things like that.
11             THE WITNESS:  I agree.
12             THE COURT:  Excuse me for interrupting.
14        Q    Given this what you've just described as a bizarre
15   set of circumstances in May of 2000 when you got this
16   $500,000 check, did you go back to the Florida Bar to get an
17   opinion if it was okay to take $500,000 from unknown,
18   offshore persons, with no written agreement and no strings
19   attached?
20        A    No.
21             THE COURT:  I think we can assume in the
22        scenario as advanced by Mr. Dandar --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
24             THE COURT:  -- that at the point where
25        Mr. Minton stated to him that he could use the money
 1        any way he wanted to, he would have had absolutely
 2        no obligation to ask the Florida Bar about anything.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
 4             THE COURT:  I mean, that's -- that's --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  I guess there's one other
 6        question I should ask.
 7             THE COURT:  I mean, the Florida Bar would not
 8        be interested in somebody getting a loan from --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  I guess they -- they
10        might be --
12        Q    Well, did you -- did you tell your client that now
13   all the money that was coming from Mr. Minton, you could
14   spend it on something other than the case?
15        A    I think we had the discussions several times, but
16   specifically, I don't recall -- you know, call her up and
17   say, "I just had a meeting with Mr. Minton," no, I don't
18   think that happened.  Because it didn't matter.  I was
19   responsible for all the costs.
20        Q    But given the fact that, at the beginning, there
21   was this exchange of letters that we already went over
22   between Mr. Minton and you and you and your client; your
23   client was aware of this money that Mr. Minton was given --
24   was giving to you to fund the case, at the beginning didn't
25   you think it would have been necessary, under your
 1   obligations -- under the -- to -- you know, under the -- as
 2   a bar member, to get her approval that was okay now -- if
 3   somebody was -- if Mr. Minton continued to give you money,
 4   or the money he'd already given you --
 5        A    No.  That --
 6        Q    Let me --
 7        A    That --
 8        Q    Let me finish my question.
 9        A    Oh.  It's a long question.
10        Q    That you could spend it any way you want to?
11        A    No.
12             As I said -- this is asked and answered before --
13   but I've confirmed that recently with the bar.  They have no
14   interest in my personal loans.
15        Q    Now, you said yesterday that it made no difference
16   to you how Mr. Minton paid you, whether it was a Swiss check
17   or cash or a regular check, right?  Something to that
18   effect.
19        A    Right.
20        Q    But did you hide the fact of receiving this
21   $500,000 check and ultimately the $250,000 check from people
22   like your trial consultant, Dr. Garko?
23             THE COURT:  That, he's explained too.  He
24        doesn't call it hiding; he just didn't discuss his
25        finances with those people.
 2        Q    You didn't disclose that fact to your staff.
 3        A    I never do.
 4        Q    And you didn't disclose to them that there was any
 5   new deal -- new deal with Mr. Minton, where you could spend
 6   whatever money Mr. Minton gave you -- 'cause they knew that
 7   you were getting money from -- from Mr. Minton -- any way
 8   you wanted to.
 9        A    I don't discuss these things with anyone --
10        Q    Okay.
11        A    -- on my staff.
12        Q    Fast forward.
13             Then in March of 2002, Mr. Minton gave you -- sent
14   you in the mail, a $250,000 UBS check, right?
15        A    Correct.
16        Q    And I heard you say yesterday -- I hadn't heard
17   this before, but you said that Mr. Minton said that, you
18   needed to deposit it quickly because the fat man or the --
19   the fat man was nervous about it?
20        A    Yeah.  There was something going on in the Swiss
21   banks, where this person was.
22        Q    And did it concern you, Mr. Dandar, that that
23   money might be dirty money?
24        A    No.  There was something, he believed, from this
25   person, that you, your client, was doing something in the
 1   Swiss banks.  And he wouldn't elaborate on what that was.
 2   But he thought it was something from the court.  And I told
 3   him there was nothing, as far as I knew, that came from the
 4   court to cause the Swiss banks to do anything.  I don't even
 5   know the identity of the Swiss banks.
 6        Q    All right.  And this money was under the same
 7   arrangement as the $500,000.  You could do with it what you
 8   wanted to.
 9        A    Correct.
10        Q    No loan with these people over in Europe -- no
11   loan agreements.  Just like the $500,000.
12        A    That's right.
13             THE COURT:  Remember what I've -- what I've
14        said before, I'm not sure that this 250,000 is
15        relevant.  You're going to have to persuade me in
16        your brief that somehow it is.  This was after all
17        these allegations, all --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  It's relevant to his
19        credibility.
20             THE COURT:  It may be relevant to his
21        credibility --
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
23             THE COURT:  -- but it's not relevant to any
24        allegation of perjury --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  No, no.  No, it's not.
 1             THE COURT:  -- or --
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  It's relevant to his
 3        credibility.
 5        Q    And a -- and --
 6             THE COURT:  And I would agree with that.
 7             But it's not relevant to the issues as far as
 8        perjury, suborning perjury and that sort --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  It doesn't -- it was -- it
10        was -- you know --
11             THE COURT:  Right.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  -- after the fact --
13             THE COURT:  Yes.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  -- so to speak.
16        Q    But -- and you did --
17             I mean, did you think that it would have been
18   appropriate, particularly in light of the fact that
19   Mr. Minton said that -- that they were nervous about this,
20   to go to the Florida Bar at that point and say, "Is there a
21   problem about taking money like this from offshore, when I
22   don't know who it's from, and they're nervous about it?"
23        A    No.
24             Because -- you know, this is not offshore money,
25   by the way.  This check comes from Chase Manhattan Bank in
 1   New York, from the UBS bank in Switzerland.  These are
 2   reputable banks.  This is not some Antigua bank --
 3        Q    Well, excuse --
 4        A    These are not -- these are reputable banks.  I'm
 5   not worried --
 6             And it's not offshore money.  It's a New York --
 7   it came from a New York City bank.
 8        Q    Oh, I -- I'm sorry.  I was under the impression
 9   that -- that you were saying that this came from people in
10   Europe.
11        A    I'm talking about the check.
12             (A discussion was held off the record.)
14        Q    If that's -- if that's the case, then what was
15   Mr. Minton nervous about the Swiss banks, that you said,
16   that it wasn't offshore money?
17        A    He wouldn't tell me.  He wouldn't go into any
18   detail other than what I just told you.
19        Q    Well, you knew that there was a subpoena -- at
20   this time, in March of '90 -- I'm sorry -- March of 2002,
21   you were aware that the Church of Scientology in this case
22   had already subpoenaed the -- is it Dresdner Bank --
23   Dresdner Bank -- Dresdner Bank -- for Mr. Minton's --
24   seeking Mr. Minton's records in Swiss -- Switz --
25   Switzerland, right?
 1        A    No.  In the fall of 2002, I believe you subpoenaed
 2   Dresdner Bank in Los Angeles.  And I don't even know who
 3   Dresdner Bank is, and not even to this day.
 4             THE COURT:  Had the church subpoenaed
 5        Mr. Minton's records from Switzerland?
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  From the Dresdner -- from
 7        the bank in -- in L.A.
 8             THE COURT:  Okay.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  Seeking the --
10             THE COURT:  Well, you said Switzerland.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, it's a Swiss bank as I
12        understand it.
13             THE COURT:  Oh.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  I think.
16        Q    It's a Swiss bank, isn't it?
17        A    I don't know.  I know it's in Los Angeles, so --
18        Q    But you didn't connect the dots at that point, in
19   March of 2002, that this person that was -- that Mr. Minton
20   was talking about, this fat man that was nervous -- you
21   didn't connect the dots that that -- that person was
22   Mr. Minton.
23        A    No.  Not at all.
24        Q    And as before, you thought that there were people
25   in Europe, some -- I guess one person in Europe, some fat
 1   guy, that -- that was willing to give you $250,000, without
 2   you knowing who he was, with no loan agreement, that you
 3   could use personally if you wanted to.
 4        A    That's right.
 5             That was the first time -- that New Hampshire trip
 6   was the first time, I believe, that Mr. Minton ever came up
 7   with the name the fat man.
 8             THE COURT:  But you thought that this was still
 9        from these friends in Europe, didn't you?
10             THE WITNESS:  Oh, yes.  I mean, that's what he
11        told me.  I mean, he told me in front of Dr. Garko,
12        as I said yesterday, in a very straight, forceful
13        voice, that he had no more money for me.
14             THE COURT:  So -- you know, I hate to be -- I
15        just hate to inquire here, but Mr. Minton is -- you
16        know, I can say that because I'm a heavyset woman.
17        I'm a fat lady.
18             Mr. Minton's an overweight man, right?
19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
20             THE COURT:  Yeah.
21             So you know -- we have -- I mean, I might call
22        myself a fat -- fat girl.  I say it sometimes.
23             It didn't even occur to you that he was
24        talking -- when he says, "This money comes from
25        friends in Europe," that's kind of a plural.  Then
 1        all of a sudden he's saying, "Well, if you -- if you
 2        make -- if you make me not being so hated on the
 3        Internet because I'm not funding this case," which
 4        is what Ms. Greenway apparently was doing, " -- if
 5        you take care of that, then the fat man will give
 6        you money."
 7             That -- the person he wanted taken care of was
 8        himself, right?  On the Internet.
 9             THE WITNESS:  Right.
10             THE COURT:  And he's over -- an overweight guy,
11        right?
12             THE WITNESS:  Right.
13             THE COURT:  And so he then says, "If you take
14        care of me on that Internet, maybe the fat man will
15        have some more money for you."
16             And you're on the telephone to him, saying,
17        "Send me the money.  Where is the money?  I don't
18        have the money yet," or writing back and forth to
19        him.  And yet it still doesn't occur to you that
20        money was from Mr. Minton, is what your testimony
21        under oath is.
22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes, Judge.  A hundred
23        percent.
24             I mean, you had to be there at that New
25        Hampshire -- his house, on the way he explained
 1        that, and the way he explained that these -- this
 2        person in Europe was upset because he didn't want to
 3        get attacked if his name ever came out, and you
 4        know, he wanted Mr. Minton --
 5             Mr. Minton apparently couldn't persuade him to
 6        send me the money unless Mr. Minton was happy with
 7        me.
 8             THE COURT:  So you thought this was a singular
 9        friend in Europe.
10             THE WITNESS:  Because he called him the fat
11        man.
12             THE COURT:  Okay.
13             THE WITNESS:  And you know, I knew -- tried to
14        get out of him who --
15             THE COURT:  But you thought that this guy, this
16        fat man, this unknown person in Europe, cared about
17        Mr. Minton being attacked on the Internet.
18             THE WITNESS:  Well, it was actually the other
19        way around.  It was Mr. Minton would not persuade
20        this person to do this unless Mr. Minton was happy
21        with -- the attacks went away.
22             Ms. Greenway, by the way, was not the person on
23        the Internet attacking him.
24             THE COURT:  Well, he thought it was
25        Ms. Greenway.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Oh, he thinks Ms. Greenway --
 2        Stacy Brooks thinks Ms. Greenway is the --
 3             THE COURT:  Right.
 4             THE WITNESS:  -- epicenter of all his problems.
 5             THE COURT:  But he thought it was Ms. Greenway.
 6             THE WITNESS:  He did, yes.
 7             THE COURT:  Whoever it was, he knew you -- you
 8        could stop -- he thought you could stop it.
 9             THE WITNESS:  He thought I could -- well, he
10        thought I could persuade them to stop it --
11             THE COURT:  Right.
12             THE WITNESS:  -- in order to get funding.
13             THE COURT:  And in fact, that happened.
14             THE WITNESS:  It did happen, 'cause I -- I went
15        out and I said, "Please stop this."
16             THE COURT:  "Please stop."  Right.
17             And so it stopped.  And then this -- this
18        fellow in Europe was so pleased that this attack
19        against Mr. Minton had stopped that he sends you a
20        quarter of a million dollars.
21             THE WITNESS:  According to Mr. Minton, that's
22        right.
23             THE COURT:  And it didn't --
24             THE WITNESS:  And all the attacks were --
25             THE COURT:  And it didn't sound unusual to you.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Of course --
 2             THE COURT:  You had no reason to think, "Gee,
 3        Mr. Minton might be the source of this money."
 4             THE WITNESS:  No.  Mr. Minton was the person
 5        who could persuade this person to send the money.
 6             THE COURT:  You realize how silly this sounds?
 7        I mean --
 8             THE WITNESS:  Well --
 9             THE COURT:  It's -- it's -- I mean --
10             THE WITNESS:  It's --
11             THE COURT:  -- silly --
12             Are you that naive?
13             THE WITNESS:  No.  It sounds extremely silly as
14        we talk about it like this.
15             But at the time this was all going on, you
16        know, the problems with the Swiss banks didn't make
17        any sense to me because there's nothing coming from
18        this court, so I didn't know what he was talking
19        about on the phone.
20             THE COURT:  Well, you -- you do know why folks
21        use Swiss bank accounts sometimes.  It could be for
22        very legitimate reasons and it can be for
23        illegitimate reasons.  I mean, it can be you're
24        trying to hide your money from your spouse, the
25        government; it can be that you just don't want to
 1        put all your money in this country -- there's --
 2             But there -- there are reasons why some folks
 3        use a Swiss account, that we would all know would be
 4        hiding our money.
 5             THE WITNESS:  You're right.
 6             And -- and you just mentioned keep it from your
 7        spouse.  I mean, that was another thing that drove
 8        Mr. Minton crazy, was that Mr. Moxon had set
 9        Mrs. Minton for deposition, I believe, in April of
10        this year, and that caused him a great concern,
11        because apparently his wife isn't -- doesn't know
12        what's going on in this case or what he does with
13        his money or something.  I'm not sure.  I mean, that
14        just made him go crazy.
15             And then the Swiss bank things were happening;
16        the Nigerian thing was happening again --
17             THE COURT:  If I'm to believe you, Mr. Dandar,
18        on this aspect of your testimony, I must believe
19        that you were that naive that you couldn't figure
20        this out.
21             THE WITNESS:  Well, Judge, I didn't try to
22        figure out the March check.  I mean, he -- I had
23        already received the check, back in May of 2000, on
24        this UBS bank check.  And you know, it wasn't funny
25        money, as far as I was concerned.
 1             THE COURT:  Sure wasn't.  It's a lot of money.
 2             THE WITNESS:  It was a lot of money.
 3             But at that time, I had already received over a
 4        million dollars, so it's just like, these people
 5        have a lot of money and they really care about this
 6        case.
 7             THE COURT:  And they all got together
 8        collectively and put some money in a Swiss bank to
 9        send to you anonymously.
10             THE WITNESS:  That's right.
11             And it's not as farfetched as you think.
12             THE COURT:  Through Mr. Minton.
13             THE WITNESS:  That's right.
14             In fact -- I'm not going to get into any
15        details, but there are people out there trying to do
16        that right now.
17             THE COURT:  Well, I do hope that you find out
18        who they are so that you can repay them if they want
19        their money back.
20             THE WITNESS:  I will.  But it most likely will
21        be a point person who I'll have to respond with.
22        Because these people do not want Scientology to know
23        who they are.  And we already went through that
24        yesterday.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 1             THE WITNESS:  In fact, I -- I do have
 2        affidavits from my former clients, who were
 3        interviewed extensively by investigators from
 4        Scientology --
 5             THE COURT:  Okay.
 6             THE WITNESS:  -- about accusing me of all kinds
 7        of crimes.
 8             THE COURT:  Is it time for a morning break?
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  We can.  I have a few more --
10             THE COURT:  Let's go ahead and take it.
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Sure.
12             THE COURT:  Let's take about 15 minutes.
13               (A recess was taken at 10:38 a.m.)
14           (The proceedings were resumed at 11:00 a.m.)
15             THE COURT:  You may continue.
17        Q    As you sit here today, Mr. Dandar, you have no
18   idea who the fat man is?
19        A    Well, Mr. Minton says it's him.
20             Can I say that under oath?  No.
21        Q    And as you sit here today, you don't know who
22   you're supposed to pay back the $250,000?
23        A    From March, 2002?
24        Q    Yes.
25        A    That's correct.
 1        Q    And if Mr. Minton asks you for the money back,
 2   will you pay him?
 3        A    After I deduct my damages for what he's done to
 4   me, sure.
 5        Q    Now, how did you think that Mr. Minton was able to
 6   obtain -- to get a copy of the check, both the $500,000 and
 7   the $250,000 check, if he wasn't the one who arranged for
 8   it?
 9        A    Scientology got it first.
10        Q    Oh, that's what you believe?
11        A    I believe that a hundred percent.
12        Q    So you think that -- that the Church of
13   Scientology was able to get this check, that didn't have
14   Mr. Minton's name on it, but that Mr. Minton, who arranged
15   for it and who gave them to you, couldn't.
16        A    Mr. Minton could not get it because he didn't
17   commit a criminal act to get it.  Scientology got it.  And
18   it doesn't surprise me that Scientology got it.  And that's
19   what caused Mr. Minton to turn and lie for you.
20        Q    All right.  And you -- you obviously have the
21   evidence to indicate that the Church of Scientology was
22   the -- was the -- was the one that got these checks, not
23   Mr. Minton.
24        A    Well, I have the -- I have the testimony of
25   Mr. Prince indicating that to me.  I have Mr. Minton telling
 1   me in vague terms that something was going on in the Swiss
 2   banks, and the -- and then I have the -- Mr. Pope cancelling
 3   the UBS deposition to get the checks, telling me he didn't
 4   have the checks.  And I called up the UBS bank and said,
 5   "Did you give them the checks?  Why did they cancel your
 6   deposition?"  He said, "No --" the attorney for the bank
 7   said, "No.  We didn't give Mr. Pope the check."  And then
 8   Mr. Pope has the check.
 9             So I find that a confirmation that your client
10   committed another criminal act and got the two UBS checks.
11        Q    And you remember the $500,000 UBS check that
12   Mr. Minton identified and gave to Ms. Greenway and
13   Mr. Alexander for his part in The Profit?
14        A    I remember the testimony.
15        Q    Do you remember those?
16        A    I remember the testimony.
17        Q    Do you remember the check?
18        A    I've seen in it this courtroom.
19        Q    And did that -- and did that -- that -- does that
20   indicate to you, if Mr. Minton was able to produce and did
21   produce a $500,000 UBS check to Ms. Greenway and
22   Mr. Alexander as their part -- as part of the payments on --
23   the schedule of payments on The Profit, that he is the one
24   that -- that -- that caused the $250,000 and $500,000 checks
25   to you, from his accounts, to be issued?
 1        A    No.  Because there's a difference.  And that
 2   difference is that Ms. Brooks -- and I call into question
 3   how much she knew about the fat man -- Ms. Brooks is the one
 4   that hand-delivered that check to Mr. (sic) Greenway, so
 5   Ms. Brooks could have copied that, and probably did copy
 6   that, before she gave it to Mr. Alexander.
 7        Q    So you think that the fat man or these people in
 8   Europe, unidentified, also financed The Profit as well?
 9        A    I have no idea.  I don't know if they used the fat
10   man for the -- to explain the movie deal.  I had nothing to
11   do with the movie deal.  I mean, I don't know what their --
12   they said back and forth to each other.
13        Q    Now, we talked about --
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Just to clarify things, your
15        Honor, we -- you had asked or I had said something
16        about the Dresdner Bank, and I now have the records
17        to indicate exactly what happened.  And I was either
18        going to tell you or go over that with Mr. --
19             THE COURT:  I believe it was you that said it
20        was the Dresdner Bank of Switzerland, so if it's not
21        the Swiss bank, then that's fine.
23        Q    Well, what -- what -- do you remember that what
24   happened -- I can show you these records -- is that
25   Ms. Brooks --
 1             THE COURT:  You don't have to put this in this
 2        record.  It was your misstatement, apparently.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, no.  It's not a
 4        misstatement.
 5             THE COURT:  Oh, okay.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  It's not a misstatement.
 7             THE COURT:  So it was a Swiss bank.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.  It is a Swiss bank.
 9             THE COURT:  Okay.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  But what happened was --
12        Q    Do you remember that Ms. Brooks, in an August
13   deposition, identified a $500,000 payment or transfer of
14   check that the LMT had received earlier?  You remember that?
15        A    I think it was a wire transfer --
16        Q    Right.
17        A    -- as she said in her deposition.
18        Q    And then the -- then the church set the deposition
19   of Bank of America in December of 2001 to get the -- to get
20   records with regard to the LMT, concerning that transfer.
21   Do you remember that?
22        A    I don't remember the date, but I remember them
23   getting the Bank of America account.
24        Q    Right.
25             And that from the Bank of American -- from the
 1   Bank of America account of the LMT, there was a -- a -- a
 2   wire transfer document that indicated a $500,000 -- it's
 3   499,988 -- wire transfer on or about March 19th, 2001 to the
 4   LMT from the Dresdner Bank, AG branch.  Do you remember
 5   that?
 6        A    If you say so.
 7             THE COURT:  That's a different Swiss bank than
 8        the one the 500,000 and the 250 came from, right?
 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
12        Q    But AG means Switzerland, right?
13        A    I don't know.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  I've marked, your Honor, as
15        169 --
16             THE COURT:  You're going to have to tell me
17        this, because I do not know the answer to this.  AG
18        means Switzerland?
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
20             THE COURT:  What does it mean?  What is AG?
21             MR. LIROT:  I thought it meant "silver."
22             THE COURT:  Well, I don't know --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  It's -- it's the nomenclature
24        that is used -- in -- I think, in Switzerland, with
25        regard to certain corporations.
 1             MR. MOXON:  It means incorporated.  It's used
 2        in Switzerland and Germany.  "Inc." would be the
 3        United States.
 4             THE COURT:  Did you know that, Mr. Dandar?
 5             THE WITNESS:  No.  I never knew that.
 6        A    You know, this is from the Internet site.  How --
 7   what is this --
 9        Q    This is the document that was produced at the Bank
10   of America depo --
11        A    Okay.
12        Q    -- all right?
13        A    I don't -- I don't know.  I wasn't there, so --
14        Q    Right.
15             And what it shows is -- just so we can go over
16   this -- a 500 -- or 499,988 wire transfer --
17             THE COURT:  If he doesn't know anything about
18        it, there's no point in going over it.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, he was --
20             THE COURT:  He said he wasn't there.  He
21        doesn't know anything about it.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  He was at the depo.
23             THE WITNESS:  I don't think so.  It was a depo
24        that I thought did not involve me, but --
 2        Q    In any event --
 3             THE WITNESS:  Come to find out, it did.
 5        Q    In any event, what occurred after that,
 6   Mr. Dandar, was that the church in this case filed a motion
 7   for commission for deposition in a foreign state, filed the
 8   motion on February 14th, 2002, seeking permission to
 9   subpoena the Dresdner Bank AG with regard to payments by
10   Mr. Minton to LMT.
11        A    I find it curious that you didn't pursue that
12   deposition.
13        Q    Well --
14        A    It was all set up and you didn't pursue it.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Mark this, please, as the next
16        exhibit.
17             THE CLERK:  270.
18        A    So I would add that onto my list of more
19   confirmation that you had the checks already.
20             MR. MOXON:  Your Honor, Mr. Dandar objected to
21        that, and we agreed to taking it off.  And he made
22        an objection.  It was just during the whole time --
23             THE COURT:  Well, I don't know why it was taken
24        off.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, so we --
 1             MR. MOXON:  He's not testifying now.  He's
 2        making comments.  So I'm just trying to correct;
 3        that we had a hearing and he objected --
 4             THE COURT:  No.  I believe he's testifying that
 5        that is, in his mind, another aspect of why he
 6        believes that you all had the check first, and that
 7        that's why Mr. Minton changed his testimony.  That's
 8        what he's testified to.  And he's saying this
 9        doesn't change his mind at all; that is more
10        confirmation.
11             Now --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  That's 270.
13             THE COURT:  -- that's what he's testifying to.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  And this is 271, which is the
15        commission that was issued.
17        Q    Now, so what you're saying is -- is that as of
18   February 14th, 2002, you believe that the church had a copy
19   of the $500,000 check?
20             THE COURT:  This check is not even the same
21        check we're talking about.
22             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  It's a totally different
23        check.
24             THE COURT:  Right.  So yes, he's saying that.
25        That's what he said.  That's what he said before.
 1             Please don't --
 2             And this has nothing -- no bearing on that.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I'm just clarifying the
 4        record.
 5             THE COURT:  You're clarifying the record with a
 6        $500,000 check from one Swiss bank that has nothing
 7        to do with another Swiss bank check, is what
 8        Mr. Dandar's talking about.  So you really can't
 9        clarify the record.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  The point -- the point
11        was -- is that when Mr. Minton said that he was
12        nervous or the person in Europe was nervous, what
13        was going on just before that is that there was this
14        motion that was filed in order to attempt to get
15        records from the Dresdner Bank.  And what we asked
16        for was the Dresdner Bank, L.A. branch, you'll see
17        in this motion, because we didn't have any ability
18        to go to Switzerland.
19             But -- but --
20             And then there was an objection to that.
21             So the point that we were making, to clarify
22        the record, is that there would be a reason, and
23        Mr. Dandar knew it, for Mr. Minton to be nervous.
24             THE COURT:  I see.
25             THE WITNESS:  And --
 1             THE COURT:  Well, of course, we also know from
 2        this record that Mr. Minton was most aggravated that
 3        Stacy Brooks had ever told you all anything about
 4        the Swiss bank --
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 6             THE COURT:  -- right?
 7             I mean, he was beside himself --
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 9             THE COURT:  -- in -- in irritation with Stacy
10        Brooks.
11             And I guess this is -- this is what that's all
12        about, right?
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
14             THE COURT:  Because this is the check that went
15        to LMT.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  This is a wire transfer that
17        went to LMT.
18             THE COURT:  Right.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  That, pursuant to discovery, we
20        obtained.
21             THE WITNESS:  Judge, I can't -- and you said
22        something -- I need to maybe correct you or just
23        bring to your attention -- that I -- none of us know
24        if the Dresdner Bank is one of the sources --
25             THE COURT:  Oh.
 1             THE WITNESS:  -- that he used for the UBS
 2        check.
 3             THE COURT:  That's right.  Okay.  Because he
 4        took the Fifth Amendment on the source.
 5             THE WITNESS:  On all that.  Yes.
 7        Q    Right now I've put in front of you --
 8             THE COURT:  See, that's where I don't
 9        understand enough.
10             In other words, the money that goes for the UBS
11        check comes from a -- some bank.
12             THE WITNESS:  Right.
13             THE COURT:  And we don't know what that is.
14        Could be this bank, is what you're saying.
15             THE WITNESS:  Could be this bank.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I think --
17             THE WITNESS:  Could be another bank.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  I think Mr. Minton said it was
19        not this bank.  That was the one -- he did answer
20        that question.  He said it was not the Dresdner
21        Bank.  My recollection.  I could be wrong, but --
22             THE COURT:  I can't remember, but --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  In the deep recesses of my mind,
24        I think he said that.
 2        Q    In any event, I've put in front of you, I think,
 3   270 and 271.  270 is a motion for deposition in a foreign
 4   state.
 5             And if you go to page 2, number 5, you'll see
 6   paragraph 5 there is a request for an issuance of subpoena
 7   to Dresdner Bank.  You see that, Mr. Dandar?  I mean, that's
 8   what the motion is about.  The wherefore clause.
 9        A    Right.  It's to get his personal account.
10        Q    Right.
11             And then 271 is the commission that was eventually
12   signed as of March 20th, 2002, by Judge Schaeffer.  Do you
13   see that?
14        A    Yes.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  So I offer, your
16        Honor, for the record, 269, which is the Bank of
17        America record with regard to the wire transfer;
18        270, which was the motion for commission; and 271,
19        which is your order.
20             THE COURT:  All right.
21             What is 269 again?
22             MR. WEINBERG:  That was this wire transfer --
23             THE COURT:  I mean, this is -- this is an
24        Internet document?
25             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  It was produced by the Bank
 1        of America.
 2             THE COURT:  Oh.
 3             THE WITNESS:  It's definitely an Internet
 4        document, though.
 5             THE COURT:  Yeah.  Seems like it's an Internet
 6        document.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  This is the document, I'll
 8        represent, that the Bank of America produced in the
 9        deposition with regard to a subpoena concerning wire
10        transfers to the LMT.
11             THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm obviously very ignorant
12        about these types of things.  But if my order is
13        signed March the 20th of 2002 -- this little --
14        whatever you call it, on the bottom of this
15        document, is dated September 12th, 2001.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
17             THE WITNESS:  That's when the Bank of
18        America --
19             MR. WEINBERG:  That's from the bank, from
20        their --
21             In other words, there was two different
22        proceedings.  The -- the commission is to -- is to
23        get a subpoena to the Dresdner Bank.  The document
24        you're looking at is what was produced by the Bank
25        of America.
 1             THE COURT:  Okay.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  It's a totally different --
 3        there were two --
 4             THE COURT:  Okay.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  -- subpoenas.  We just followed
 6        the trail, so to speak.
 8        Q    Is there any particular reason why you didn't have
 9   Mr. Prince put in his April, 2002 affidavit that Mr. Minton
10   had supposedly told him that the church already had the
11   $500,000 check?
12        A    I didn't help or contribute to Mr. Prince's
13   affidavit at all.
14        Q    But that is -- you're now asserting that that is
15   the basis -- that is -- that is the basis for your assertion
16   that Mr. Minton has turned, because you say that Mr. Prince
17   says that Mr. Minton said that the church already had the
18   check.
19             THE COURT:  That is one of his bases.  He gave
20        a whole lot.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
22        A    You follow the money, you follow the solution.
24        Q    Okay.  Go to a different area.
25             Now, your firm recently filed a motion to strike
 1   petition to define scope of accounting and to require
 2   expedited accounting, filed by the Church of Scientology
 3   Flag Service Organization, and motion for attorneys' fees
 4   and costs in the probate court.  Do you remember?  Do you
 5   know what I'm talking about?
 6        A    Yes.
 7             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  I'm going to have this
 8        marked.  I have one question about it.
 9             THE CLERK:  272.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  272, your Honor.
11             THE COURT:  Is the -- did I allow that
12        document, the petition to define -- in other words,
13        the original request by the church in another
14        lawsuit to come into evidence in this hearing?  If I
15        did not, and this is going to come in, so is that.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I don't think anybody offered
17        it.
18             But I have a question about an --
19             THE COURT:  Well, he did.  He -- he gave it to
20        me to show the church was still trying to find out
21        what it -- how much money --
22             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
23             THE COURT:  -- he had left.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
25             I had a question about an assertion in here --
 1             THE COURT:  All right.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  -- okay?
 4        Q    Now, if you go to page 2, paragraph 5 --
 5             By the way, this is a pleading that was filed by
 6   your firm, signed by your brother, on -- doesn't even have
 7   the date on it.  But it was filed in June of 2002, is that
 8   right?
 9        A    That's what it looks like.  See my brother's --
10        Q    Apparently he didn't put the date on it.  It's
11   just June of 2002.
12             If you go to paragraph 5 on page 2, you all assert
13   in there, quote, that in paragraph 3 of the petition, Flag
14   admits that the funds loaned by Mr. Minton were to be used
15   exclusively for the expenses of the wrongful death case.
16   Thus Flag admits that there is a restriction on the funds
17   and not to be used to pay Flag."  That's what you all say
18   there, right?
19        A    That's what my brother said in this document.
20        Q    Well -- so are you -- is you -- are you and your
21   brother taking one position in this hearing, that there are
22   no restrictions on the funds, and another position in front
23   of Judge Penick?
24             THE COURT:  Counsel, that is grossly unfair.
25        This is what he's saying your position is, not his
 1        position.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  My understanding of --
 3             THE COURT:  That's what Flag admits.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  But in this -- in the
 5        proceeding, that's the position that they're taking,
 6        is that -- is that they're --
 7             THE COURT:  Well, you can't prove that by
 8        number 5.  By number 5 it says that --
 9             They're trying to state that you admit certain
10        things, and therefore, based on what you admit,
11        certain things ought to happen.  That has absolutely
12        no -- nothing to do with what he says or what he
13        thinks or anything of the sort.  It's something the
14        opposition admitted, and now they're saying you
15        can't admit something and take a contrary position.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  I guess my position would be it
17        would be difficult, I would think, in light of their
18        testimony, to take a position in probate court that
19        somehow there was a restriction on the funds,
20        given -- given Mr. Dandar's testimony.  That was my
21        only point.
22             THE COURT:  You said there was a restriction on
23        the funds.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  They're arguing that --
25        that we -- that -- that, in the probate court, the
 1        court should conclude that there's restriction on
 2        the funds, and therefore, the church can't get at
 3        them.  But in this proceeding, he says that,
 4        "There's no restriction on the funds.  I can use
 5        them any way I want to."
 6             THE COURT:  I have no idea what they argued in
 7        the probate court.  I know what this paragraph says.
 8        And what this paragraph says is that, as a lawyer,
 9        he is suggesting that you, having made an
10        admission -- not you, but the church, Flag -- having
11        made an admission, cannot now be heard to argue
12        differently.
13             It's grossly unfair to ask this lawyer if he's
14        taking a contrary position because of something that
15        his brother said you admitted in another lawsuit.
16             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  I'll --
17             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Judge.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  I'll go on.
20        Q    Now --
21             THE COURT:  And by the way, as I said, if this
22        document comes in, so does the other one.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  I didn't offer it.
24             THE COURT:  Well, then, that whole business
25        ought to be stricken.
 1             What are you folks doing over there?
 2             THE WITNESS:  We were waiting to see what the
 3        question was, I guess.  At least I was.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, I can go ahead?
 5             THE COURT:  All right.
 7        Q    Now, you have stated that -- theorized that Bob
 8   Minton was extorted and blackmailed to testify in this
 9   proceeding against you, right?
10        A    I don't think I ever called it a theory, but I
11   stated that, yes.  That's a factual statement.
12        Q    Now, you've previously, in another --
13             THE COURT:  Excuse me just for a second.
14             I don't know where it was, but there was a
15        document that was filed either by Mr. Prince as an
16        affidavit pertaining to this, or it was in your
17        motion, your brief motion, where that was alleged.
18        Because when I realized there were allegations of
19        not only perjury but extortion, that's when I felt
20        it necessary to call the state attorney's office and
21        advise them there was some serious allegations being
22        made and that I would report to them later.
23             So I don't know where that came, but you're
24        right; it came very early.  And it was in something
25        filed in opposition to what you filed alleging
 1        perjury.  Not that I didn't consider that serious,
 2        but that hit the paper.  And consequently -- I think
 3        it hit the paper --
 4             Somehow everybody, I thought, knew about it.
 5        But when I saw the extortion allegations, I thought,
 6        "Boy, I'd better notify the state so that they know
 7        that there's some serious allegations of criminal
 8        offenses --"
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
10             THE COURT:  "-- being made."
11             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
12             THE COURT:  So I saw it early on.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
15        Q    And you, Mr. Dandar -- you recall that you
16   previously, in another proceeding completely unrelated to
17   the Church of Scientology, used allegations of extortion and
18   blackmail by the Church of Scientology to seek from federal
19   magistrate Elizabeth Jenkins, protection from turning over
20   records, financial records, in relation to a rule 11
21   sanction that was issued against you.  Do you remember that?
22        A    You sure don't have any of your facts correct.
23   Let me tell what you the facts are.
24             Mr. Pope got -- representing now not only Flag,
25   but RTC, 'cause there's no corporate integrity between -- in
 1   Scientology -- got ahold of the Texas judgment against the
 2   estate and tried to domesticate that.  And that's pending
 3   before Judge Baird.
 4             In the process, he went immediately to the Middle
 5   District Court here in Tampa to get writs of garnishment
 6   against my personal bank accounts, my brother's personal
 7   bank accounts -- even though we're not on that judgment;
 8   that's against the estate -- my law firm's bank accounts;
 9   Mr. Lirot's bank accounts, and proceeded to set an emergency
10   hearing with Judge Jenkins, the magistrate in Tampa.
11             And we had to do our research, memorandums of law.
12             We went in there and we showed -- handed Mr. Pope
13   a statute -- federal statute, I believe it's 28 U.S.C.
14   section 1963, which says that a federal judgment outside of
15   the jurisdiction, which would be a Texas judgment, is not a
16   final judgment if there's an appeal pending -- which there
17   is an appeal pending -- and therefore you can't proceed the
18   way Mr. Pope was proceeding.
19             And Judge Jenkins admonished Mr. Pope, first by
20   saying, "Mr. Pope, I know who you are.  I know your
21   reputation.  And I can't believe you came into this court
22   with this type of motion, knowing that section 1963 exists."
23             And Mr. Pope said, "Judge, I just found out --
24   when Mr. Dandar handed me the law, it struck me like
25   lightning out of the blue."  That's his language.
 1             And Judge Jenkins went on to admonish Mr. Pope on
 2   how frivolous his motions were.
 3             And they used Mr. Minton's affidavits in this case
 4   to use in federal court to try to say that we were holding
 5   the estate money.  And we followed up by using Mr. Minton's
 6   truthful deposition testimony, taken three times in this
 7   case, to show the court that there was a drastic change in
 8   Mr. Minton's testimony.  And we alleged that our belief at
 9   that time, which is our belief now, that Mr. Minton had been
10   in some way coerced, extortion, under Florida law, federal
11   law, to change his testimony and lie about us the way he's
12   lying about us.
13             And that's how all of that came before the
14   magistrate who dismissed Mr. Pope's actions.  And because he
15   withdrew -- after he found out he was totally wrong on the
16   law, he withdrew his writs of garnishment.  The court then
17   found that our motion for sanctions, because of his
18   frivolous action, would be moot.
19        Q    Now, that was all interesting, but that wasn't
20   what I was asking about.
21        A    Well, I think it was, but --
22        Q    No.
23             What -- what I said was, do you recall, in a
24   proceeding completely unrelated to the Church of
25   Scientology, using allegations of blackmail and extortion
 1   against the church, about the church, to get Magistrate
 2   Jenkins to protect you from having to reveal financial
 3   information in a rule 11 proceeding that you had lost, in
 4   the case of Baker versus Alderman.  Do you remember that?
 5        A    No.  I remember Baker versus Alderman, but I don't
 6   know what in the world you're talking about.
 7        Q    All right.  Well, do you remember that -- that --
 8        A    Nor do I see how Baker has anything to do with
 9   this case.
10        Q    Well, I didn't either until I read the transcript.
11   So let me give you a copy of the transcript.
12             THE COURT:  Well, why do I care?  What does it
13        have to do with --
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I'll read -- I'll -- I'll
15        hand it up, your Honor.
16             It has to do with Mr. Dandar making allegations
17        about extortion and blackmail --
18             THE COURT:  So what?
19             MR. WEINBERG:  -- against the church.
20             THE COURT:  I mean, that's what he's done in
21        this court.  That's what this hearing is all about.
22        So he did it in some other court.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  No, but this is allegations that
24        he made back in April of '99.  The words just flow
25        off his mouth about the Church of Scientology.
 1             THE WITNESS:  I don't get it, but --
 2             THE COURT:  I don't get it either.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, your Honor --
 5        Q    What you said --
 6        A    Well, show it to me.
 7        Q    All right.
 8        A    I mean, I don't know what you're talking about.
 9             THE COURT:  Was this another attempt, by the
10        way, of the Church of Scientology to find out your
11        financial information?
12             THE WITNESS:  Absolutely.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, that is just --
14             THE COURT:  I have told you all --
15             MR. WEINBERG:  This is not true.
16             THE COURT:  -- and told you --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Your Honor, this is a
18        proceeding -- there is a rule 11 case --
19             THE COURT:  Wait a minute.  I'm talking --
20             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm sorry.
21             THE COURT:  -- about the proceeding that he
22        just told me about, that I didn't even know about.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  What --
24             THE COURT:  Were you over trying to garnish --
25        are you trying to garnish his personal --
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Remember --
 2             THE COURT:  -- accounts --
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  -- he --
 4             THE COURT:  -- to find out once again how much
 5        money he's got left?
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Remember, he complained about
 7        that a month ago.  That was when you -- when you
 8        said what you said a month ago.  He's talking --
 9        he -- this is old history.
10             No.
11             THE COURT:  Sounds to me like new history.
12             MR. WEINBERG:  No.
13             THE COURT:  Because that was what he showed me
14        then, was a document you had filed in front of Judge
15        Greer in Clearwater, to try to get this information
16        that the Second District said you couldn't get.  Now
17        this is something that's filed in the Middle
18        District of Florida.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  No.  That's --
20             THE COURT:  Ms. Jenkins is a federal magistrate
21        judge.  That's exactly right.
22             How many times do I have to tell you all, the
23        Second District has said this is unfair and it
24        shouldn't be done.
25             MR. WEINBERG:  I mean, I don't know -- I
 1        suppose --
 2             MR. FUGATE:  Judge, the questions that are
 3        being proposed to him now are about a proceeding
 4        that was long ago, before the Second District Court
 5        opinion.
 6             THE COURT:  Understand that.  That's very nice.
 7             I'm talking --
 8             MR. FUGATE:  Yes.
 9             THE COURT:  -- were you, the church, through
10        some other lawyer, obviously, because I know you all
11        wouldn't do this -- was there another church lawyer
12        trying to get to Mr. Dandar's accounts?
13             MR. FUGATE:  There was another church lawyer,
14        by the name of Wally Pope, who was trying to get the
15        judgments protected.  In fact, the pleading that
16        your Honor just spoke of was a pleading that
17        Mr. Dandar brought to the court's attention.  I
18        think, before he did, I told you -- if you'll bear
19        with me a moment -- that it was a request that the
20        information be provided, mindful of the Second
21        District order, in camera to Judge Greer, only to
22        preserve the record.  Mr. Pope can indicate that to
23        you.  And that was the issue in both of those
24        situations, was to get the money -- to get the --
25        the information preserved to protect the judgments.
 1        And that's what it was for.
 2             I've talked to Mr. Pope about it.  He believes
 3        that he did the right thing in front of Judge Greer.
 4        And still --
 5             THE COURT:  I'm sure he believes that he did
 6        the right thing in front of Judge Jenkins also, but
 7        apparently Judge Jenkins felt to the contrary.
 8             That appears to me to be another attempt to get
 9        to Mr. Dandar's finances.  So move on.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Mr. Pope will be here --
11             THE COURT:  I'm going to tell you again -- and
12        I wish you would pass this on to your other lawyers.
13             As I said, and I will say it again, I do not
14        know whether you all are telling these other
15        magistrate judges and other judges, and I don't know
16        if they care -- and that's the reason why I did this
17        order -- I very much am concerned about the
18        allegations that apparently the Second District is
19        trying to protect, which are this, and it's this and
20        it's this simply:
21             The Second District says that it appears to
22        them the church is trying to run him out of money so
23        he can't pursue his lawsuit.  And I told you all
24        that I cared about that, and therefore I was going
25        to protect that.  And therefore, I would ask you to
 1        ask your other lawyers that, at the very least, it
 2        seems to me that if there's going to be some efforts
 3        to be brought, that these other judges be advised of
 4        this -- other judges be advised of this order to see
 5        if they care.  They say they don't care, I can't
 6        make them care.
 7             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Your Honor, I hesitate to speak
 8        'cause I'm not sure I know all --
 9             THE COURT:  Well, then, don't.
10             MR. LIEBERMAN:  But let me --
11             THE COURT:  Then don't.  Because this is just
12        another request --
13             MR. LIEBERMAN:  No, it's not --
14             THE COURT:  -- to please do what I've asked.
15             MR. LIEBERMAN:  But your Honor, there is a
16        judgment against Mr. Dandar that RTC has.  It's not
17        binding --
18             THE COURT:  It's on appeal, isn't it?
19             MR. FUGATE:  No, it's not.
20             MR. LIEBERMAN:  It's not bonded.  And as far as
21        I know --
22             THE WITNESS:  Oh --
23             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- it's enforceable.
24             THE WITNESS:  -- you don't know what you're
25        talking about.
 1             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Your Honor, this did come up in
 2        this courtroom.  Your Honor said to Mr. Dandar --
 3        "Mr. Dandar, pay the judgment or they're going to
 4        try to enforce it."
 5             As far as I know, what this is about is an
 6        attempt to enforce a judgment.  Whether there are
 7        legal defenses to the enforcement or not, I don't
 8        know.  That's what I'm saying I don't know about.
 9             THE COURT:  Is the case up on appeal,
10        Mr. Dandar?
11             THE WITNESS:  It's all on appeal.
12             But this action in front of Judge Jenkins was
13        RTC's judgment against the estate only.  There's a
14        judgment against my brother and I, 'cause they
15        convinced the federal judge that we're vexatious
16        litigators, defending our client in Texas.  And we
17        bonded that, and that's on -- there is a cash bond
18        sitting in the registry of the clerk's office in the
19        Eastern District of Texas.
20             So they're not entitled to any discovery.
21             But this particular matter that Mr. Weinberg
22        brought up was on RTC versus the estate, and trying
23        to get my bank accounts and Mr. Lirot's bank
24        accounts.
25             MR. FUGATE:  Judge, that is --
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  That's not --
 2             MR. FUGATE:  That's --
 3             THE COURT:  Well, then, you don't know --
 4             Were you the lawyer in the case?
 5             MR. FUGATE:  In the --
 6             No.  As a matter of fact, we were not involved
 7        in the case.  This is a rule 11 proceeding against
 8        Mr. Dandar conducted by other counsel.  What
 9        Mr. Weinberg has is a transcript of that.
10             The question that you asked me about was the
11        pleading that came before your Honor.  And what I'm
12        telling you is that was requesting an in camera
13        submittal not to the church, not to anybody but
14        to -- to Judge Greer, to preserve it, to allow the
15        collection of a judgment if and when that became
16        appropriate.  That's all it is.
17             THE COURT:  Do you understand what the
18        allegations that have been made here, that an in
19        camera, sealed document in a court file, the
20        allegations are, would be nothing to the Church of
21        Scientology obtaining the information.  I am not
22        suggesting there's any truth to that.  Those are the
23        allegations that have been made by this side over
24        here.
25             MR. FUGATE:  I understand.
 1             THE COURT:  So you can understand why they
 2        would not be real keen about a sealed, in camera --
 3        whatever it is.
 4             MR. FUGATE:  Well, you can understand why we're
 5        not real keen about him saying, "This is a personal
 6        business loan to me," but then using the court by
 7        filing pleadings saying that it's really the
 8        estate's money and they're trying get at the
 9        estate's money to run the estate out, then he tells
10        you something totally different.
11             THE COURT:  I understand, Counselor, that he
12        said this is what you have admitted, and therefore
13        you should be not allowed to take that position, and
14        then do something different.  That has nothing to do
15        with what his admissions are.
16             I understand the allegations in this case very
17        well.
18             I know what I've said.  I've told you all, and
19        I've told him, that if he's got a personal judgment
20        out there and he doesn't pay it, you would certainly
21        be entitled to pursue it, and I couldn't help it.
22             He tells me now he's bonded that judgment.
23        That should be the end of the Church of Scientology,
24        it seems to me, in good faith, and based on the
25        Second DCA's opinions, if they care about what I
 1        think -- that should be the end of them trying to
 2        get the information on how much money Mr. Dandar has
 3        left, unless what the Second District has said is
 4        correct, and that is, you're trying to run him out
 5        of money so he can't pursue the estate's claim.
 6             I've said it before, I'm going to say it again.
 7        That's what the Second District said.  I've asked
 8        you to stay away from it.
 9             Continue.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Thank you.
11             THE COURT:  Because I'm trying to preserve the
12        integrity of what the Second District has said three
13        times now.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Let me hand this up to you, your
15        Honor.
16             MR. LIROT:  Judge, I'm going to object to this
17        transcript from 1999.  Totally unrelated to anything
18        else to do with this case.
19             THE COURT:  Well, let me see it.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  There's the transcript.  And
21        I've tabbed page 18.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  If you start on 17 at the
24        bottom, you'll see what he's talking about.  Line
25        23.
 1             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I'll be glad to talk about
 2        this.
 3             THE COURT:  What is it you're trying to get me
 4        to read?
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  I want you to read the bottom of
 6        page 17, where he's making an argument about the
 7        church --
 8             And this is a completely unrelated proceeding.
 9        Line 17.
10             THE COURT:  He says, "I'm currently involved in
11        litigation against the Church of Scientology.  They
12        follow me wherever I go."
13             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
14             THE COURT:  "I don't know if they're in this
15        courtroom or not.  They dig back in all my past,
16        starting from when I was born through college,
17        through my law career."
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
19             THE COURT:  "They have contacted every client I
20        have ever had, posing as detectives investigating
21        me."
22             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
23             THE COURT:  Is this what you want me to read?
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Yes.
25             And then he says, "They have newspapers around
 1        the country, here locally, they would like -- they
 2        have already said this in public in the St. Pete
 3        Times -- nothing better than to find something on me
 4        that they can embarrass me with, humiliate me with,
 5        or extort or blackmail me."  Period.
 6             And all I was going to ask him is, is that --
 8        Q    Those words, extort and blackmail, in relation to
 9   the Church of Scientology, came out of your mouth in a
10   completely unrelated proceeding, a rule 11 against you,
11   where some other third party was trying to collect on a
12   hundred-thousand-dollar judgment that had been entered by
13   Judge Kovakevich, and affirmed by the 11th Circuit --
14             You made that -- that argument to Judge Jenkins in
15   April of 1999, correct?
16        A    I made more than that.  I talked about --
17             THE COURT:  Yeah.
18        A    -- the --
19             THE COURT:  I think you're going to read now
20        into the record the rest of it.  "That's why,
21        without putting it in writing --"
22             MR. WEINBERG:  I'll put it in the record.  I
23        mean, I'll just mark --
24             THE COURT:  No.  We're going to put out this
25        record.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Fine.  You want me to read it?
 2             THE COURT:  "That's why, without putting it in
 3        writing, I requested this whole proceeding to be in
 4        camera; my financial affidavits to be in camera.
 5        Because they would like nothing better than to put
 6        this on the front page of the Tampa Tribune, the St.
 7        Pete Times, to further humiliate me.
 8             "In this case, these sanctions -- and I will do
 9        this, I guess, at the hearing, maybe --
10             "But this has been a nightmare, the biggest
11        humiliation, embarrassment of my entire life.  I
12        would ask the court to permit this proceeding and
13        all my financial information be closed under a
14        confidentiality order.  They can come into my law
15        office and go through all my books if they want to
16        spend their time.
17             "I only have one thing in my whole life that's
18        in my name only, and that's the stock with my
19        brother in our law firm.  Anything else, which is
20        just a house, is owned by my wife and I as tenants
21        by the entirety.  Unlike maybe some other personal
22        injury lawyers that have apartments and condos.  I
23        don't have anything.
24             "And I -- if I could just get this
25        confidentiality order, I could then --
 1             "As you know, I have blanks, as you permitted
 2        me to do, on my income."
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 4             THE COURT:  That's the whole answer to whatever
 5        was going on.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
 8        Q    And when you say it's a nightmare, you weren't
 9   talking about the church; you were talking about the rule 11
10   sanction that had been leveled against you by Judge
11   Kovakevich, correct?
12        A    Well, I settled that judgment and --
13        Q    Just -- could you just answer --
14        A    I am, if you just quit interrupting me,
15   Mr. Weinberg.
16        Q    Well --
17        A    It's not a short answer.
18        Q    Well, was -- when you said --
19             THE COURT:  Answer the question, then you may
20        explain it.
22        Q    When you say nightmare, you were talking about the
23   rule 11 sanction issued against you by Judge Kovakevich.
24        A    That's correct.  I had filed a lawsuit on a matter
25   that I was just getting into, I thought, and gotten out of
 1   after this case, an area of law.  And the Rooker-Feldman
 2   doctrine is the federal doctrine that says if you're already
 3   in state court, you can't go to federal court and litigate
 4   the same thing.
 5             We're going to be using that successfully, by the
 6   way, against RTC in Texas.
 7             But we settled that shortly after this.  And --
 8   for a fraction of what they wanted.
 9             And I wanted confidentiality because of the way
10   that my clients were being harassed by people posing as
11   detectives, telling them I was involved in illegal drugs and
12   other criminal activity.  So I wanted my financial
13   information kept confidential.
14        Q    Now, did you appeal Judge Kovakevich's order to
15   the -- to the 11th Circuit?
16             MR. WEINBERG:  And that is our Defense Exhibit
17        193, your Honor.
18             THE COURT:  Okay.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  It's the 11th Circuit opinion.
21        Q    And in that -- in that opinion, the 11th Circuit
22   says, quote, As to the award under rule 11, the district
23   court found that, quote, after a reasonable inquiry,
24   plaintiff should have believed that the pleadings he filed
25   were not well-grounded in facts and law, end quote.
 1        A    That's correct.
 2        Q    And my question to you is --
 3        A    And~--
 4        Q    -- you -- you learned this --
 5             This dates -- this case dates back to what, the
 6   late '80s and early '90s?
 7             MR. LIROT:  Judge, the -- relevance objection.
 8        I -- I don't know what facts of any similar nature
 9        of that case would have --
10             THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the
11        objection --
12             MR. LIROT:  -- on any of this --
13             THE COURT:  -- on relevance except to the
14        extent that Mr. Dandar said that the church would
15        engage in blackmail and extortion.  That was before
16        they alleged it in this case.  That's relevant.  The
17        rest of it's --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Oh, we --
19             THE COURT:  -- irrelevant.
20             MR. WEINBERG:  We've already submitted a brief
21        as to the relevance of prior rule 11 sanctions as
22        one of the factors given in the case -- the Kozal
23        (phonetic) case -- as one of the factors to consider
24        in determining what the appropriate sanction is with
25        a similar -- with -- with a sanction now.
 1             So -- so one of the --
 2             THE COURT:  I haven't seen it.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, we submitted it to you, I
 4        think, about a month ago.
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  It's in the original motion and
 6        brief, your Honor.
 7             THE COURT:  All right.
 8             MR. LIEBERMAN:  It's one of the factors, one of
 9        the factors to be considered, is whether the
10        attorney has been priorly sanctioned.
11             THE COURT:  All right.  What's a rule 11?
12             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Rule 11 is similar to the kind
13        of motion that's here.  It's in federal court.
14        It's -- what is -- has the attorney filed a
15        complaint which is not well-grounded in fact or law,
16        that -- some of those cases that we cited to you,
17        where the courts have sanctioned attorneys, and
18        authorities --
19             THE COURT:  Okay.
20             MR. LIEBERMAN:  -- for filing cases based
21        merely on speculation or on the hope that something
22        might turn up in discovery.
23             MR. LIROT:  Well, Judge, that has nothing to do
24        with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  So my objection
25        stands.
 1             THE WITNESS:  That's not what --
 2             THE COURT:  Counsel --
 3             THE WITNESS:  All right.
 4             THE COURT:  You're a witness on the witness
 5        stand.
 6             THE WITNESS:  I keep forgetting.  I'm sorry.
 7             THE COURT:  The objection's sustained.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  I'll go ahead.
10        Q    Did you contact Therese Minton before Bob Minton
11   testified in front of Judge Baird on April 19th?
12        A    No.  I contacted her after he testified, because I
13   thought there was something terribly wrong with him, and I
14   was concerned for his well-being.
15        Q    Were you trying to use Mrs. Minton to put pressure
16   on Mr. Minton not to testify against you?
17        A    No.  I was concerned for the health of Mr. Minton.
18   I thought he was going to die because of the way he was
19   talking to me about blood and death.  I wanted to make sure
20   that she and her daughters were okay, and to talk about
21   Mr. Minton lying through his teeth about me --
22             You know, there's something really bad.
23        Q    Did you actually talk to her or just leave her a
24   message?
25        A    No.  I just left a phone message saying, "I'm
 1   concerned about Bob.  Please give me a call."
 2        Q    Concerned about Bob.
 3             And then you went on into some more detail in the
 4   message?
 5        A    I don't think so.
 6        Q    All right.  Now, you met with Jesse Prince on
 7   April 14th, 2002 in the International Mall.
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    Okay.  And you knew, as a result of that meeting,
10   that -- at least as a result of that meeting, maybe as a
11   result of prior conversations -- you knew that Mr. Prince
12   was going to go to law enforcement --
13        A    I --
14        Q    -- with regard to Mr. Minton.
15        A    I urged him to go to law enforcement.
16        Q    And you also told him that you were going to talk
17   to law enforcement as well to try and save Bob and get him
18   away from Scientology?
19        A    That's right.
20        Q    And that's what Mr. Prince put in his affidavit.
21   Do you remember that?
22        A    I don't remember that, but that's the truth.
23        Q    And did you contact law enforcement?
24        A    I don't want to answer that question.
25             THE COURT:  Yes, you will.  Answer the
 1        question.
 2             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 3        A    Yes, I did.
 5        Q    And who did you contact?
 6             THE COURT:  He doesn't need to go any further
 7        than that.
 9        Q    Well, what agency?
10        A    No.
11             THE WITNESS:  I'd ask you not to force me to
12        answer that, Judge.  Please don't let me answer that
13        question.
15        Q    Well, was it your intention -- I'll ask it a
16   different way.
17             Was it your intention to try to put pressure on
18   Mr. Minton to not testify against you?  Was that what you
19   were trying to accomplish?
20        A    No.  What I was trying to accomplish is to get the
21   persons responsible for this extortion prosecuted and
22   convicted and put in jail for what they did.
23        Q    Well, did you discuss with Mr. Prince that this
24   was criminal RICO, like Mr. Prince testified?
25        A    Yes.
 1        Q    And did you give him that idea?
 2        A    I didn't give him anything.  I expressed my
 3   opinion that it's extortion and part of RICO, since it's
 4   multistate.
 5        Q    And did you -- and did you --
 6             THE COURT:  What RICO are you talking about,
 7        Counselor?
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Criminal -- state criminal
 9        RICO --
10             Well, I don't know.
12        Q    Let's ask you.
13             Were you talking about federal RICO or state RICO?
14             THE COURT:  Are you talking --
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Criminal.
16             THE COURT:  I'm very confused.
17             Are we talking about a RICO allegation made by
18        the estate of Lisa McPherson against the church or
19        are we speaking of the RICO allegation that was
20        brought up to Mr. Minton by the church?
21             MR. WEINBERG:  Totally different allegation.
22             THE COURT:  Okay.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  We're talking about --
25        Q    You were talking about --
 1             THE COURT:  Is that in his affidavit,
 2        Mr. Prince's affidavit?
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  No, but that's what he testified
 4        to in court the other day.
 5             THE COURT:  Oh.  I must have missed it.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  That he and Agent Strope talked
 7        about criminal RICO --
 8             I've got the transcript, I can review it with
 9        you.
10             THE COURT:  No.  I'm sure if it's there, it's
11        there.  I just -- it's an awful lot that's been
12        said.  I don't remember everything.
13             MR. WEINBERG:  And that's what -- I want to get
14        the RICO straight here.
16        Q    The RICO you're talking -- you were talking to
17   Mr. Prince about was some criminal charge, RICO charge,
18   against the church and Mr. Minton, right?
19        A    That's partially correct.  We talked about the
20   RICO threats Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder made in New York City
21   on March the 28th.  We talked about the RICO suit that
22   Mr. Minton showed Mr. Prince here in Florida, that he got
23   from Mr. Rosen.  And then I talked about with Mr. Prince
24   what they were doing to Bob Minton was extortion and
25   possibly a RICO.
 1        Q    What the church was doing to Bob Minton.
 2        A    Oh, absolutely.
 3        Q    Right.
 4             And you urged -- urged Mr. Prince to go to the --
 5   to law enforcement, the FDLE, to talk about bringing
 6   criminal RICO charges against the Church of Scientology and
 7   Bob Minton, right?
 8        A    I urged Mr. Prince that he should contact law
 9   enforcement, since he was a witness, and let them know what
10   he knows.
11        Q    Well, you were trying to get Mr. Minton charged
12   criminally so that he couldn't testify against you, weren't
13   you?
14        A    No.  Mr. Minton is a victim just as I am a victim.
15        Q    You were trying to get the church charged
16   criminally.
17        A    If they committed a crime, that's right.  It's my
18   duty.
19             THE COURT:  And it was your belief at that time
20        that they were committing a crime.
21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And it's more of my belief
22        now, with those notes from Ms. Yingling.
24        Q    Well, you were aware that Mr. Prince -- he said on
25   the stand that he was a friend or had a good relationship
 1   with -- with Agent Strope from the FDLE.
 2        A    Well, I --
 3        Q    You knew that?
 4        A    I heard that.  I don't -- I don't know that.
 5        Q    And -- and did --
 6             And you don't believe, by the way, that Agent
 7   Strope told Mr. Prince, as he testified, that he should
 8   deliver Agent Strope's message to Mr. Minton, that if he
 9   testified, he would in effect be charged with crimes.
10        A    I believe that.  I've never once heard a lie come
11   out of the mouth of Jesse Prince.
12        Q    And you think that's appropriate for -- for law
13   enforcement to be sending messages --
14             THE COURT:  That's irrelevant.  What -- what
15        law enforcement ought to be doing or not, whether --
16        what this witness says -- I could care less.
18        Q    Did you tell Mr. Prince to threaten Mr. Minton
19   with criminal charges if he continued to testify against
20   you?
21        A    No.
22        Q    Did you urge Mr. Prince to go talk to Mr. Minton
23   and Ms. Brooks about having talked to -- gone to law
24   enforcement?
25        A    No.  We had a lot of conversations but I don't
 1   believe that was ever said.
 2        Q    And you don't think that by Mr. Prince going to
 3   Mr. Minton, who was a witness in proceedings that were going
 4   on, and threatening him with criminal prosecution -- you
 5   don't think that that's tampering with a witness.
 6             MR. LIROT:  Objection.  That assumes facts
 7        totally not in evidence.
 8             THE COURT:  Sustained.
10        Q    Now, you have said, claimed, that the Church of
11   Scientology was trying, through this proceeding, to remove
12   you from the lawsuit to stop the trial.
13        A    That's true.
14        Q    But --
15             With this motion, right?
16        A    That's true.  I still believe it.
17        Q    All right.
18        A    And it is the truth.
19        Q    All right.  But since this case has been going on,
20   since the beginning of 1997, you, Ken Dandar, have filed bar
21   complaints against Lee Fugate, my associate, Laura Vaughan,
22   Rick Moxon, Wally Pope, Monique Yingling, Sandy Rosen, Eric
23   Lieberman, me and Michael Hertzberg, correct?
24             MR. LIROT:  Objection.  Relevance.
25             THE COURT:  Overruled.
 1             But I do think that that would be confidential,
 2        and I think that he's going to have to get some
 3        order from me to require him to answer that.
 4             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, remember, Mr. Pope had --
 5        I mean --
 6             Well --
 7             THE COURT:  Yeah.  There's a letter that
 8        Mr. Pope put on my desk, sent down here.  For some
 9        reason.  He wanted me to know that Mr. -- I never
10        have really quite understood that.  I mean, why
11        Mr. Pope sent me a letter.  A judge in another
12        case -- that -- that he had filed a lawsuit -- or he
13        filed a grievance against him.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I think all of us, all of
15        the lawyers here, who have been grieved by
16        Mr. Dandar, want you to know that.  And we want to
17        make the record very clear that --
18             THE COURT:  Well, you can waive your -- you can
19        waive -- you can say that you're willing to waive
20        it.
21             Bar grievances are confidential.  So you can
22        waive it for yourself.  You can waive -- Mr. Fugate
23        can waive it for himself.  Mr. Hertzberg isn't here,
24        but he can certainly waive it.  Ms. Yingling waive
25        it.  But I can't let you waive it for these other
 1        people.  And I don't think he can waive the
 2        confidentiality without getting himself in trouble
 3        with the bar unless I order him to answer.  And I'm
 4        not going to order him to answer without a waiver.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, let's put it a different
 6        way.
 7             THE WITNESS:  No -- I'm not in trouble with the
 8        bar now, if that's what you're --
 9             THE COURT:  No, no.
10             THE WITNESS:  Okay.
11             THE COURT:  I'm saying you're not supposed to
12        disclose bar complaints.  They're confidential until
13        there's a finding of probable cause.
14             Aren't they?  I don't know.
15             MR. FUGATE:  No.
16             THE COURT:  I haven't been a lawyer in a long
17        time.
18             MR. FUGATE:  No, your Honor.
19             As a matter of fact, I thought so.  And when
20        this came up and I spoke with Mr. Pope and he asked
21        me to -- I'm the one that actually brought the
22        letter down and gave it to your Honor.  He had
23        checked with the bar and determined that -- that you
24        can provide those.
25             The proceedings themselves, once they begin, I
 1        think, are -- are -- if it's a committee, is not
 2        public.  But if there's a -- actually a hearing,
 3        those are public.
 4             He checked with the bar on that.  And I think
 5        the reason for it is there are accusations that are
 6        made against the lawyers, where he followed the
 7        rules of professional conduct, called the bar, and
 8        they said, "Send the transcript.  You have an
 9        obligation to do it."  And from that, there is now
10        yet another bar complaint filed -- or a letter from
11        Mr. Dandar that basically accuses all of the
12        lawyers, inclusive of the ones named by Mr. --
13             THE COURT:  An awful lot of talk here.
14             MR. FUGATE:  Yes.
15             THE COURT:  I'm making this comment.  I think a
16        bar complaint is confidential until some point in
17        time.  If it's not, it certainly ought to be.  If
18        you all want to waive your confidentiality, he can
19        answer that question.
20             Suffice it to say that I'm very aware both
21        sides have filed bar complaints against the other.
22        Very simple.  So for whatever that's worth, I'm
23        aware of that.  You all have made it --
24             MR. FUGATE:  All right.
25             THE COURT:  Very well known in these
 1        proceedings.
 3        Q    The answer to my question is yes?
 4             THE COURT:  I don't want him to answer that
 5        unless I'm confident that he -- you have to have an
 6        order from me to answer that if they're
 7        confidential, if that information is confidential.
 8        And I'm not prepared to give it unless these people
 9        waive their confidentiality.
10             Did you file a complaint --
11             I take it you're willing to waive it?
12             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
13             THE COURT:  Did you file a complaint against
14        Mr. Weinberg?
15             THE WITNESS:  I may have included him in a
16        letter that I responded to Mr. Pope's complaint
17        against me, for calling me a perjurer.  Then I
18        brought up the -- my allegation or my belief of
19        extortion that caused Mr. Minton to change.  And I
20        said that, "These -- all these attorneys are -- are
21        all behind pursuing me with Mr. Minton's new
22        testimony, and I think the bar should investigate
23        this whole matter --"
24             THE COURT:  All right.
25             THE WITNESS:  "-- because there's something
 1        wrong."
 2             THE COURT:  Mr. Fugate, you waive
 3        confidentiality?
 4             MR. FUGATE:  Absolutely.
 5             THE COURT:  You filed a complaint against
 6        Mr. Fugate?
 7             THE WITNESS:  A long time ago.
 8             Yes.
 9             THE COURT:  Yes?
10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.
11             THE COURT:  Have you had a complaint --
12             You want to waive confidentiality?
13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
14             THE COURT:  Have you filed -- had a complaint
15        filed against you by the other side?
16             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Many.  Many, many.  Many.
17             THE COURT:  All right.  And that's all that can
18        waive.
19             In other words --
20             Oh, Mr. Moxon, you want to waive?
21             MR. MOXON:  Yes, your Honor.
22             THE COURT:  Mr. Moxon waives.
23             You filed a complaint against Mr. Moxon.
24             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
25             THE COURT:  Okay.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Mr. Lieberman.
 2             THE COURT:  Mr. Lieberman?
 3             Have you filed a complaint --
 4             You want to waive?
 5             MR. LIEBERMAN:  Sure.
 6             THE WITNESS:  I don't remember filing a
 7        complaint against --
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, let me just read what you
 9        said.  One sentence --
10             THE COURT:  I don't want you to read stuff if
11        it involves any other lawyers --
12             MR. WEINBERG:  It doesn't have --
13             THE COURT:  -- not part of this proceeding.
14             MR. WEINBERG:  -- a name.  It's what he just
15        staid.
17        Q    "I demand that the bar take a broad approach and
18   encompass all of the attorneys involved in litigating
19   against the estate of Lisa McPherson."
20             I mean that was in this letter.  That you wanted
21   the -- your complaint with regard to Mr. Pope extended to
22   all of us that are involved in this proceeding.
23        A    That's what I testified just two seconds --
24        Q    So --
25        A    -- ago.
 1        Q    So there isn't any other complaint made against
 2   me; it was just this most recent one in the July letter to
 3   the bar, correct?
 4        A    As far as I can remember as I sit here.
 5        Q    All right.
 6             THE COURT:  I would assume, Counselor, if any
 7        lawyer thought another lawyer was involved in
 8        extortion and blackmail, the lawyer would have an
 9        obligation to turn that lawyer in to the bar.  Just
10        as I would assume that if you believe that a lawyer
11        is involved in perjury and suborning perjury, you
12        would have an obligation to turn him in to the bar.
13             Therefore, both sides have made serious
14        allegations against lawyers on the other side, and
15        both sides have turned those lawyers in to the bar.
16        Which is probably the appropriate thing to do under
17        the rules, as I know them.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  May I talk to
19        Mr. Fugate for one second?
20             THE COURT:  Madam Clerk, while we're waiting
21        here a minute, did you ever find out what
22        Mr. Dandar's exhibit was, that would have the
23        affidavit of Ms. Sandra Anderson?
24             THE CLERK:  Yes.  That was Number 187.
25             THE COURT:  I'm sorry?
 1             THE CLERK:  Plaintiff's 187.
 2             THE COURT:  So this would be -- what did we
 3        decide -- 187-B?
 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  It seems to me that that would
 6        make sense --
 7             THE COURT:  Okay.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  -- so --
 9             THE COURT:  This would be 187-B.  This is the
10        notice of filing of the deposition of Sandra
11        Anderson.  If you want to put that along with 187.
12             Did you also find the document that I indicated
13        would now be in evidence, that was not in evidence?
14             THE CLERK:  Yes.  On the --
15             THE COURT:  Was a letter?
16             THE CLERK:  Letter from Miscavige to McCabe.
17             THE COURT:  Yes.
18             THE CLERK:  Yes, I did.
19             THE COURT:  Number?
20             THE CLERK:  Plaintiff's Number 128.
21             THE COURT:  For the record, then, Number 128 is
22        now in evidence.
23             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm going to have --
24             THE COURT:  I think that's all the --
25             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.  Can I have this marked?
 1             THE COURT:  Yes.
 2             THE CLERK:  273.
 3             MR. WEINBERG:  This would be 273.
 4             THE COURT:  All right.
 6        Q    This would be 273.
 7             Now, is that the -- is 273 the letter dated
 8   July 22nd, 2002 that you recently wrote to the bar in
 9   response to Mr. Pope's letter of June 19th, 2002?
10        A    Yes.
11        Q    And if you go to page 5 of the letter, the third
12   paragraph --
13             THE COURT:  You seem to insist on wanting to
14        violate what I presume is somebody else's right to
15        confidentiality that a complaint has been made
16        against them.
17             I can't let this in evidence.
18             MR. WEINBERG:  Well --
19             MR. FUGATE:  Judge, if you mean Mr. Pope, I --
20             THE COURT:  I mean Mr. Pope, but I mean
21        Ms. Yingling, and I mean others that are in here --
22        I'm not going to say more -- if their names have
23        been mentioned -- that are mentioned by name that
24        have some right to confidentiality about a grievance
25        being filed against them.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, let me -- I think I can
 2        deal with that without causing a problem for -- in
 3        the area that you're concerned --
 4             THE COURT:  Either that, or call them on the
 5        telephone to see if they're willing to waive the
 6        confidentiality, then I'll have no problem with it.
 7             All of them except the church, I take it.
 8             MR. FUGATE:  Absolutely, Judge.
 9             And I can tell you that Mr. Pope is the person
10        that gave me the copy, and he has already authorized
11        that -- he is waiving -- if there is
12        confidentiality, which he doesn't believe, he's
13        waiving it, and --
14             THE COURT:  Well, I'm afraid -- I don't know
15        the answer.  There used to be lawyers got protected
16        against --
17             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, things changed because
18        there was concern in the public -- and I'm not an
19        expert on this --
20             THE COURT:  Okay.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  -- but there was concern in the
22        public the bar was being too secretive about matters
23        like this.
24             THE COURT:  Well, you hold this till after
25        lunch, and in the meantime, you call Ms. Yingling --
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
 2             THE COURT:  And I'm not going to say any more
 3        lawyers on the record.  There are other lawyers
 4        mentioned on the record (sic).  Call them and see if
 5        they have a problem with this being --
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  I will.
 7             THE COURT:  -- discussed in open court.  If
 8        they have any confidentiality, if they want to waive
 9        it, then I have no problems.
10             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
11             And I really don't have any more lawyers' names
12        to talk about.  I just had questions about some of
13        the things that Mr. Dandar said in this letter that
14        relate to this proceeding.
15             If you'll read it you'll see --
16             THE COURT:  You may want to introduce it, and
17        if you do, I've got a problem with it --
18             MR. WEINBERG:  I understand.
19             THE COURT:  -- with these named people --
20             It's a very simple thing.  Just --
21             MR. WEINBERG:  No --
22             THE COURT:  -- see if they have --
23             MR. WEINBERG:  Well, I have -- yeah, we'll call
24        Ms. Yingling because I think she may be the --
25             THE COURT:  There's another lawyer in there and
 1        I want them all called.  Any lawyer that's mentioned
 2        by name in here that may have a right of
 3        confidentiality, I want to make sure they'll waive
 4        it.
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  That would be Sandy
 6        Rosen --
 7             THE COURT:  Well, now that's out on the record.
 8        I was trying to save him --
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm a moron.
10             THE COURT:  -- if he wanted to be saved --
11             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm not --
12             THE COURT:  -- so --
13             MR. WEINBERG:  I'm a moron.
14             THE COURT:  Yes.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
16             THE COURT:  That was -- that was not good.
17             MR. WEINBERG:  That was not good.
18             All right.  I didn't do that --
19             Shall we -- you want us to break now?
20             THE COURT:  Yes.
21             MR. WEINBERG:  We'll make these calls?
22             THE COURT:  I do.  It's five minutes to 11
23        (sic).  Be a good time to break.
24             MR. WEINBERG:  Okay.
25             THE COURT:  Make those calls, see if they have
 1        any problem.
 2             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.  Okay.
 3             THE COURT:  And if they don't --
 4             Let me just make sure -- see if there's anybody
 5        else.
 6             MR. WEINBERG:  I won't name the other names,
 7        but --
 8             THE COURT:  Don't name them.
 9             MR. WEINBERG:  -- I think that may be the only
10        one.
11             THE COURT:  Mr. Fugate mentioned one that he
12        obviously said he could waive it for, because he
13        made a statement about it, so I'll assume that that
14        takes care of that one.
15             MR. WEINBERG:  Right.
16             THE COURT:  Anyway, I don't need to read it
17        right now.  You all just look through here, see if
18        there's lawyers named.
19             MR. WEINBERG:  All right.
20             THE COURT:  You don't have a problem with it,
21        Mr. Dandar, right?
22             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't.
23             THE COURT:  All right.  And -- so both sides
24        just look and see if there's lawyers' names are
25        mentioned.
 1             MR. WEINBERG:  Fine.
 2             THE COURT:  You mean there's not -- you mean
 3        any old complaint that's filed against a lawyer now
 4        is just public record as soon as it's filed?
 5             MR. WEINBERG:  I think -- well --
 6             THE COURT:  We're off the record now.  We're
 7        done.
 8             MR. WEINBERG:  Off the record.
 9             THE COURT:  We're off the record.
10             (A discussion was held off the record.)
11             THE COURT:  1:15.
12               (A recess was taken at 12:00 p.m.)
 2                    REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 4   STATE OF FLORIDA         )
 6             I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was
     authorized to and did stenographically report the
 7   proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and
     complete record of my stenographic notes.
               I further certify that I am not a relative,
 9   employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
     I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or
10   counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially
     interested in the action.
12   WITNESS my hand and official seal this 17th day of July,
13   2002.
15                             ______________________________
                               DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index