Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 43 1 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 4 5 6 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 7 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 8 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. VOLUME 2 11 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 12 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 13 Defendants. 14 _______________________________________/ 15 16 17 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 18 CONTENTS: Testimony of Monique Yingling. 19 DATE: June 12, 2002, morning session. 20 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building 21 St. Petersburg, Florida. 22 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 23 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, 24 Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida. 25
44 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff. 5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 7 Attorney for Plaintiff 8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 11 MR. LEE FUGATE and 12 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 13 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 14 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 15 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 16 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 17 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 18 Organization. 19 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor 20 New York, New York 10003 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 21 Organization. 22 MR. LANSING C. SCRIVEN 442 W Kennedy Blvd Ste 280 23 Tampa Florida 33606-1464 Attorney for Michael Garko. 24 25
45 1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 2 PAGE LINE 3 Recess 114 15 CROSS Mr. Dandar 127 20 4 Recess 178 8 Recess 199 14 5 Reporter's Certificate 200 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
46 1 THE COURT: Good morning. Are we ready to get 2 started? 3 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 5 MR. FUGATE: We're going to have to get another 6 binder, but that's June 10th. 7 THE COURT: Thank you. 8 Ms. Yingling, you want to resume the stand? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: You may continue. 11 MR. WEINBERG: The first thing I wanted to 12 address, your Honor, is the request to produce the 13 . 14 THE COURT: Okay. I haven't seen that, but I 15 guess -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I just wanted -- well, I 17 wanted to say something. And I may make this easy. 18 I'm not sure why, but the -- I believe what 19 Mr. -- whoever it was yesterday -- Mr. Howie -- that 20 these notes -- that notes of the lawyers are work 21 product. And I really believe that. And -- and I 22 really don't think that it is appropriate for them 23 to be produced. 24 But Mr. Rosen's -- some of his notes were 25 produced, and some of -- of Mr. Jonas's notes were
47 1 produced. And we're prepared to produce the notes 2 of Ms. Yingling from the 28th and 29th, on the 3 condition, however, that -- that we object; that -- 4 I mean, this should not be viewed as any waiver of 5 any work product whatsoever. 6 Ms. Yingling is here answering questions about 7 what happened in these meetings, and these notes 8 reflect her notes of what she heard at the meeting. 9 But I want to make sure that by producing the notes 10 that I have not set some precedent that my notes or 11 Mr. Fugate's notes or anybody else's notes, you 12 know, ought to be produced. Because I don't think 13 they should be produced. 14 So with that condition and that understanding, 15 we will produce the notes. 16 And I wanted to review some of them with 17 Ms. Yingling, because this is actually -- her 18 secretary, as is her practice, took her notes and 19 typed them. And there's -- you know. So this is a 20 typed thing, but -- 21 THE COURT: All right. I would think this is a 22 most unusual hearing. And frankly, the other notes 23 that were produced were produced for a very obvious 24 purpose, which was that the witness couldn't 25 remember and we thought the notes might help. The
48 1 lawyers didn't object. And I think they probably 2 are helpful. 3 Certainly this is no precedent even to remotely 4 think in the future or at any other hearing that a 5 lawyer's notes should just normally be produced. 6 You're right. Normally that is something that is 7 work product, is not produced. 8 If you're willing to and if it's helpful, 9 that's fine. It is not precedent. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And I take it that's 11 the -- it's not precedent and that's -- 12 MR. DANDAR: No. We agree it's not precedent. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. DANDAR: And I believe, though, we asked 15 more than just the March 28th and 29th. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, you're not getting any 17 more than March 28th and 29th. I'm producing the 18 March 28th and 29th notes. 19 MR. DANDAR: I think the April 6th and 7th 20 notes would be very pivotal. That's when things 21 really changed. 22 THE COURT: I just wonder under what theory you 23 think you're entitled to lawyers' notes. 24 MR. DANDAR: I don't care about the lawyers' 25 mental impressions. What I care about are their
49 1 notetaking of what they're saying to Mr. Minton, 2 which is not privileged, and what Mr. Minton is 3 saying back to them, since a lawyer is not present 4 on April 6th and 7th. And of course, April 28th and 5 29th is the same reason they're talking. It's not a 6 privileged communication if they're taking down 7 notes of what's being said back and forth. 8 I think it's very important. 9 MR. WEINBERG: First of all, there are no notes 10 of April 6th and 7th. And I want to -- Ms. Yingling 11 will confirm there are no notes of April 6th and 12 7th. 13 THE WITNESS: The only notes I have are from 14 the meetings in New York on the 28th and 29th. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Beyond that, I don't think, if 17 there were notes, that those should be produced at 18 this time. I think those are work product. 19 THE COURT: Well, I don't think we need to 20 worry about that. 21 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 22 THE COURT: I try never to make rulings I don't 23 have to make. They've said there aren't any, and 24 that's -- 25 MR. DANDAR: We also requested notes from the
50 1 Church of Scientology. And Mr. Rinder was there. 2 So if counsel can say there are no notes from him 3 either, then I'll sit down. 4 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not -- 5 MR. DANDAR: I'll sit down anyway. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not speaking for Mr. Rinder, 7 so -- I don't know. 8 THE COURT: Then we'll deal with that motion to 9 produce at the appropriate time. 10 MR. WEINBERG: All right. Let me hand these -- 11 Should I mark these? Well, she's not here. 12 But when she comes, I should mark it? 13 THE COURT: I think so, because the other sets 14 have been marked. 15 MR. WEINBERG: When she comes we'll put a 16 number on it. 17 MR. FUGATE: She may have her list that'll tell 18 us what the number is. 19 No, she doesn't. 20 THE COURT: I would hesitate to be so bold -- 21 Yesterday the set of notes from Mr. Rosen was 22 Defendant's 185, but I don't remember if anything 23 was admitted after that or not, so -- 24 MR. FUGATE: I don't either. 25 THE COURT: Oh, and by the way, I finally got
51 1 around to reading the paper last night. I always 2 read the paper in the morning but I didn't have time 3 yesterday. 4 Mr. Dandar, I see where you said to the 5 reporter that the trial, it was scheduled for April, 6 and then you were quoted as saying probably 7 September. 8 MR. DANDAR: Well, that's -- I was -- you said 9 that -- or I said it was going to be hopefully in 10 August, but most likely in September, because I 11 think that's what you told us. 12 THE COURT: Well, I set it for August, and I 13 said to you all if you could see that that was not 14 going to happen, if there was a trial, that it 15 wasn't going to happen in August, I need to know as 16 soon as possible. Because I don't want to set it 17 for August and I -- and then find out that you all 18 can't be ready in August, if the trial goes at all. 19 If you -- if we can't be ready for August, if that's 20 unrealistic, we need to move it now to September. 21 MR. DANDAR: Would August trial jury selection 22 start the second week of August? 23 THE COURT: The second week of August. 24 MR. DANDAR: I don't see -- 25 THE COURT: Although the chief judge is asking
52 1 me to consider setting a special trial week, which 2 would have to be the third week in August, most 3 likely. 4 MR. WEINBERG: It would be very nice if we were 5 to, for whatever reason, because of -- 6 THE COURT: Bring in a special panel. Because 7 it's -- 8 Frankly, like I told you before, my preference 9 would be to probably bring in panels every day, 10 because my intention will be to use my ability to 11 weed out early on. In other words, "How many of you 12 all can be here for the next two months?" That's 13 going to weed out a whole bunch of folks that are 14 going to have legitimate reasons why they can't be 15 here for two months. 16 I'll handle some publicity stuff if we get 17 there. 18 So I prefer, on cases like that, to have panels 19 every day, and then once we get a real legitimate 20 panel, then we can, you know, let the lawyers pick. 21 MR. DANDAR: The plaintiff would -- is -- the 22 preference of the plaintiff is to start as soon as 23 possible. If that is the third week of August 24 rather than the first week of August -- 25 THE COURT: Not the first week.
53 1 MR. DANDAR: All right. 2 THE COURT: The most it can be is the second 3 week. And I've told you that. 4 MR. DANDAR: All right. 5 THE COURT: That's when the jury trial week is. 6 MR. DANDAR: Then we would urge the court to 7 put it on the second week. 8 THE COURT: That's when it's set. 9 MR. DANDAR: All right. 10 THE COURT: But as I said when I read that, 11 you're saying probably September, I'm wondering, 12 well, wonder if you know something I don't. 13 MR. DANDAR: No. I was just going by what you 14 said, Judge. You said to let you know right away if 15 we're not going to start in August, because you 16 would be really upset to have it set and not start. 17 And I'm urging the court and I -- we're ready 18 to go the second week of August. 19 THE COURT: Well, if there's a trial, then it 20 will remain set the second week of August. 21 MR. DANDAR: All right. 22 MR. WEINBERG: But it would have been nice to 23 spend a little time in August doing -- doing 24 something other than being in trial. But if that's 25 it, that's it.
54 1 You know, I think the other exhibit -- I was 2 looking at my list. And I keep a list of exhibits. 3 But when I was -- I marked two things in front of -- 4 for Dr. Garko: The letter -- 5 THE COURT: Yes. 6 MR. WEINBERG: -- and the agreement. So I 7 think after that, that would be the last two things, 8 so -- 9 THE COURT: Well, we'll just -- we'll say -- 10 we'll say they're Number 188 then. 11 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I think it's going to 12 ultimately be 191, but we'll check with the clerk. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Whatever. When the clerk -- 14 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Scriven -- there were these I 15 think that also went in with Mr. Garko -- 16 THE COURT: Doesn't matter. Let's just call 17 them the notes. 18 MR. FUGATE: Okay. 19 BY MR. WEINBERG: 20 Q I'm showing you what will ultimately have some 21 exhibit number on it -- 22 THE COURT: Mm-hmm. 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q -- which is entitled Notes for Meeting in Sandy 25 Rosen's Office.
55 1 And can you, first, Ms. Yingling describe what 2 this 14-page document is? 3 A This is a transcription of notes that I took 4 during the meetings in -- in New York on March 28th and 5 March 29th. 6 As is my usual practice, if I take notes at a 7 meeting, I leave them for my secretary to type. And she 8 does a pretty good job with my handwriting. But you will 9 see that this is full of typographical errors, and also 10 transcription errors. I have not edited them in any way. 11 This is exactly how they came off the machine. 12 And so just if you just look at the top, I 13 probably said "notes from" or "notes of" as opposed to 14 "notes for," because they certainly weren't notes done in 15 anticipation. And -- and then the second name is -- says 16 "Mike Rosen," when in actually it was Mike Rinder. And the 17 third name says "Stephen Jones" when in actuality it was 18 "Stephen Jonas." I believe Stacy Brooks' name may be 19 spelled wrong. 20 And I think throughout we'll see that there are 21 lots of typographical errors, and some transcription errors 22 as well. 23 Q All right. If you could just sort of look at the 24 March -- the notes from March 28, 2002. 25 And let me first ask you, during the meeting, were
56 1 you primarily taking notes as opposed to being the speaker? 2 A I didn't speak very much during the meeting, so -- 3 Q And if you -- if you look at this when it says, 4 "The Mike Rinder list," is that what you were trying to 5 describe yesterday was sort of how the meeting started, when 6 Mike Rinder listed a number of things that he wanted to 7 accomplish in the meeting? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And when it says, like, "Mike Rinder list, number 10 1, O/S," what is that? 11 A Outstanding litigation. 12 Q And when you get to number 2 and it says, 13 "Declarations and affidavits, Jesse, Stacy, Vaughn, in order 14 to not have been used in the future," and it says, "Mike 15 Rinder, question of how to do it more than principle --" I 16 guess "principle" is misspelled there, probably, right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q What did that mean? 19 A It meant what I had testified to yesterday: That 20 this was a concern that there were declarations and 21 affidavits that had been prepared by witnesses that the 22 church believed Mr. Minton controlled, because he had paid 23 them to write these affidavits. And that as part of any 24 overall disengagement, there would have to be some 25 resolution of these affidavits so that they could not pick
57 1 up -- or pop up in future litigation and cause the parties 2 to become in controversy again. 3 Q If you go to page 2, after -- 4 THE COURT: Again, I would assume since this is 5 Mr. Rinder speaking, this is Mr. Rinder's opinion, 6 that he felt they had been paid, and therefore -- 7 THE WITNESS: Oh, absolutely, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Right. 9 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. This was the 10 church's view -- 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 THE WITNESS: -- yes, your Honor. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q I want to make this clear. Have you been through 15 your notes, and these notes basically reflect what -- 16 what -- what you believe you heard during the meeting, is 17 that right? 18 A Yes. Although I may well have interpreted things 19 because of my knowledge of the subject area -- 20 Q Right. 21 A -- or my knowledge of the church or whatever. So 22 in that sense, it's -- I wasn't just taking down word for 23 word. It was my interpretation of -- of what was going on, 24 and my impressions as well. 25 Q Okay. Well, at the top of the second page, when
58 1 it says, "Parameters of settlements: Mutual releases, no 2 funding," and then it says, "No stirring of press, et 3 cetera," what does that mean? What did you take -- what was 4 Mr. Rinder talking about? 5 A That there would be no public statements made 6 by -- by either side about the views or opinions of the 7 other. 8 Q Okay. Now, under the -- on the paragraph that 9 says, "Mike Rinder thinks BM --" 10 Obviously BM is Bob Minton, is that right? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Okay. And now SJ -- that would be Steve Jonas? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q Okay. And -- and you indicate there that -- that 15 Steve Jonas, "best to hear specifics of litigation, then 16 they should caucus." And that pretty much reflects what you 17 had recalled yesterday, that they let you set forth your 18 position and they went and talked before they said anything? 19 A Right. They wanted to hear what our view was of 20 the litigation that Bob Minton was involved in. 21 Q Now -- now in the notes, the next thing says Sandy 22 Rosen. And -- and what is that? Is it -- is this the part 23 of the meeting where Mr. Rosen then goes through the various 24 cases? 25 A That's correct.
59 1 Q Okay. And it says, "This is list of what Bob 2 Minton has caused either by funding or providing Ws --" is 3 that witnesses? 4 A Yes, it is. 5 Q "-- et cetera." 6 And was that essentially what Mr. Rosen said; 7 that -- that we believe -- whether they're right or not, we 8 believe that Mr. Minton has given money or has provided 9 witnesses that have caused this litigation to take place and 10 caused ultimately damage to the church? 11 A Yes. And he did specifically use the word 12 "damage." I don't know if it's in the notes, but I do 13 remember his saying that this was a -- the church's 14 estimation of the damage that Mr. Minton had caused. 15 Q Now, on the -- it says, "Wrongful death." And 16 it's got some numbers there. What are those numbers? 17 A What Mr. -- Mr. Rosen did was provide an estimate 18 of the amount that the church had expended to date, which 19 would have been the A category with respect to whatever the 20 subject matter was, and an estimate of additional amounts 21 that would be spent if the matters continued to go forward. 22 Q Okay. And then it indicates that, "Motion being 23 prepared to bring Minton into case," and then it talks about 24 Judge Schaeffer's comment, "Provides copy of motion." Do 25 you recall what that was?
60 1 A That had to do with the counterclaim and the 2 question of adding Mr. Minton as a defendant to the 3 counterclaim. And I believe Mr. Rosen explained that Judge 4 Schaeffer had made the comment, I believe, from the bench, 5 to the effect that she believed Minton should be added to 6 the counterclaim, and that if the church didn't do it, 7 perhaps she would. 8 Q Okay. And then the next case was the breach case. 9 And there was some suggestion -- where it says, "Breach at 10 BM's request," at Minton's request, the implication at least 11 from Mr. Rosen was that -- is that the breach was caused by 12 Minton, or that was the church's belief? 13 A That's correct. 14 THE COURT: I think -- I think, you know, some 15 of this is fairly obvious, based on what she 16 testified to yesterday. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 18 THE COURT: I mean, this -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not going to go through it 20 all. 21 THE COURT: Good. Because if she wants to be 22 out of here by 4, I want to make sure Mr. Dandar has 23 his time and -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: No. I just wanted to get a 25 start --
61 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. WEINBERG: -- then I was going to skip 3 ahead. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q If you go to page 3, under, "Wollersheim --" 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- where it says LW, is that Larry Wollersheim? 8 A Yes, it is. 9 Q Is that what that is? 10 Okay. And then under Henson, where it says KH, 11 that would be Keith Henson. 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Those are his initials? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And then also under Henson, it says, "Barry." 16 That would be the lawyer Graham Berry? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And DC. Maybe I'm not -- what's DC, do you know? 19 A No, I don't. 20 Q You think it might be DL, Dan Leipold? 21 A It could be. It could be a typographical error. 22 Q Okay. And then down under Ward, there's some 23 initials there, FG and DL. Would that be Ford Greene and 24 Dan Leipold? 25 A That's correct.
62 1 Q Okay. All right. If you go to page 5, under the 2 Nonlitigation Cases Demonstrations, et cetera, this is what 3 you're talking about yesterday was the whole category that 4 didn't have anything to do with -- with actual cases, but 5 was more expenses that the church said they had to -- to -- 6 had to expand, is that right? 7 A Yes. And -- and primarily the -- the security 8 expenses had to do with picketing that Mr. Minton was 9 involved in, or had organized, or the church believed that 10 he had organized, and -- and money that the church had paid 11 for security for their staff and -- 12 Q Okay. 13 A -- and their property in those situations. 14 Q Now, if you look toward the bottom of that page -- 15 THE COURT: What page are you on, Mr. -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: Page 5. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Under Nonlitigation Cases. 19 THE COURT: Yes. 20 MR. WEINBERG: And if you go, Judge, there is 21 an SR. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q It says, "SR purpose. Magnitude of what Bob 24 Minton involved in." And right under that are the initials 25 SJ, which is Mr. Jonas. And that would indicate that
63 1 Mr. Jonas said something, is that right? 2 A Yes. That's correct. 3 Q And would this be sort of the end of Mr. Rosen's 4 presentation? 5 A Yes. I believe so. Then there were some 6 questions that Mr. Jonas asked about some of the litigation. 7 Q Okay. Specifically, can you just look where it 8 says, "Steve Jonas, two purposes. Magnitude re RICO case," 9 which is referred to earlier with the $40,000 research, "and 10 out-of-pocket costs. We get that." Do you recall what 11 that -- what Mr. Jonas was saying there? 12 A What he was saying -- what happened was Bob Minton 13 asked for a total of -- of what the -- of what the damages 14 were that had been -- had been recounted by -- by Mr. -- 15 Mr. Rosen. And I recall that Mr. -- Mr. Jonas sort of 16 dismissed him and said, "Oh, we don't need a total. We know 17 why they're giving you these amounts." It would show -- you 18 know, they said that they -- they had done some research 19 about a RICO case, and this would give them some measure of 20 damages. And also they're trying to tell you how much money 21 they've actually spent from things that you've been involved 22 in. 23 So it was sort of his response to Bob Minton and 24 cutting Bob Minton off when he -- when he asked for a total. 25 Q Okay. Now, if you go to the next page, where it
64 1 says -- there's this break. And then is this when Mr. Jonas 2 comes back and starts laying forth or setting forth what 3 their position is? 4 A That's -- that's correct. 5 Q Now, specifically, under Wrongful Death, is 6 this -- is this what Mr. Jonas is saying, "When you say no 7 money or other support, withdrawal of JP," which I assume is 8 Jesse Prince, is that right? "And SB," which is Stacy 9 Brooks, "affidavits; commit not to be witnesses; effort to 10 try to exert influence over Dandar and Liebreich to resolve 11 matter," is that notes of what Mr. Jonas said? 12 A Yes. That is what Mr. Jonas said that they would 13 have no problem doing. 14 Q And then he -- he -- but he adds, but he can't 15 commit to making the case go away. 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Okay. Now, on page 7, where -- skipping down a 18 little bit, it says "Affidavits. Commit to no further 19 affidavits." 20 If Mr. Jonas -- is it your recollection -- do 21 these notes reflect that Mr. Jonas is saying they would 22 agree they wouldn't be providing any more affidavits in 23 these cases? 24 A I believe so. 25 Q And was it -- was -- and during this meeting, did
65 1 it -- was Mr. Jonas -- you know, with regard to this and 2 some other things we've seen in the notes, appear to be 3 speaking not only for Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton but also 4 for -- for Jesse Prince? 5 A Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton, certainly. But at 6 the -- at the outset, there had been some discussion earlier 7 on where Mr. Jonas said that of the people that we were 8 concerned about, with respect to affidavits and so on, that 9 they couldn't control all of those people, but they could 10 control Jesse Prince and -- and Stacy Brooks. And probably 11 Grady Ward, was my recollection. Those three. 12 Q Now, a little bit further, down right before 13 the -- the Ward section on page 7, we start -- there is a 14 reference to LW or Larry Wollersheim. "Need to skip over 15 this issue for the moment. Haven't decided what could be 16 done or what commitment." And then -- and then there is 17 this -- and I wanted to ask you about it -- "BM," or Bob 18 Minton, "has money in LW," or Larry Wollersheim, "case, and 19 looking to get it back. Doesn't know how. Could be 20 assignment to us of lien and then we pay 750,000 to him, end 21 quote, some form." 22 What is that that Mr. Jonas was saying? 23 A Mr. Jonas was talking in general about the Larry 24 Wollersheim case, and didn't know exactly what Bob Minton 25 could do to try to help resolve this matter. So I had said
66 1 yesterday this is a matter that the church had been trying 2 to settle for some time. And -- by paying the total 3 judgment. And Mr. Wollersheim had refused to accept 4 payment. And -- and Mr. Minton didn't know what he could do 5 to help, but he -- Mr. Jonas made the suggestion that 6 somehow Bob Minton wanted his money out of the case, and 7 that maybe the church should pay him. That's what that was 8 there. 9 Q Okay. You go to page 8, there is -- it says, 10 "Steve Jonas sort of in the middle. SJ, what they need." 11 And then under that it says, "Withdrawal of all claims, 12 investigations, et cetera, re Bob Minton's activities in 13 Nigeria caused the withdrawal of claims brought by the 14 Nigerian government." Is that your recollection essentially 15 of what Mr. Jonas was asking the church to do? 16 A Yes. I don't know that he specifically said that, 17 but that was my impression, that somehow he thought the 18 church could control the Nigerian government. And as I 19 said, later on in the meeting, Mike Rinder made it clear 20 that that wasn't correct. 21 Q Okay. And under that it says, "Stacy away 22 provision." I take it -- is that stay-away provision? 23 A I think that probably should say "stay-away 24 provision," right. 25 Q Okay. And then --
67 1 THE COURT: I think maybe I need to ask a 2 question here. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 4 THE COURT: In reading -- my recollection in 5 reading Stacy Brooks' lengthy -- I can't even 6 remember what she called it, but it had to do with 7 what she perceived was the church's harassment. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, the time line. 9 THE COURT: The time line of Mr. Minton. 10 Throughout that, as I would read it, there 11 would be notations that they believed, I gather -- 12 she and Mr. Minton believed that the church was 13 somehow trying to influence the Nigerian government; 14 that -- or -- saying things over there, that 15 Mr. Minton had done something illegal or improper. 16 Was -- was this in any way some suggestion that 17 that would stop or that -- was that part of the 18 harassment? Or was this a specific request that 19 they made that they thought the church could 20 influence the Nigerian government to whatever they 21 were thinking of doing; not do it? 22 THE WITNESS: I think it was probably a 23 combination of both. You know, just as the church 24 had its opinions of what Mr. Minton was doing, 25 Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks had their opinions of what
68 1 the -- the church was doing. And they -- they 2 believed that there was, you know, ongoing 3 surveillance and information-providing and so on by 4 the church of -- of Mr. Minton. 5 And so they were talking both in general of any 6 investigations that the church had ongoing about 7 Mr. Minton, or any investigations perhaps that 8 government officials had that the church was somehow 9 providing information to. I think it was in that 10 context -- 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: -- that they were talking about 13 the Nigerian situation. 14 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 15 BY MR. WEINBERG: 16 Q Amongst the demands -- again, this is what 17 Mr. Jonas is saying on page 8, is that right? 18 A Yes. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Right under that, your Honor, 20 there is a -- and Ms. Yingling -- it says, "Amongst 21 the demands of what they need, all litigation and 22 claims go away, discovery, contempt, et cetera." 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Is this the part of the meeting where there was a 25 discussion, at least for the first time, that what they were
69 1 requesting is that everything down here in Florida be 2 withdrawn? 3 A Yes. And not just in Florida, but any other 4 litigation that -- that Mr. Minton was involved in. The -- 5 the desire to have all the cases go away was mutual. That 6 was the one thing that the parties seemed to agree -- agree 7 to during this -- during this meeting, that both sides 8 wanted all litigation and claims against each other to go 9 away. 10 Q And then you say -- you indicate that Mr. Jonas 11 said, "We too have compensation elements if we want 12 disengagement. Bob Minton compensated for his payments in 13 McPherson case, payments to Dandar." And is that what you 14 were talking about yesterday where they were actually asking 15 for money? 16 A Yes. Exactly. Exactly. I think that was -- the 17 payment to Dandar was probably a question from either 18 Mr. Rosen or Mr. Rinder. And Mr. Jonas responded, "Yes." 19 Q And then he further explained what they were 20 talking about, which -- which I think you said yesterday, 21 and your notes indicate the properties that the church was 22 supposed to purchase in Clearwater, including the LMT 23 building. And it says, "JP." That's Jesse Prince, right? 24 A Jesse Prince. And I think the word "bonuses" 25 there should be "house." I think it should be "JP house, et
70 1 cetera." 2 And I think it's clear these were just an 3 illustration of the things that Bob Minton wanted to be 4 compensated for. 5 Q Okay. Now, if you go to page 9, Mr. Rinder is now 6 talking again. Is that what the MR is? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q And it -- one, two, three, four -- five lines down 9 it says, "re wrongful death case. We will not pay you. But 10 I understood it as offset." Do you -- what do you recall 11 that was about? 12 A Well, as I said yesterday, we were quite 13 surprised, being the church representatives, that -- that 14 Mr. Minton would suggest that somehow the church should 15 compensate him for the payments he had made to fund the 16 litigation down here in Florida. So this -- that was a 17 response to that. 18 Q Okay. And then -- and then a couple lines down, 19 it -- it says, "BM," or Bob Minton, "dreaming if thinks we 20 will pay money." So is that indicated that Mr. Minton said 21 that you all are dreaming if you think he's going to pay 22 money? 23 A I think -- I think that was the tone from both 24 sides of the table. 25 Q Okay.
71 1 A That the other side was dreaming if they thought 2 money was going to change hands. 3 Q Now, there is -- can you -- one thing we didn't 4 talk about yesterday, at this point in the notes, it talks 5 about -- where it says "MR. Maybe you are not aware of 6 where this litigation --" says "standards." I think that's 7 probably "stands." And then there's a discussion between 8 Mr. Rinder and -- and Mr. Minton with regard to that. Can 9 you tell us what that was? 10 A Yes. Because Mr. -- Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder made 11 it clear that the cases in Florida were -- were taking a 12 turn towards the church being in a position to -- to recover 13 damages, whereas they had been a defendant in the wrongful 14 death litigation because of the -- of the breach cases, they 15 had damage awards; they were looking to get substantial 16 attorneys' fees awards. And -- and they were explaining 17 that to -- to Mr. Minton. 18 And they were also explaining to him the posture 19 of -- of the discovery request, and that it was the church's 20 view that for -- for years, literally, the -- the estate and 21 Mr. Dandar had been successful in stonewalling discovery 22 requests by the church, but that that was all starting to 23 change, and that the -- the church was starting to get 24 responses to its discovery, or at least they were being 25 ordered by the courts, and that the church was on the brink
72 1 of uncovering what they believed to be discovery abuse, 2 abuse of process and -- and so on. 3 And I remember this discussion because Mr. Minton, 4 throughout the -- throughout the meeting, had been very 5 calm. I -- I didn't -- I never knew Mr. Minton before this. 6 I had seen perhaps some video clips of him and so on. And 7 I'll have to say I didn't have a very high opinion of him. 8 And -- but he was calm and a perfect gentleman during the -- 9 the meeting. Except for during this exchange. He -- he 10 raised his voice. And I recall he looked at Mr. Rosen and 11 he said, "Why do I have to hear from you the things that are 12 going on in the case? Why don't I hear them from my own 13 lawyers," and -- meaning the discovery and the contempt 14 and -- you know, and so on. 15 And I'm not -- I don't know that I recall exactly 16 what Mr. Rosen said, but something like, "Well, perhaps you 17 have bad lawyers," or something along those lines. 18 But it was clear that Mr. Minton was not happy 19 that he was hearing about things that were going to happen 20 to him in discovery and in the proceedings from the church. 21 THE COURT: Could it have also been that 22 Mr. Minton became a little bit alarmed and a little 23 bit upset when he realized the discovery was going 24 to indeed continue, and that perhaps he had things 25 that were going to be revealed that would not be
73 1 terribly -- 2 There may have been more than one reason. You 3 don't know, of course, why he was upset. 4 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: But the discovery, the fact that 6 that was continuing, was a point that upset him, I 7 take it, or -- 8 THE WITNESS: I believe it was, your Honor. I 9 believe it was. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q Okay. If you go to page 10, there is a 13 reference -- well, at the bottom of page 9, Mr. Rinder, you 14 indicate, says, "We're not going to pay you money. Money 15 will flow the other way." And then at the top of page 10, 16 there's -- you have a reference, "BM," or Bob Minton, "If we 17 settle cases, money will go back to him, LW, DL. Not saying 18 having to write him a check." Can you explain what that is? 19 It's not clear to -- it's not clear to me. 20 A Well, certainly the -- the reference to LW was if 21 the church were to settle the Lawrence Wollersheim case, 22 that money would flow back to him through his lien. 23 With respect to the second phrase there, I'm not 24 exactly sure. I would assume that -- 25 Oh --
74 1 Q Is that Dan Leipold? 2 A Yes. That was Dan Leipold. It was referring to 3 the Wollersheim case. And that Dan Leipold, who apparently 4 had borrowed money from -- from Mr. Minton, would also be 5 paid. 6 Q Okay. If you go to page 11 -- 7 Hold on just a second. There's a break and 8 then -- that's the break where -- where people never came 9 back? Is that what happened? 10 A No. This was still on the first day. And this is 11 when Mr. Jonas said that they talked, and they weren't sure 12 whether it would be fruitful to meet the next day. But he 13 said that they should make some phone calls and get a sense 14 of what they could resolve. 15 Q Okay. If you go to page 13, which is March 29th. 16 Those are rather brief notes. At the -- toward the top of 17 the page, there's a reference to, "Meeting scheduled for 18 Wednesday with Dandar." This is something that Mr. Jonas 19 told you all at the meeting? 20 A That's correct. And I believe he said it was 21 going to be in Cleveland. 22 Q And -- well, let's start at the top of it. Do 23 these notes reflect your recollection that, on this second 24 day, that it was really Mr. Jonas that was reporting back of 25 where they stood?
75 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And so when it says "SJ" at the top, "Have thought 3 about what was discussed yesterday, that I think the best 4 thing is to proceed, small steps. Understand why case is 5 essential and need to make efforts there. Won't happen 6 overnight. Some steps already." And then he's talking 7 about a meeting with Mr. Dandar. 8 Did he further explain what steps had been taken 9 during the meeting? 10 A I believe he told us that they had called Ken 11 Dandar, and that this meeting was scheduled. I don't think 12 that there were any other specific steps taken, although 13 they did tell us that they would speak with Dell Liebreich. 14 But in order to bring her into the discussions, we had to -- 15 the church had to agree not to make any inquiry into those 16 discussions at any deposition. 17 Q All right. And then in your notes after that 18 request, which all agreed to, not to make an inquiry, the 19 second request indicated in here is that, "They are willing 20 to take steps, and they are extraordinary. But to do that, 21 we have to dismiss, one, contempt matters against Bob 22 Minton; and two, postpone --" and I guess it indicates 23 Stacy's deposition. 24 I mean, is that essentially the way it happened 25 during the meeting?
76 1 A Yes. And then they went on to say that they 2 wanted Bob Minton's deposition also postponed or -- or just 3 terminated. 4 Q Okay. And then the notes reflect that they were 5 told no. And without going over them in detail, indicate 6 that there was some displeasure on the part of Ms. Brooks 7 and Mr. Minton's side. 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Okay. You can put those down. 10 MR. WEINBERG: We have our clerk, so why don't 11 we figure out what the number is? 12 THE COURT: All right. Good idea. 13 MR. WEINBERG: The next number -- 14 THE COURT: Good morning, Madam Clerk. 15 THE CLERK: Good morning. 16 THE COURT: Can you give us the number of those 17 notes, which would be the next exhibit for the 18 defendant? 19 THE CLERK: 191. 20 THE COURT: 191. 21 THE CLERK: Yes. 22 THE COURT: Thank you. 23 MR. WEINBERG: 91. So you were right. 24 THE COURT: 191. 25 MR. WEINBERG: 191.
77 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Now, let's try to -- I'm not sure exactly how far 3 I'd gotten yesterday. I know we talked about -- some about 4 April 10th. And you had said something about Bob Minton 5 having to leave early because his favorite aunt had died. 6 A That's correct. 7 Q But what I can't remember is whether you discussed 8 any of the details; if you remembered any of the details, 9 from April 10th. 10 So let me -- if I -- if I've already gone over 11 that, which I sort of think we did, but -- I apologize. 12 But do you -- you said it was a short meeting 13 because of Mr. Minton's family situation. But do you 14 remember anything specifically about that meeting on April 15 the 10th? 16 A As I said yesterday, some of the meetings sort of 17 blend together, so I'm not sure if I can pinpoint exactly 18 what conversations we had at which meetings. 19 I do remember at this meeting that we did talk 20 about the checks again. The church was very interested in 21 getting copies of these Swiss checks. So we did talk about 22 that. And then I believe we also talked about who Fred was. 23 Because at Mr. -- Mr. Minton's testimony in front of Judge 24 Baird the day before, he had mentioned something about 25 Mr. Dandar referring to him as Fred. And so we asked him
78 1 who Fred was, and he explained to -- to -- to us that that 2 was Mr. Dandar's pet name for him when he wanted to refer to 3 money coming from Bob Minton, from offshore sources. 4 Q It was Mr. Dandar's pet name for Bob Minton. 5 A That's correct. Mm-hmm. 6 Q All right. Now, after April 10th, what is the 7 next time that you can recall that you had any meetings with 8 Mr. Minton? 9 A On Saturday, April the 13th. 10 Q In between April 10th and April 13th, you were -- 11 you were off doing other things? 12 A Yes. I was in Washington, D.C. 13 Q Now -- 14 THE COURT: Did it -- I just have to ask -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 16 THE COURT: -- this one question. 17 Did it -- did it ever seem strange to you -- I 18 don't know how much you know about Mr. Minton and 19 his Fifth Amendment and his offshore moneys and his 20 failures to report, and on and on. 21 Did it ever occur to you that it might be odd 22 that he would discuss with Mr. Dandar, who was not 23 his lawyer, the fact that moneys were coming into 24 this country from foreign banks; that at least one 25 might assume, since he's claiming the Fifth
79 1 Amendment, he had neglected to pay his taxes on; 2 that Dandar, not being -- he didn't disclose it to 3 his own lawyer, who would have some privilege -- 4 Did it ever seem odd to you that he would 5 reveal this to -- to somebody who was not a lawyer? 6 THE WITNESS: As I sit here now, with -- I have 7 a lot more knowledge than I did when I was first 8 hearing these things from -- from Mr. Minton. 9 But I think that -- certainly what Mr. Minton 10 has said to us consistently, that the only reason 11 that he provided Mr. Dandar with this money from 12 offshore sources was because Mr. Dandar requested 13 it. Otherwise he would have continued to write 14 checks from his own personal checking account, as he 15 had done to the extent of a million or a 16 million-plus dollars; and that he would have 17 continued to do that, except that Mr. Dandar 18 specifically asked him for funds that were not 19 traceable. 20 See, I have my own views about what his tax 21 problems are. And I don't have enough information 22 or knowledge to come to an opinion whether he has 23 tax problems or not. But I think that when he 24 earned all this money overseas, that he didn't have 25 a tax problem. I think he probably had good lawyers
80 1 and good advice, who told him how to structure the 2 transactions so it was not income to him when he was 3 earning that money; that it was earned by 4 corporations or other entities, in other words, 5 and -- and so that he probably didn't have an income 6 tax problem. 7 The question then would arise whether, when he 8 brought it under this country, when he repatriated 9 the funds or took control of the funds, he was then 10 taxable on them. But I don't know. I mean, I have 11 no information to know one way or the other whether 12 he has declared that money on his income tax 13 returns. 14 I mean, certainly, if he was trying to hide it, 15 I don't know that he would use it to fund litigation 16 down here. I just don't know. I just don't have 17 enough information to know one way or another, if he 18 has income tax problems along those lines. 19 But I certainly believe, from my knowledge of 20 international tax, that he could have structured the 21 transactions, when he was earning the money from the 22 Nigerian deals, such that he wasn't liable to pay 23 U.S. income tax on it. 24 THE COURT: But would have been liable when he 25 brought it into this country. May have been.
81 1 THE WITNESS: May have been liable. That's 2 right. And he may have declared it on his income 3 tax returns. I don't know. But certainly he -- 4 certainly some of the money that he was writing out 5 of his own personal checking account, he -- he must 6 have, I would think. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q You said April 13th. Can you focus this as to a 10 day of the week? Are you able to do that? 11 A Yes. It was a Saturday. 12 Q And what -- where did -- was it the same 13 participants: You, Mr. Rinder, Ms. Brooks and -- and Bob 14 Minton? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And where was this meeting? 17 A This meeting was also in Mr. Pope's office. 18 Q Okay. And what were the circumstances of this 19 meeting? 20 A Well, there had been some telephone calls before 21 this meeting, that I was not a party to. But there were 22 some telephone calls between Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton. And 23 Mr. Minton had told Mr. Rinder that he and Stacy Brooks were 24 going to meet with Jesse Prince that evening, and so they 25 were only going to see us for a short while in the
82 1 afternoon. 2 And they specifically asked Mr. Rinder if he could 3 provide a copy of the transcript from the court proceeding 4 in front of Judge Schaeffer where she had made comments on 5 the record about Mr. Prince's credibility. 6 Also there had been a couple of telephone 7 conversations earlier that day, I believe on the 13th, 8 between Mr. Minton's attorney, Mr. Jonas, and me. 9 Q And what was the nature of those -- 10 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What day are we talking 11 about again? 12 MR. WEINBERG: 13th. 13 THE COURT: Thank you. 14 MR. WEINBERG: It was a Saturday, apparently. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q And what were the nature of those calls between 18 you and Mr. Jonas? 19 A Mr. Jonas had left a message for me on my 20 voicemail in Washington, D.C. And when I checked my 21 messages, I had a message from him asking me to call him. 22 And I did recall his call. 23 And he just made general inquiries of me, of what 24 was going on. He told me that he understood that Bob Minton 25 and Stacy wanted to -- to continue talking, and he
83 1 understood that they wanted to continue talking, and why. 2 But he made inquiries to me as to what was going on, and if 3 there was something specific -- some specific date that they 4 were giving us information for and things of that nature. 5 And I told him what I knew: That my understanding was that 6 Bob Minton felt that there was momentum in his telling his 7 story, and he wanted to continue to do that. And then 8 Mr. Jonas told me that he was going to speak with Bob 9 Minton. 10 After that, Mr. Minton called Mr. Rinder and said 11 he wanted to get together, and so I specifically called 12 Mr. Jonas back to tell him that. I didn't get him, but I 13 left a message on his voicemail machine to tell him that 14 Mr. Minton had called and said that he wanted to get 15 together with us again, and I wanted Mr. Jonas to know that. 16 During -- during the meeting that -- that -- that 17 afternoon, Mr. Minton told us that he had spoken to 18 Mr. Jonas, and that Mr. Jonas had told him -- him being 19 Mr. Minton -- that since he had gotten himself into this 20 mess, that perhaps it would be best for him to get himself 21 out of this mess alone. 22 Q So you continued meeting with him. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Now -- and Mr. Jonas didn't tell you to stop 25 meeting with him?
84 1 A Mr. Jonas never told me to stop meeting with him, 2 no. 3 Q Do you remember what else if anything was 4 discussed on that Saturday? 5 A There were quite a few discussions about Jesse 6 Prince on that Saturday, because they were anticipating 7 having a meeting with Jesse Prince that evening. 8 And I believe it was during this meeting that 9 Stacy Brooks told us that she had been the -- the architect 10 of the -- of the strategy to add Mr. David Miscavige to -- 11 to this -- to the wrongful death litigation. And she gave 12 us the background. She talked extensively about her history 13 and other litigation, and how she had developed a strategy, 14 and what it had come from, and so on and so forth. And -- 15 and she told us about the circumstances under which Jesse 16 Prince's affidavit had been created, and -- and that the 17 affidavit was -- was purely speculation; that there was no 18 basis in fact and so on. 19 And they made it clear to us in that meeting 20 that -- that Jesse Prince was indeed somebody that Bob 21 Minton controlled. Because they explained to us at that 22 meeting that the reason that Jesse Prince had withdrawn as 23 an expert in -- an expert witness, I believe in this case, 24 was specifically because Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks had 25 told him to withdraw as a -- as a witness. And that they
85 1 believed that the motion that had subsequently been filed 2 by -- by Mr. Dandar, saying that the reason that Jesse 3 Prince had withdrawn, was that -- because he in some way was 4 terrified of the church, was completely false, and that they 5 were mortified that he had done that. And that he had asked 6 Jesse Prince to sign an affidavit admitting to a crime of 7 some sort, drug-related, I believe, something like that. 8 Q Now, do you -- is that pretty much the sum and 9 substance of the meeting, or is there anything else that you 10 can recall that Saturday? 11 A I'm sure we probably asked him for the checks 12 again. 13 Q All right. And you hadn't gotten them yet. 14 A We still had not received copies of the checks. 15 The -- if -- it may help to explain that the 16 dynamics of the -- sort of the level of trust between the 17 parties, you know, was changing as these meetings went on. 18 I think at the beginning there was a lot of mutual mistrust 19 on both sides. And the church, me included, didn't know 20 what to believe and was very skeptical about what Mr. Minton 21 was telling us. But as time went on and there were more 22 details and -- and more -- more discussions, I think that 23 the -- the level of trust on both sides really increased. 24 And Mr. Minton essentially told us that he -- he 25 felt that he had been used and lied to by the people that he
86 1 was -- was dealing with in this case. And I think he had a 2 sense that when he first started funding the case and was 3 involved in litigation, that he was involved in something 4 that was a righteous cause, and he somehow was doing the 5 right thing, you know, for -- for whatever reason. And I 6 think he came to believe -- and I don't know if it was 7 specifically at this meeting or one of the other meetings -- 8 that that wasn't the case; that he had been involved in 9 something that was -- was not righteous, and in fact it was 10 quite to the contrary; that he was involved in something 11 that was very, very wrong, from his own personal 12 perspective. 13 And he apologized to me; he apologized to 14 Mr. Rinder. I know he's personally apologized to other 15 lawyers in this courtroom, because he's told me that. I 16 mean, he apparently has said some pretty vile things about 17 me on the Internet too. And so apologized. And I think he 18 felt that what he had believed to have been a good cause and 19 an idealistic matter that he was involved in wasn't, and 20 that the people that he was dealing with weren't really 21 idealistic or good or whatever, but that they were out to 22 get nothing but money; they were out to destroy the church; 23 and they were -- were using him to try to do that in the 24 process. 25 Q The -- now, he had to break early that evening to
87 1 have his meeting with Jesse Prince? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And do you know -- when I said "evening," I don't 4 know if it was morning or evening. When were you all 5 meeting on -- 6 A We met in the afternoon. 7 Q And do you know how long you were with him that 8 day on the -- the 13th? 9 A I'd say a few hours. I'm not sure if we met at 10 noon or 1:00 or something like that or -- but -- 11 Q Okay. 12 A -- I know that they left before dark. 13 Q Do you recall when the next meeting was? 14 A Yes. It was on Monday, April the 15th. 15 Q Okay. And where was that meeting? 16 A That meeting was at Mr. Pope's office. 17 Q And who was present on that day? 18 A Mr. Rinder, Mr. (sic) Brooks, Mr. Minton. I was 19 present and Lee Fugate was present, and Tom McGowan. 20 Q And what was the -- can you describe for us what 21 happened over at Mr. Pope's office on the 15th when -- with 22 Mr. McGowan and -- present? 23 A The church, specifically Mike Rinder, provided 24 copies of deposition testimony and court transcripts to -- 25 to Mr. McGowan on behalf of Stacy Brooks and directly to
88 1 Mr. Minton. 2 Mr. Howie was not able to attend the meeting. I 3 believe a set of the same documents was delivered to -- to 4 Mr. Howie's office. 5 There had been a request from Ms. Brooks and -- 6 and Mr. Minton. They were concerned about the -- the 7 perjury that they had committed in these different matters 8 in this litigation, and they told us that their lawyers had 9 told them that they had to do recanting affidavits, but they 10 did not have access to their testimony. And the lawyers 11 that they were relying on, that being Mr. McGowan and 12 Mr. Howie, did not have enough familiarity with the cases -- 13 they were relatively new -- to be able to give them advice 14 as to where they had committed perjury and -- and how to 15 recant it. So they had requested Mr. Rinder to provide them 16 with these documents. 17 And in fact, if I can go back to the telephone 18 conversation that I had with Steve Jonas on Saturday the 19 13th, he specifically requested also that the -- that we 20 provide Bob Minton with copies of transcripts and prior 21 testimony so that he could review it for purposes of -- of 22 executing a recanting affidavit. 23 Q And was -- so that was done at the -- at 24 Mr. Pope's office on the 15th. 25 A That's correct.
89 1 Q All right. And then what happened while you were 2 at Mr. Pope's office? 3 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Who did you say was 4 there at that meeting? Mr. McGowan, Mr. Fugate? 5 Who else? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Obviously, Mr. -- 8 MR. WEINBERG: The other four. Mr. McGowan, 9 Mr. Fugate, plus the -- 10 THE COURT: Plus the four. Okay. 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q That's right, correct? 13 A That's correct, yes. 14 Q Now, can you tell us what happened there? 15 A Mr. Minton sat at one end of the table with the 16 transcripts and was reading. And at the other end of the 17 table was Ms. Brooks and Mr. McGowan. And Mike Rinder and 18 Lee Fugate and I were sort of in and out answering questions 19 about what particular hearings transcripts came from and so 20 on and so forth, and -- and chatting. There wasn't much 21 conversation with either Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks because 22 they were busy reading the transcripts. 23 Q Okay. So was there -- were there particular -- 24 the -- 25 Let me try to articulate a comprehensible
90 1 question. 2 The -- the transcripts that were turned over, were 3 they -- did the transcripts have to do with specific areas 4 or were they just total transcripts? You understand what 5 I'm saying? Were there -- were there specific issues that 6 the transcripts were supposed to address or were there just 7 the full transcripts of various depos? 8 A I believe that Mr. Rinder had asked someone in the 9 church to -- that was familiar with -- with the transcripts 10 to pull sections of the transcripts that had to do with the 11 issues that Mr. Minton and -- and Ms. Brooks were concerned 12 about. 13 Mr. Minton was particularly concerned about his 14 testimony regarding money and payments to -- to Mr. Dandar; 15 the amounts of the funds; the use of the funds and so on. 16 He was also concerned about any testimony having to do with 17 whether or not he ever attended meetings or participated in 18 discussions having to do with whether or not David Miscavige 19 should be added to the complaint. He was also concerned 20 about any testimony having to do with whether or not there 21 was an agreement to have the bulk of any proceeds recovered 22 in the wrongful death case paid to an anticult organization 23 or specifically the Lisa McPherson Trust. 24 Stacy Brooks was particularly concerned about 25 areas of discovery from the LMT and -- where she had not
91 1 been forthcoming either in producing documents or videos 2 or -- or things of that nature, or had not answered fully 3 questions having to do with discovery. 4 Q And I take it that there was no real substantive 5 discussion that day about these areas? 6 A I -- 7 Q On the 15th? 8 A I don't believe there was. 9 Q Okay. Was it your understanding, as of the 15th, 10 that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were working on recanting -- 11 were working on recanting affidavits with their lawyers? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did you, Monique Yingling, draft any of the 14 affidavits? 15 A No, I didn't. 16 Q Did you ever see any of the drafts? 17 A The -- I understand that both Ms. Brooks and 18 Mr. Minton filed short recanting affidavits. And those, I 19 never saw drafts of, no. 20 They subsequently worked on longer affidavits. 21 And I did see a draft, I believe, of each of their 22 affidavits. 23 Q Okay. And did you make any changes on the 24 affidavits -- on the draft affidavits? 25 A I did not make any changes. I did make some
92 1 suggestions. 2 Q Okay. Can you remember what suggestions you made 3 with regard to the -- 4 These were the -- in Mr. Minton's case, the long 5 affidavit, which is his second affidavit. That the one 6 you're talking about? 7 A Yes. Mm-hmm. 8 Q And in Ms. Brooks's situation, I think it's her 9 second affidavit too, which is her longer -- 10 A Yes. 11 Q -- affidavit? 12 What suggestions did you make and how did you make 13 them? 14 A Well, we're getting a little bit ahead of 15 ourselves now, because there was a specific meeting later in 16 the month when I did talk with Mr. Minton about his 17 affidavit, and there was another specific meeting later in 18 the month when I talked with Ms. Brooks about her affidavit. 19 Q Okay. 20 A I don't know if you want to jump ahead. 21 THE COURT: Doesn't matter. Up to -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: Why don't we go chronologically? 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MR. WEINBERG: We'll get there. 25
93 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q After -- after April 15th, when the transcripts 3 were turned over in this meeting, sort of meeting in 4 Mr. Pope's office, when Mr. McGowan was there, and 5 Mr. Fugate, what was the next time that you can recall a 6 meeting with either -- with Mr. Minton? 7 A On Thursday the 18th. 8 Q Okay. And what day of the week was that? 9 A Thursday. 10 Q Thursday the 18th. 11 I'm obviously tired. 12 THE COURT: Not supposed to be tired this early 13 in the day. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I'm trying to think of a 15 comeback. Couldn't think of -- 16 MR. DANDAR: It's one of those lawyer quotes 17 you're going to put in the paper. 18 MR. WEINBERG: And I didn't even see the 19 St. Pete Times yet, so it could happen. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Okay. On Thursday the 18th, the meeting was 22 where? 23 A The meeting was in Mr. Pope's office. 24 Q And who was there? 25 A Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton, Mr. Rinder, and I was
94 1 there. 2 Q Okay. And do you recall what time of day? 3 A It was in the evening, I believe. 4 Q And do you recall how long this meeting lasted? 5 A It lasted a few hours. 6 Q And what was the occasion for the meeting? 7 A As with most of these meetings, Bob Minton would 8 call Mike Rinder and say he wanted to talk to him or he 9 wanted to talk to us, and we would arrange to meet him. 10 Q Okay. What happened during the meeting? 11 A There was discussion on a number of topics. 12 I do remember that when the meeting began, Mr. -- 13 Mr. Minton was a little bit upset. And we asked him why he 14 was upset, and he told us that Mr. Dandar had called his 15 wife. 16 And I was a little surprised. I didn't know much 17 about Mr. Minton's personal life, but I assumed he was 18 having a relationship with Ms. Brooks, so I was surprised. 19 He said something about his wife. 20 And I said, "Your wife?" And he said, "Yes, my 21 wife. I'm still married. We're separated but I'm still 22 married." And so I said, "Well, why would Mr. Dandar call 23 your wife?" And I said, "Does he know her?" And he said, 24 "No," but he said, "He left her a message saying that he was 25 very, very concerned about me and my health and my state of
95 1 mind and so on." And so I said, "Well, why -- why do you 2 think he would call your wife?" And he said, "Because I 3 think he wants my wife to try to put pressure on me not to 4 continue to testify or something like that." 5 Q What else happened during the meeting? 6 A We spent a lot of time at that meeting talking 7 about Mr. Minton's participation in the meeting that he 8 attended, where there was discussion about adding 9 Mr. Miscavige to the complaint. 10 Q All right. 11 A And the -- Ms. -- both Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks 12 were trying to pinpoint the time frame in which that meeting 13 had occurred. 14 When Mr. Minton had testified in front of Judge 15 Baird, he had -- had put the meeting sometime in the late 16 summer, I believe, of -- of 1999, and there seemed to be 17 some disagreement between Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton as to 18 when this meeting occurred. And so there was discussion 19 about what they remembered about the time, the office, who 20 was there, where they sat at the table, and -- and the 21 details of the meeting. So that -- that was all discussed. 22 Q And the -- the -- conclusion was that the meeting 23 was actually at the new office on Kennedy? 24 A That's correct. And I think it was Ms. Brooks who 25 remembered that Mr. Dandar had moved into that office
96 1 sometime in October or something like that, and so that 2 therefore the meeting had to be dated later than Mr. Minton 3 had originally thought, and it was sometime in the fall 4 of -- of '99 rather than the late -- the late summer. 5 Q Okay. What else do you recall about the 6 conversation on the -- on Thursday the 18th? 7 A Mr. Minton had a copy of the checks. And so he 8 provided us with a copy of both the $500,000 check that he 9 had given to Mr. Dandar in May of 2000, I believe, and the 10 $250,000 check that he had given to Mr. Dandar in March of 11 2001. 12 Q Okay. And he gave you all a copy of the checks? 13 A Yes, he did. 14 Q And were you all surprised to see a copy of the 15 checks? 16 A By that time, I think I -- I really did believe 17 Mr. Minton; that he had given this money to Mr. Dandar, and 18 what the source of the money was. So I was -- I was happy 19 to see the checks, because it certainly proved the point. 20 But -- but I can't say that I was all that surprised. 21 The copies that he gave us at that meeting were -- 22 were pretty lousy fax copies, and he said he was going to 23 try to get better copies of the checks. 24 We asked him how he got the copies of the checks, 25 and he told us that he had gotten them from his banker in
97 1 Switzerland, and it was his banker that had caused these 2 checks to be issued through UBS. 3 We asked him if UBS was his bank, and he told us 4 no. 5 Q And did he identify his bank? 6 A No, he did not. 7 Q Or his banker. 8 A No, he did not. 9 Q But you -- but besides getting these checks, do 10 you recall anything else in the conversation concerning the 11 meeting -- dating the meeting with David -- regarding having 12 David Miscavige -- 13 Do you recall anything else on Thursday the 18th? 14 A Well, I -- I do recall some more details that they 15 gave us about the meeting. I mean, they -- I think 16 Mr. Minton actually might have drawn a little diagram of the 17 table where he was sitting. He remembered it was hot. He's 18 always hot and wants the air conditioner turned way up. And 19 so he was sitting at the end of the table where the air 20 conditioner was. 21 He remembered that Mr. Dandar was sitting at the 22 other end of the table, because the phone wasn't properly 23 hooked up, and so Mr. Dandar was sitting right next to the 24 phone. And that Mr. Prince was there, Mr. Garko was there, 25 and -- and Ms. -- Ms. Brooks was there.
98 1 Q Okay. The -- 2 A He also told us that when he -- he left the 3 meeting, that he went down in the elevator with Mr. Dandar, 4 and Mr. Dandar told him that, "You know, this meeting never 5 happened," or something of that nature. 6 He also told us that at a later point in time, 7 before he was going to a deposition, that he was in a car 8 with Mr. Dandar -- I don't know if Mr. Dandar was driving 9 him to the deposition or -- or whatever, but they were in a 10 car together, and Mr. Dandar said to him, "Do you remember 11 the meeting that never happened?" And Mr. Minton said, 12 "No," and Mr. Dandar then laughed and said, "That's a good 13 answer." 14 Q Now, was there -- was there any discussion at this 15 meeting or, frankly, any of the other meetings, about the 16 LMT and the involvement of Mr. Minton and the LMT, or did 17 that come later? 18 A There was -- there was discussion about the LMT 19 throughout these meetings. Most of that discussion was with 20 Stacy Brooks, and a lot of it had to do with -- with the 21 church's belief that there had been a lot of discovery abuse 22 with the -- with the LMT, and that the LMT was used to pay 23 the witnesses that were being used in the wrongful death 24 case and so on. 25 Q Is there anything else that stands out on the
99 1 18th, or -- or do you want to go to the next meeting? 2 A No. 3 There was also extensive discussion that day about 4 the movie The Profit. And -- and at some point in time, 5 Mr. -- Mr. Minton actually provided us with a copy of the 6 agreement having to do with that movie, The Profit. And I 7 don't remember specifically if it was at this meeting, but 8 it may well have been. 9 And we asked Mr. -- Mr. Minton what had happened; 10 how did he have a falling out -- 11 By this time we knew that, obviously, there'd been 12 a falling out between him -- 13 THE COURT: Let me have that. Whose are these? 14 Are these the clerk's? These records here. 15 THE WITNESS: It's marked Exhibit 97, your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Let me have those. 18 THE CLERK: That was the witness's. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I don't think so. I think this 20 is -- 21 THE COURT: The extra copy? 22 MR. WEINBERG: So you already have those? 23 THE CLERK: I have mine. 24 THE COURT: I keep looking at the witnesses 25 through this sea of blue tabs.
100 1 THE WITNESS: I might look better. I don't 2 know. 3 THE COURT: Might or might not. I might look 4 better or worse. You never know, right? 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Do you know what you were describing? 7 A Yes. The falling out -- 8 Q All right. 9 A -- with Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander. 10 And the -- and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks told us 11 the story. And actually, the story had to do with Germany 12 and a woman named Ursula Caberta in Germany. 13 Mr. Minton had provided some funds to Ms. Caberta. 14 Ms. Caberta is a government official in Hamburg, Germany, 15 whose mission in life is to try to destroy the Church of 16 Scientology, and she is part of the anti-Scientology 17 community, I suppose, and -- and Mr. Minton made her 18 acquaintance as a result of that. 19 And at some point in time, Mr. Minton loaned -- he 20 was telling us this story. He loaned her $75,000 or 21 something like that. Since that time, that loan has become 22 the subject of a criminal investigation in Germany, because 23 government officials in Germany are never allowed to receive 24 money from private individuals having to do with anything 25 that they work in. So it's viewed as some sort of
101 1 corruption or a bribe or something in Germany. 2 And Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were explaining to 3 us that they were in Germany meeting with Ursula Caberta. 4 And I think it might have had to do -- something to do with 5 the case, because Mr. Minton was also incriminated in the 6 case, and he had to meet with the prosecutor or something of 7 that nature. And while they were there, Mr. Alexander and 8 Ms. Greenway were there at the same time. And they 9 apparently wanted to meet with Ms. Caberta about having 10 assistance from her to try to distribute the money -- the 11 movie, The Profit, in Germany, and were asking Ms. Caberta 12 to arrange for them to meet distributors or something of 13 that nature. 14 And Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks told Ms. Caberta 15 that they should have -- that she should have nothing to do 16 with this movie, The Profit; that she was already in enough 17 trouble because of the loan, and there was this criminal 18 investigation going on that he had been implicated in and so 19 on. And Mr. Minton told Ms. Caberta not to have anything to 20 do with Ms. Greenway. Apparently Ms. Caberta then told that 21 to Ms. Greenway, and Ms. Greenway was furious. 22 And I remember Ms. Brooks describing Ms. -- 23 Ms. Greenway coming into a bar where they were in -- in 24 Germany in a hotel, I believe, and accosting her and 25 screaming at her and calling her every vile name in the book
102 1 and -- for interfering with their plans to distribute the 2 movie in Germany and so on, and that that was the basis for 3 the -- the falling out between -- between those -- between 4 Greenway/Alexander and Brooks/Minton. 5 And so we got all those details that night. 6 Q And did he -- was that the night that he told you 7 about his funding of the movie and participation in the 8 movie as well, or not? 9 A We had discussed that at some point earlier on. 10 And he had told us that he had provided all of the money for 11 the movie -- I believe it was $2.4 million -- and that 12 Mr. Alexander had provided a hundred dollars, and that he 13 had owned 50 percent of the movie. 14 Q Okay. Is that pretty much it for the 18th? 15 A I believe so. 16 Q What's the next date? 17 A The next date was Tuesday, April the 23rd. 18 Q All right. And where was that? 19 A That meeting was in Mr. Pope's office. 20 Q And who -- was it the same four people? 21 A Yes, it was. 22 Q Do you remember what time of the day the meeting 23 on Tuesday the 23rd was? 24 A I'd say early afternoon. 25 Q And do you remember how long the meeting lasted
103 1 approximately? 2 A A couple of hours. 3 Q And do you remember the occasion of the meeting? 4 Was there any particular occasion for the meeting? 5 A Mr. Minton had told us, and Ms. Brooks also had 6 told us, I believe, at the prior meeting on the 18th, that 7 while they had done these recanting affidavits, that they 8 had done them in the way that their lawyers -- that being 9 Mr. Howie and Mr. McGowan -- had told them to, which was 10 that they had to get something filed very, very quickly, and 11 so they just needed to be short and address certain issues 12 that they believed had to be recanted. And they didn't feel 13 comfortable with only those items. And they both said that 14 they wanted to provide affidavits that told their story, 15 which I took to understand to be their story of involvement 16 in the wrongful death litigation as well as other 17 anti-Scientology litigation. 18 And at this meeting on the 23rd, Mr. Minton had a 19 draft affidavit that he asked Mr. Rinder and me to take a 20 look at. 21 Q Okay. And did -- and is this the appropriate time 22 now to discuss what suggestions if any were made to 23 Mr. Minton regarding his draft? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Can you tell us that?
104 1 A I recall that the draft was considerably longer 2 than the final affidavit ended up. And it was my suggestion 3 that he should make it shorter; that he had a lot of 4 background information about how he became involved in the 5 anti-Scientology community; his funding of the copyright 6 litigation; his -- his free speech views and his views about 7 the Church of Scientology trying to quash free speech on the 8 Internet and so on. And I told him it was my view that I 9 didn't think that was necessary to have in his affidavit. 10 I did tell him, when I spoke to him about his 11 affidavit -- and throughout these meetings there were times 12 when Mr. Minton would ask me for advice or for my opinion on 13 something, and I always told Mr. Minton that while I was 14 happy to give him my opinion, that I was not his lawyer; I 15 was Mr. Rinder's lawyer. And he needed to get the advice 16 and take the advice of his own lawyers. 17 And I told him that with respect to this affidavit 18 as well: That I was willing to make suggestions to him, but 19 that he needed to get the advice of his own lawyer. And 20 I -- I understood that he did do that; that in fact the 21 affidavit was finalized with his -- with his lawyer. 22 So I did make general suggestions about cutting 23 back, taking out what I thought was information that wasn't 24 necessary. 25 Also he had a tendency to speak about his --
105 1 belief or opinions in the affidavit, and I told him that 2 affidavits were more properly just statements of facts, and 3 particularly facts from personal knowledge, and so that he 4 should try to put it more in -- in that format. 5 I also made one suggestion, that Mr. Minton 6 declined to take, which was that -- 7 By this time, we had discussed -- and I don't 8 remember exactly which meeting, but we had discussed the 9 moneys that Mr. Minton had -- had provided to the Lisa 10 McPherson Trust. I believe there were two large transfers 11 into the Lisa McPherson Trust that purported to be anonymous 12 or from some other source. And Mr. Minton had told us in 13 response to a specific question, I believe, that he was the 14 source of those funds. And I told him that I thought that 15 that was something that he needed to clear up in his 16 affidavit, because I was aware that it had not been 17 addressed in the shorter affidavit that had been filed. 18 But I understand, from having read the final 19 affidavit, that that suggestion was not taken. 20 Q Is there anything else that you can recall that 21 you suggested? 22 A Not specifically, no. 23 Q Okay. And was there any further -- any other 24 discussion at that meeting at Mr. Pope's office on the -- 25 Tuesday the 23rd about any other areas that come to mind?
106 1 A There may have been some discussion about the 2 Wollersheim case that day as well. 3 Q You did not see any -- any draft at that time from 4 Stacy Brooks, is that right? 5 A No. I do not believe so. 6 Q Okay. Can you recall when your next meeting with 7 Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were -- was? 8 THE COURT: Had Mr. Minton told you at that 9 time about another matter that he neglected to 10 recant, about his -- his -- moneys that he loaned -- 11 To whom? Was it Mr. Alexander? Does anybody 12 remember? 13 THE WITNESS: Mr. Armstrong? 14 THE COURT: Mr. Armstrong. 15 And that he repaid -- he gave him the money to 16 repay himself, and he gave Mr. Armstrong a hundred 17 thousand dollars to donate to the LMT? Did he tell 18 you about those hundred thousand? 19 THE WITNESS: I think he may have, your Honor, 20 because I think -- I think we may have asked a 21 specific question about that. I think the church 22 had some idea of this money that had come into the 23 LMT from Mr. Armstrong, so I think that we may have 24 asked a specific question about that. 25 And Mr. Minton's position with respect to why
107 1 he did that was because he wanted it to appear that 2 there were people other than himself funding the 3 Lisa McPherson Trust, because the Church of 4 Scientology, of course, was alleging that the trust 5 was part of Bob Minton, and therefore inextricably 6 intertwined with the wrongful death case and so on. 7 THE COURT: Did he tell you why he had gone to 8 the elaborate scheme of the -- the -- what was it -- 9 Operation Clambake -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. I think she was -- 11 THE COURT: -- moneys? 12 MR. WEINBERG: She was sort of describing that 13 before. But you want to go into detail -- 14 THE COURT: I was talking this time about the 15 two 100,000 that he -- 16 Mr. Minton only tells us things when we uncover 17 them. Of course he'll have to deal with those 18 problems. Those are different problems of his own 19 that he's going to have to deal with. It's nice 20 that he told you all, but he certainly didn't recant 21 them properly, and he certainly didn't recant them 22 here until he'd get caught in them. Which I have my 23 own reason for thinking why that was. 24 But in any event, did he tell you about his 25 elaborate scheme on the $300,000 to Operation
108 1 Clambake? 2 THE WITNESS: He did, your Honor. And -- 3 THE COURT: And what did he tell you about 4 that? 5 THE WITNESS: He told us that that was a scheme 6 that had been devised or concocted by John Merrett. 7 THE COURT: Likes to put all the blame on the 8 lawyers. All the time. Seems like. 9 In any event that's what he told you. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, that's what she was 11 talking about when she said she gave him -- part of 12 her advice was to include that in the affidavit. 13 THE COURT: Right. 14 MR. WEINBERG: That's what she was talking 15 about. She just hadn't gone into the details. 16 Would you like her to explain the details of 17 what -- 18 THE COURT: No. I just was curious as to what 19 his -- his rationale was about that 300,000, why -- 20 as I recall Mr. Merrett testifying, that was a 21 fairly elaborate scheme to get that 300,000 in. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q What -- could you -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: Could I ask Ms. Yingling -- 25
109 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q What's your recollection of what Mr. Minton told 3 you all about this scheme? 4 A That -- that they -- they wanted to come up with a 5 way to make it appear that funds were coming into the Lisa 6 McPherson Trust from somebody other than Mr. Minton, and so 7 Mr. -- Mr. Merrett came up with the idea of trying to have 8 somebody in Europe donate these funds to the trust. And I 9 believe they used someone in Denmark. I'm not sure. But 10 Mr. -- Mr. Merrett came up with a way that the funds would 11 get to this fellow in Denmark, who would then make a 12 donation to the Lisa McPherson Trust so then it would appear 13 that somebody other than Mr. Minton was making contributions 14 to the trust. 15 And he also told us, as part of this, it was 16 Mr. Merrett who actually dreamed up the fat man, and that 17 the fat man was used in this context of that being the 18 fellow who -- who anonymously was going to be donating this 19 money. Somebody named the fat man. 20 THE COURT: The anonymous European donors, I 21 suppose, too, he indicated to you was his way of 22 making it appear that donors from Europe were 23 donating money to LMT? 24 THE WITNESS: That someone else other than he 25 was donating money to LMT.
110 1 Particularly -- I think there was a name 2 attached to one of the amounts, the $300,000 3 amounts. The name was this fellow in Denmark who is 4 an anti-Scientology person over there. Somebody -- 5 THE COURT: Did he tell you -- 6 Excuse me. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have 7 interrupted you. Go ahead. Finish. 8 THE WITNESS: I can't remember the fellow's 9 name. It may be Lund or something like that. 10 THE COURT: Did he tell you that he hadn't even 11 revealed that to his friend Stacy Brooks? 12 THE WITNESS: He did tell us that. He did tell 13 us that. 14 And he told us actually that he and John 15 Merrett had -- had decided not to reveal it to her 16 because they knew that she would be asked about the 17 source of the funds in the ongoing discovery into 18 the Lisa McPherson Trust, and so in order to protect 19 her and not put her in a position where she would 20 have to lie or tell a story that -- that they didn't 21 want to become public, they -- they did not tell her 22 that. 23 THE COURT: Did he tell you how annoyed he was 24 when she ever, ever revealed that any money had come 25 into the LMT from Europe?
111 1 Perhaps he didn't get into that with you. 2 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that he -- 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: -- that he told us that, no. 5 THE COURT: Okay. You, of course, sitting 6 there, knowing about the problems one has when one's 7 transporting money into this country -- now he's 8 talking about a $500,000 check to Mr. Dandar; 9 $250,000 check to Mr. Dandar; we at least know of a 10 $300,000 check to LMT; a $500,000 check to LMT he 11 didn't reveal. He says he revealed it to his 12 lawyer, of course. His lawyer says that's not true. 13 He says he revealed those to Mr. Dandar. Mr. Dandar 14 says that's not true. We know he didn't reveal it 15 to Stacy Brooks -- 16 As a good tax lawyer, I'm sure you could have 17 thought, as this court thinks, that he could have 18 more than one motive for his story. 19 THE WITNESS: That's -- that's right, your 20 Honor. 21 Although I'll have to say that I disagreed with 22 the motives that the church was attributing to him 23 for -- for having this money come in the way it did 24 to the Lisa McPherson Trust. I mean, the church 25 always thought that it had something to do with
112 1 money laundering and that he was bringing in the 2 money from a source that he did not want to identify 3 in Europe and then laundering it through -- through 4 the Lisa McPherson Trust. 5 But the Lisa McPherson Trust then wrote checks 6 out to him, which I would assume he deposited into 7 his bank account here in the U.S., thereby making a 8 trail of those funds in the U.S. 9 And so to me, who, as a tax lawyer, knows a 10 little bit about these things, I thought that would 11 be an incredibly naive way to try to launder money; 12 to have it paid out to you the same day it comes in 13 in a check that you then -- or in a wire transfer to 14 your own personal bank account in the U.S., where 15 you then have a trace for it. 16 So I -- you know, I -- I disagreed with the 17 church's view that that was money laundering. 18 Mr. Minton is not that naive that he would see that 19 as a money-laundering scheme that -- 20 THE COURT: That would be pretty stupid. 21 THE WITNESS: Exactly. That's what I thought. 22 And so I -- for that reason, I give some 23 credibility to, you know, this elaborate scheme, 24 this elaborate plan, that -- that seemed to be going 25 on in more than one venue here, to try to hide
113 1 things from the Church of Scientology. 2 The Church of Scientology is very, very 3 effective about trying to discover things that they 4 think should be discovered in litigation. And so to 5 me, this was an elaborate scheme to try to hide 6 these things from the church; not for him to somehow 7 hide his money. Because it then ended up in his 8 bank account in the U.S. 9 THE COURT: Well, while the Church of 10 Scientology may be pretty adept at discovery, having 11 worked in taxes yourself -- and I, having worked for 12 the IRS, know that sometimes the agents for the 13 government are not as adept in things. Sometimes 14 they've got a lot of time and sometimes they don't. 15 And sometimes they're -- if you're trying to hide 16 things from the tax -- from paying taxes on it, 17 sometimes just one little step, they can miss it. 18 THE WITNESS: That's correct, your Honor. I've 19 certainly had that experience. 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: Fortunately for my clients at 22 times. 23 THE COURT: Yes. I -- I certainly do too. 24 So as I said, I -- I know that, as you sat 25 there and listened, that you could have thought, as
114 1 I do -- whether you believed it or not, certainly it 2 must have gone through your mind that he may have 3 had more than one motivation for his transfers being 4 in the fashion that they were. 5 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. WEINBERG: I've got -- we've been going an 8 hour and a half. Do you think we could take -- 9 It's up to you. 10 THE COURT: Well, I think we can. It seems 11 like that's the time I'm supposed to take a break 12 for my loyal court reporter. 13 We'll be in recess for 15 or 20 minutes, 14 depending on how many calls I get. 15 (A recess was taken at 9:59 a.m.) 16 (The proceedings resumed at 10:21) 17 THE COURT: You may continue. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I will. 19 BY MR. WEINBERG: 20 Q I think where we left off, we were on April 26th. 21 A That's correct. I think. 22 Q But I don't think we had said anything about 23 April 26th. 24 Let me just reorient myself. April 26th is when? 25 What day of the week?
115 1 A It was a Friday. 2 Q All right. And what was the occasion -- 3 And that was at Mr. Pope's office as well? 4 A Yes, it was. 5 Q And it's the four people again? 6 A Yes, it was. 7 Q And what was the occasion of that meeting, do you 8 know? 9 A Stacy Brooks had a draft of -- of her affidavit, 10 and she asked Mr. Rinder and me to review it. 11 Q And that took place during this meeting? 12 A Yes, it did. 13 Q And did you make any suggestions to Ms. Brooks? 14 A Yes, I had. I -- I recall that as with 15 Mr. Minton's affidavit, Ms. Brooks's initial draft was much 16 longer than the -- the final affidavit that was -- was filed 17 in this proceeding. And I suggested, as I had with 18 Mr. Minton, that it be shorter. And Ms. Brooks had included 19 a lot of background information involving her time when she 20 was in the Church of Scientology and when she left the 21 Church of Scientology and how she got involved in 22 anti-Scientology litigation, and a lot of details about 23 that. And I suggested that that wasn't necessary. 24 She also, as with Mr. Minton, had a tendency to 25 speak in opinions and beliefs as opposed to facts that she
116 1 knew from personal knowledge, so I -- I suggested that she 2 try to confine her affidavit to statements of facts from 3 personal knowledge. 4 But as I had with Mr. Minton, I told her that 5 while I was glad to give my opinion, that she needed to have 6 the opinion of her own counsel and the advice of her own 7 counsel in finalizing her affidavit. And I do understand 8 that she did that. 9 Q Did -- did you -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: Were you about to -- or were you 11 just looking at me? 12 THE COURT: Just looking at you. 13 MR. WEINBERG: I thought you were poised to -- 14 THE COURT: No. 15 MR. WEINBERG: I'm getting punchy. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Did you or Mr. Rinder ever tell Mr. Minton or 18 Ms. Brooks to tell a certain story in their affidavit? 19 A No, we did not. They -- they told us that they 20 wanted to tell their story and they wanted to provide an 21 affidavit that told the story as opposed to -- to just the 22 short recanting affidavits they had initially filed. 23 And I would say that probably the initial drafts 24 they -- they asked us to look at were much more of a story, 25 and that in fact they told the story. They started at the
117 1 beginning and went through the events and went to the end. 2 It wasn't even so much an affidavit as it was a story. And 3 then they condensed that down to what ultimately was filed. 4 Q Okay. The -- during these meetings that took 5 place from -- let me just look at my notes here -- from 6 the -- the ones in April, from the first meeting in April -- 7 which was on what day? 8 A It was on the 6th of April. 9 Q From the first meeting, on the 6th of April, 10 through April the 26th -- during any of these meetings, were 11 there any negotiations with regard to a settlement? 12 A No, there were not. 13 Q Were there any discussions about settlement 14 during -- during these meetings? 15 A No, there were not. 16 Q Did you have any more meetings with Mr. Minton 17 and/or Ms. Brooks? 18 A I did have one further meeting with Ms. Brooks and 19 Mr. McGowan. 20 Q And when was that meeting? 21 A That was sometime in May. In the latter part of 22 May, I believe. 23 Q Okay. And where did that take place? 24 A Hmm. I believe it took place in Mr. Pope's 25 office.
118 1 Q Okay. And do you recall what happened during that 2 meeting? 3 A Yes. Ms. Brooks wanted to review all of the prior 4 affidavits that she had filed in Scientology, other 5 Scientology litigation as well as this case, and to -- to 6 see if she had made false statements in any of those 7 affidavits. And she wanted to discuss that with Mr. Rinder 8 and -- and me. So we had a meeting where Mr. Rinder and I 9 were there, and Ms. Brooks was with Mr. McGowan. 10 Q Okay. And how long did that meeting -- 11 This was after her testimony. 12 A I believe it was, yes. 13 Q And -- and how long did that meeting take? 14 A It probably took a few hours. She wanted -- she 15 had asked Mr. Rinder, I believe, or Mr. McGowan had, to 16 provide copies of all the affidavits that the church was 17 aware of that she had filed, because she did not have access 18 to them all. And -- and so we did have those affidavits. 19 And there was some discussion about different 20 things in the affidavits. 21 I recall that -- that Ms. Brooks had a lot of 22 questions about -- that -- about things they had said -- 23 questions primarily of Mr. Rinder, about how she understood 24 particular -- for example, on a corporate issue, how she 25 understood how the Church of Scientology had operated or
119 1 whatever. And -- and that was discussion about whether or 2 not that was correct or whether she had actually had 3 personal knowledge of it or things of that nature. 4 Q Okay. And -- 5 A There was also discussion about the affidavit that 6 she had filed after a meeting that she had had with -- with 7 Mr. Rinder sometime earlier. I don't remember the year, but 8 I believe it was maybe in 19 -- 1994, 1998 or something like 9 that. And following that meeting, Mr. -- or that series of 10 meetings, I believe, that Mr. Rinder had had with Ms. Brooks 11 and her then-husband, Mr. Young, Mr. Rinder had -- had 12 executed an affidavit setting forth his recollection of what 13 had happened at those -- at those meetings. And Ms. Brooks 14 did an affidavit sort of responding to Mr. Rinder's 15 affidavit. 16 And I remember there was discussion between 17 Mr. Rinder and Ms. Brooks about those two affidavits. And I 18 remember Ms. Brooks saying specifically that Mr. Rinder's 19 affidavit was -- was a more accurate reflection of what had 20 happened in those meetings, and that her affidavit distorted 21 the facts. 22 Q Do you recall anything else from -- from the 23 meeting? 24 A No. I -- I recall that Ms. Brooks was going to 25 review her prior testimony and -- and perhaps prepare an
120 1 affidavit with respect to it. And I don't know whether 2 that's occurred or not. 3 Q Okay. This was a meeting just with Ms. Brooks 4 and -- and her attorney, Mr. McGowan. Mr. Minton was not at 5 this meeting? 6 A I don't believe so. I don't have any recollection 7 of him having been there. 8 Q Okay. Now, during the course of -- 9 THE COURT: Can I ask one question? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure. 11 THE COURT: But for that meeting and but for 12 the meetings on the 28th and the 29th, at any 13 meeting that Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton appeared at 14 other than those meetings, they did not have 15 counsel, is that correct? 16 THE WITNESS: Except for the meeting on the 17 15th of -- of April, your Honor, where -- 18 THE COURT: Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: -- the transcripts were reviewed 20 and Mr. McGowan was present. 21 THE COURT: Mr. McGowan was there. I believe 22 Mr. Minton was there without counsel. 23 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 24 THE COURT: Okay. But the other meetings, 25 other than the ones you've specifically referred to,
121 1 the -- the church had counsel; I take it that was 2 you? 3 THE WITNESS: That was me. 4 THE COURT: And they did not. 5 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q Now, going back to the 28th and the -- I think it 8 was the 28th, actually, when you -- you said something 9 earlier today that -- you said the one thing that the 10 parties seemed to agree on was that all the litigation 11 with -- that wanted to go -- that -- that one of the goals 12 that all the parties agreed on was that all the litigation 13 cease -- 14 A That's correct. 15 Q -- right? 16 Now, at that point, in the view of you and 17 Mr. Rinder and I guess Mr. Rosen, at that meeting in New 18 York, it was you all's belief, and I guess you expressed it 19 at the meeting, that Mr. Minton was involved in one way or 20 another with literally all of the significant litigation 21 that was going on around the world concerning the Church of 22 Scientology, is that right? 23 A Perhaps not around the world, but certainly in the 24 United States, and some litigation outside the United 25 States. But was not only a belief that he was involved in
122 1 all the litigation involved in the United States, it's -- 2 it's a fact. 3 Q Okay. Now, one last thing, and then I'm done. 4 During the -- you've already addressed a couple of 5 these points, but let's just review them. 6 During the course of the meetings in April, Mr. -- 7 can you tell us, in addition to the two -- copies of the two 8 checks, what it is that you can recall that Mr. Minton gave 9 to you all during the meetings in the way of documents? 10 A He gave us some copies of e-mails; some copies 11 of -- of correspondence between him and Mr. Dandar; between 12 Mr. Jonas and Mr. Dandar; e-mails from -- from Mr. Dandar; 13 he gave us an e-mail from a fellow named Arnie Lerma, having 14 to deal with the Wollersheim case; I think he gave us a copy 15 of one of the checks that he had given to Courage 16 Productions. I think -- I think Ms. Brooks may have given 17 us a copy of a letter that she had received from Mr. Dandar. 18 I -- I don't recall anything else specific. 19 Q The -- you were in court yesterday. The 3-30 20 letter from -- 3-30 -- the March 30th, '02 letter from 21 Mr. Dandar to Mr. Minton, did Mr. Minton give you a copy of 22 that? 23 A Yes, he did. 24 Q And you all discussed it with him? 25 A Yes, we did.
123 1 Q And then there is a February -- I think it's 26th 2 letter from Mr. Minton -- I mean, from Mr. Dandar to 3 Mr. Minton, which has been referred to by everybody as the 4 suck-up letter. Did Mr. Minton give you a copy of that? 5 A Yes, he did. And he in fact called it the suck-up 6 letter when he gave it to us. 7 Q All right. And is that pretty much what you 8 recall you all got from Mr. Minton? 9 A Yes. 10 MR. WEINBERG: And I believe those -- 11 THE COURT: What was that letter from yesterday 12 dated? 13 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, it's March 30th -- 14 THE COURT: '02. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. 2002. 16 THE WITNESS: We also provided some documents 17 to Mr. Minton. 18 BY MR. WEINBERG: 19 Q Okay. Can you tell us about those? 20 A And Ms. Brooks -- well, in addition to the 21 deposition transcripts and court transcripts I've referred 22 to, and the transcript of -- of Mr. -- Mr. -- Judge 23 Schaeffer's statements on the record having to do with Jesse 24 Prince, from time to time there were things that would come 25 up where, more Stacy Brooks but Mr. Minton as well, would
124 1 make inquiries of things where they had a belief that 2 something had occurred a certain way or operated a certain 3 way or something like that. And so that we would provide 4 them documents to show them that they were wrong; that they 5 either misunderstood the facts or that someone had told them 6 the wrong facts or -- or whatever. And this happened quite 7 often. 8 They didn't always take copies. In fact, I would 9 say in most cases they didn't take copies. But they were 10 shown documents. 11 And there were a few I remember. One was the 12 Vicki Aznaran affidavit. And -- because there was 13 discussion about that, and it had to do with Stacy Brooks' 14 belief that Mr. Rinder had asked her -- 15 Q Oh, could I interrupt you for a second? 16 A Sure. 17 Q Because I don't know -- I don't think the judge 18 really knows --maybe this judge does -- what -- who Vickie 19 Aznaran did -- is, and what it was that you've all been 20 talking about. So maybe you can give a little bit of 21 background what you're talking about with Stacy Brooks so it 22 makes sense when you're talking about this affidavit. 23 THE COURT: Actually, I probably know more than 24 I need to -- 25 MR. WEINBERG: All right.
125 1 THE COURT: -- just from Mr. Prince's 2 affidavit. But I don't know exactly what you're 3 talking about, so -- 4 A Vicki Aznaran was a former Scientologist who left 5 the church and became a part of the anti-Scientology 6 community. She had filed an affidavit in a case in 7 California where a Mr. Graham Berry was the counsel, and 8 subsequently she ended up settling with the church. And as 9 part of that settlement process, she advised the church that 10 the affidavit that Mr. Berry had filed was not actually the 11 affidavit that she had signed; that he had inserted 10 pages 12 or substantial additional amounts into the affidavit and -- 13 before he filed it. 14 And Mr. Rinder apparently had believed that this 15 same thing had happened with an affidavit that Ms. Brooks 16 had filed with respect to Mr. Berry. And so there was 17 discussion about that, and a copy of the -- the false 18 affidavit from Vicki Aznaran was actually provided to 19 Ms. Brooks to take a look at. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q What -- do you remember any other specific 22 documents that were shown, that -- 23 A There were documents that were provided about 24 Jesse Prince, I remember. I remember after Mr. Minton and 25 Ms. Brooks had had dinner with Mr. Prince, I believe
126 1 sometime in the middle of April, we -- at one of the 2 meetings following that, they were quite upset about what 3 had happened with -- with Mr. Prince, and that he had become 4 violent in the meeting and threatened Mr. Minton and so on. 5 And they seemed to think that somehow this was a radical 6 change in -- in Mr. Prince's personality, and that he really 7 wasn't this type of individual. 8 And Mr. Rinder and I had a very different opinion 9 of Mr. -- Mr. Prince, and we thought that this was actually 10 true to his personality, and so we provided them some 11 documents of things -- 12 (A cell phone rang.) 13 THE WITNESS: That may be my phone. 14 I'm so sorry, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: It happens. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I was talking on it 17 during the break and I just didn't turn it off. 18 THE COURT: All right. 19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 20 At least I don't have a tune on my phone. 21 THE COURT: That's true. That's good. 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: It's Mozart. 23 THE WITNESS: I hope she can figure out how to 24 turn it off, or just leave my purse out there, 25 anyway.
127 1 THE COURT: Better yet, she hopes there's 2 nothing missing from your purse. 3 THE WITNESS: Right. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q Jesse Prince. 6 A Jesse Prince. Right. 7 And Mr. Rinder and I believe that the behavior 8 that he exhibited at this dinner and so on with Mr. Minton 9 and Ms. Brooks was really his true self, and so we provided 10 some documents of instances of things that had happened in 11 his past that illustrated that in fact this is -- this was 12 the real Jesse Prince. 13 Q And is that essentially what you can recall? 14 A I don't recall anything else specific that we 15 provided. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions. 17 THE COURT: All right. You may inquire. 18 MR. DANDAR: Thank you. 19 CROSS EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q Good morning, Mrs. Yingling. 22 What percentage of your practice is devoted to tax 23 issues? 24 A I would say probably 75 to 80 percent. Somehow 25 related to tax. Because I do some corporate work as well.
128 1 But there are quite often tax issues that were related to 2 the corporate issues, so -- 3 Q Okay. And what percentage of your practice is 4 concerning in any manner whatsoever the Church of 5 Scientology? 6 A That really varies, depending on what I'm involved 7 in with the Church of Scientology at any given time. I 8 think it could fluctuate between 50 percent of my time and 9 150 percent of my time. 10 Q So in the last -- I'll just say last five years -- 11 what percentage of your time could you estimate concerns the 12 Church of Scientology? 13 THE COURT: That could be a rough estimate -- 14 MR. DANDAR: Yeah. 15 THE COURT: -- since obviously she wouldn't 16 have that breakdown unless it was a hundred percent. 17 A Well, when I -- when you say the Church of 18 Scientology, you need to understand that I don't have one 19 client that is the Church of Scientology. I probably have 20 two dozen or more clients that are Scientology-related 21 organizations. They may be different churches of 22 Scientology; they may be Scientology social betterment 23 organizations or -- or whatever. And among these various 24 clients, various Scientology-related organizations, I would 25 say, I would estimate about 75 percent of my time.
129 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Okay. And are you on a monthly retainer? 3 A No -- 4 MR. WEINBERG: Objection -- 5 A -- I'm not. 6 MR. WEINBERG: -- your Honor. 7 THE WITNESS: Oh. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Inquiry as to her 9 financial arrangement with the church. She says 10 75 percent of her time. Obviously it's an important 11 client for her. And what's the point here? 12 THE COURT: Well, I think he's allowed to test 13 her bias. And I think while she doesn't have to 14 reveal her income figures here, I think she can tell 15 us if she's on a retainer. 16 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, if he goes any 17 further as to what it is that she received from the 18 church, I think that would be inappropriate. 19 THE COURT: Well, you do know that if this case 20 gets into a trial, that there is some law in the 21 state of Florida that does seem to suggest, that 22 under certain circumstances, witnesses's bias can be 23 tested by the exact amounts of money paid to them. 24 I am not going to allow that at this hearing. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
130 1 MR. DANDAR: The only other question I had on 2 that is what is her hourly rate that she charges the 3 Church of Scientology. 4 THE COURT: If she doesn't mind telling us 5 that. 6 A I do not -- I do not get a monthly retainer from 7 the church. I do bill by the hour. I'm not sure what my 8 current billable rate is. I believe it's $375 an hour 9 currently. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q And of course you're being -- you're charging for 12 your appearance in Florida for this hearing, correct? 13 A Frankly, Mr. Dandar, I haven't thought about it. 14 I haven't done my time sheets and I haven't thought about 15 it. 16 Q Okay. And when you're flying to Paris this 17 evening, are you flying to Paris on behalf of the Church of 18 Scientology? 19 A I have various business in Europe. I'm not just 20 going to be in Paris. And I have other clients in addition 21 to some Church of Scientology-related business in Europe. 22 Q Okay. So it does include the Church of 23 Scientology business as well non-Scientology business, is 24 that -- 25 A That's correct.
131 1 Q -- correct? 2 All right. And in being here in Florida, when you 3 get around to doing your billing, is that going to be to 4 which Scientology corporation? 5 THE COURT: She said she hadn't really thought 6 about it. 7 Is this important? 8 MR. DANDAR: Well, I think it goes -- all this 9 goes to witness bias. 10 THE COURT: Well, I understand. But what 11 church she's going to bill this to -- 12 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 13 THE COURT: -- whether it's going to be CSI or 14 Flag -- 15 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Well, she doesn't know. 17 MR. DANDAR: Well, I -- 18 THE COURT: She hasn't thought about it. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Well, let's go back to the meetings that you had 21 in New York City. Who did you bill for that? 22 THE COURT: If it will make it easier for you, 23 Mr. Dandar, I would assume and will state on this 24 record that I suspect that she does a significant 25 amount of work for the Church of Scientology, and
132 1 that you can refer to that in any way you might 2 think tends to show a witness's bias. 3 MR. DANDAR: Judge, it has a great deal to do 4 with the statements made by either counsel for the 5 church or what they had Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks 6 testify about concerning the different corporations 7 of the Church of Scientology. 8 THE COURT: You didn't even hear me. 9 MR. DANDAR: I'm sorry. 10 THE COURT: What I said was if in fact you want 11 to suggest that, due to her work that she has done 12 for the church over many, many years, she is a 13 biased witness, I suspect you could establish that 14 based on the record you have. 15 MR. DANDAR: I'm beyond that. This is 16 something else. 17 THE COURT: Oh. 18 MR. DANDAR: I'm -- this is a different reason 19 for this question. 20 THE COURT: I mean, you can always suggest 21 bias. Naturally your testimony could be biased, her 22 testimony could be biased, Mr. Minton's testimony 23 could be biased. You know, everyone has enough on 24 the record to make those suggestions to me. 25
133 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Okay. Do you represent David Miscavige? 3 A Personally? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Beyond the scope. 5 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. 6 A I do not represent David Miscavige personally, no. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Does your husband, Mr. Feffer of the Williams and 9 Connelly Law Firm, represent David Miscavige? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope. This is 13 really not a discovery -- 14 THE COURT: I said sustained. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Have you talked to David Miscavige in the last two 18 months? 19 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 20 Well, I -- 21 THE COURT: Overruled. 22 MR. WEINBERG: But objection to any -- to 23 the -- to any substance from any -- 24 THE COURT: He hasn't asked that, Counselor. 25 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
134 1 A Yes, I have. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Okay. And without telling me what you talked to 4 him -- 5 Well, wait a minute. If he's not your client, 6 then I want you to tell me what you talked to him about. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, come on. 8 Objection, your Honor. He asked him -- he 9 asked her whether David Miscavige -- she represented 10 personally. Obviously, David -- she represents 11 various churches of Scientology around the world, of 12 which Mr. Miscavige, among other things, is a 13 chairman of the board of RTC. Any conversations 14 between Mr. Miscavige and Ms. Yingling are 15 privileged. 16 And beyond that, it's way beyond the scope. 17 And this is exactly what I was talking about 18 at -- 19 THE COURT: There is a certain -- there is a 20 certain amount of relevance here regarding testimony 21 that deals with Mr. Miscavige and the attempt to add 22 Mr. Miscavige as a witness. This is a crucial 23 element to this particular case. 24 However, as to her conversations with 25 Mr. Miscavige, I will ask this one question:
135 1 Do you represent at times and is one of your 2 clients RTC, if that is an organization? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. It's a church, 4 and -- and -- 5 RTC stands for Religious Technology Center. 6 And that is -- 7 THE COURT: And that is an actual entity -- 8 THE WITNESS: -- that I do represent. 9 THE COURT: -- organization that you represent. 10 THE WITNESS: It is a corporation and I do 11 represent it. 12 THE COURT: Then you cannot get into her 13 conversations with Mr. Miscavige because he's a 14 client. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Did you have any telephone conversations with 17 Mr. Miscavige about the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case 18 which is only against the Church of Scientology Flag Service 19 Organization, Incorporated? 20 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Privileged. 21 THE COURT: Sustained. 22 You're not going there. This is not why she 23 was brought. And this is -- it's just not going to 24 happen. 25 MR. DANDAR: Okay, Judge --
136 1 THE COURT: If she wants to answer -- if she 2 wants to answer it, that's fine. If she doesn't, 3 you can infer whatever you want. 4 The problem is she is a lawyer for this church 5 and many of the related churches. I'm not going to 6 have her going into conversations with the one 7 person that everybody has acknowledged is the head 8 of this church. 9 MR. DANDAR: But Judge, they acknowledge -- 10 THE COURT: And -- 11 I've ruled. 12 MR. DANDAR: All right. 13 THE COURT: And you just can move on. 14 MR. DANDAR: All right. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q When -- you never met Mr. Minton or Ms. -- Stacy 17 Brooks before March 28th, 2002, is that correct? 18 A I had never met Mr. Minton before. However, I did 19 meet Ms. Brooks once before. 20 Q When did you meet Ms. Brooks before? 21 A She attended a deposition that I attended in 22 California sometime in -- during the 1990s, I believe. I 23 can't give you a -- a specific year. 24 Q What case? 25 A I'm not sure I remember the case. I was not
137 1 counsel of record. And I -- I was there to attend the 2 deposition. The deposition was conducted by Kathy Shipe 3 from Dan Leipold's firm. I remember that much. But I'm 4 sorry, Mr. Dandar, I can't help you any further. 5 Q Was it the Wollersheim case? 6 A No, it was not. 7 Q Lopez case? 8 No. That's too long ago. 9 All right. Now, Mike Rinder -- 10 Well, who asked you to come to New York City on 11 March 28th? 12 A Mike Rinder. 13 Q Okay. And Mike Rinder is with the Church of 14 Scientology International, CSI, correct? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q Is that one of your clients? 17 A Yes, it is. 18 Q Okay. And do you -- what is your understanding of 19 why Mike Rinder was involved in the meetings with Mr. Minton 20 and Ms. Brooks, since he does not represent Flag? 21 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as the answer requires 22 revealing privileged into, for example, talking to 23 Mr. Rinder. 24 THE COURT: Sustained as to that. 25 A The Church of Scientology International is the
138 1 mother church of the Scientology religion, and in that 2 capacity it -- it oversees ecclesiastical matters and other 3 matters having to do with -- with churches of Scientology 4 around the world. 5 So Mr. Rinder does have more of an overview than 6 just Church of Scientology International. But in addition 7 to that -- 8 That's one of the reasons he was there. 9 But in addition to that, Mr. Minton's involvement 10 was not confined to the litigation in Florida. Mr. Minton's 11 involvement was -- included churches of Scientology all over 12 the country as well as churches of Scientology in Europe. 13 And whenever there's an issue or -- or a matter that spans 14 more than one Church of Scientology, it is of something that 15 is of interest to the mother church. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Are you a litigator? 18 A I have litigated. 19 Q When did you litigate last? 20 A When was the last time I made an appearance in 21 court? 22 Q As a -- as a trial lawyer? 23 THE COURT: You mean in front of a jury or 24 what? 25 MR. DANDAR: In a -- in a contested litigation,
139 1 not just an administrative hearing or -- 2 A Well, I'm counsel of record right now in -- in 3 cases. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q Okay. Are you counsel of record in Florida 6 anywhere? 7 A In the state of Florida? 8 Q Yes. 9 A No. 10 Q Okay. Are you counsel of record for the Church of 11 Scientology in the United States somewhere? 12 A I don't believe in any proceeding that's pending 13 at this time, no. 14 Q Now, in your expertise in taxes -- you have an LLM 15 degree in tax. You were with the Justice Department, doing 16 tax work. You continue to do tax work in the -- in your 17 civil practice. 18 When you went to New York, did you have any 19 inclination that your expertise was required in tax, to meet 20 with Mr. Minton? 21 A No, I did not. 22 Q When you practice in your current practice, 23 representing people with reference to taxes, you represent 24 people who owe the IRS taxes, is that right? 25 A No, not necessarily.
140 1 Q What is it then? 2 A I -- I do a lot of tax-exempt work, and so I'm 3 dealing with clients who are exempt from taxation. But in 4 some instances I deal with matters that are in controversy 5 with the IRS, and the IRS may take the position that they 6 are owed money, but my client takes a different position. 7 Q Have you taken any courses in Scientology? 8 A No, I have not. 9 Q Now, were you involved in the FACTNet settlement 10 negotiations? 11 A I was involved in some settlement negotiations 12 involving FACTNet over the years. I don't think I was 13 involved directly in the negotiations that actually ended up 14 settling the case. 15 Q Were you involved in the Wollersheim negotiations 16 after he won his jury verdict in excess of $30 million? 17 MR. WEINBERG: Is there a period of time you 18 want to state? 19 MR. DANDAR: Well, from the very beginning. I 20 want to know -- 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q I believe you started to represent the Church of 23 Scientology just about the time Mr. Wollersheim got his jury 24 verdict, is that right? 25 A Yes.
141 1 Q And when did you first get involved in the 2 Wollersheim matter? 3 A Not until after the judgment was reduced to 4 $2.5 million and it became final. I believe it became final 5 in 1994. 6 Q And what -- how did you get involved? 7 A I believe all of my involvement with respect to 8 the Wollersheim case had to do with efforts to settle it. 9 Q When is the first time you tried to settle the 10 Wollersheim case? 11 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to whether -- as to 12 any privileged matter. 13 If you're talking about discussions with 14 Wollersheim's counsel or Mr. Wollersheim, obviously 15 that's not privileged. But to the extent that he's 16 asking for what she did vis-a-vis the client, I 17 would object. 18 THE COURT: I think he simply asked her when. 19 MR. DANDAR: That's all I asked. 20 THE COURT: So really, your objection's way 21 premature. 22 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 23 THE COURT: And you know, this woman has 24 already asked if she could -- you know, she's fairly 25 capable of knowing when to answer and --
142 1 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 2 THE COURT: -- when not to. So unless you see 3 she's really going astray here, why don't you just 4 let her handle this? 5 MR. WEINBERG: All right. I will. 6 THE COURT: Go on ahead. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q When did you first get involved in trying to get 9 the Wollersheim matter settled? 10 A I'm not sure of the exact year. It could have 11 been 1997, 1998. I'm not exactly sure. 12 Q So from -- I think it was either early '80s, 13 mid-'80s, to when all the appeals were over, is that when 14 you got involved? 15 A I believe I just testified that it wasn't until 16 the -- the verdict had been reduced and -- and was final. 17 Q Final meaning all the appeals filed by the Church 18 of Scientology were over. 19 A And the appeals filed by Mr. Wollersheim. Because 20 he also appealed to try to have the $30 million verdict 21 reinstated, and we appealed that all the way to the Supreme 22 Court. 23 Q What was your first offer to Mr. Wollersheim? 24 A I believe that's privileged. 25 Q No. What did you --
143 1 THE COURT: I don't care what her first offer 2 was. 3 MR. DANDAR: Well -- 4 THE COURT: I don't care that much about the 5 Wollersheim case. 6 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I do, for the reason that 7 Mr. Weinberg brought it out on direct. And this 8 witness said under oath that Mr. Wollersheim did not 9 want to settle his case. And I think that is an 10 important area for me to inquire into, because she 11 said it; Mr. Weinberg asked the question; he brought 12 it in before you. 13 THE COURT: Well, she said it's privileged. 14 MR. DANDAR: It's her communication to 15 Mr. Wollersheim or his attorney. That's not 16 privileged. 17 THE COURT: Oh, all right. 18 A I was involved in a series of negotiations with 19 Mr. Wollersheim over a number of years. And most of those 20 negotiations never resulted in any offer being made, because 21 there were so many preliminary issues that needed to be 22 worked out first, an agreement was never reached with 23 respect to them. 24 The -- however, I did offer or it was offered on 25 behalf of the church to -- to Mr. Wollersheim's counsel the
144 1 full amount of the judgment on more than one occasion. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Now, can we agree that -- 4 THE COURT: Excuse me. Is that the judgment 5 after it was reduced to this 2.5 million? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: I don't understand that, and I 8 don't really want to. 9 MR. DANDAR: No, no. That's -- 10 THE COURT: But apparently that judgment 11 changed from time to time, up and down and -- 12 THE WITNESS: Well, it was a $30 million 13 verdict originally, and it was reduced by, I 14 believe, the court of appeals in California. 15 Mr. Wollersheim then tried to reinstate it by 16 appealing the reduction to the Supreme Court. It 17 came back on remand to the -- the appeals court in 18 California, and the reduced verdict was sustained at 19 $2.5 million. But it then accumulated interest. So 20 at various times it was $5 million, $6 million, 21 during the settlement negotiations -- 22 THE COURT: I see. 23 THE WITNESS: -- and ultimately, with interest, 24 was over $8 million, I believe. 25
145 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q And the Church of Scientology filed four or five 3 what in California is called SLAP suits against 4 Mr. Wollersheim, and lost all of those cases, is that right? 5 A I'm not familiar with that, Mr. Dandar. I think 6 there may have been one, but I certainly have no knowledge 7 of four or five. 8 Q What were the preconditions of settlement that 9 Mr. Wollersheim apparently refused to do before the church 10 would offer the satisfaction of judgment? 11 MR. WEINBERG: I object to that. I mean, to 12 what were the preconditions -- that would sound like 13 something privileged to me, if there was a 14 precondition in counsel's mind or -- or the client's 15 mind. 16 I also object because this is way beyond the 17 scope of our direct, which was just what Mr. Minton 18 and his counsel and the church counsel said during 19 the -- the negotiations in New York. And that's how 20 Wollersheim came up. I didn't ask any other 21 questions about Wollersheim. 22 THE COURT: I think she did volunteer 23 perhaps -- or you didn't ask it -- that 24 Mr. Wollersheim did not want to settle. 25 I guess we're talking here about not settlement
146 1 offers, but about some preconditions or what have 2 you to a settlement discussion. And so I suppose to 3 that extent it's relevant. And I don't suppose that 4 it's beyond the scope. 5 So I'm going to overrule your objection. I 6 don't know how it can be privileged if it's an offer 7 made to Mr. Wollersheim and his counsel. 8 MR. WEINBERG: If it's an offer made to 9 Mr. Wollersheim, it's not privileged. I think what 10 he was asking was, "What were your preconditions 11 before you ever made an offer?" That's what I 12 heard. 13 THE COURT: Well, I believe that he's talking 14 about preconditions that were -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: Told to Mr. Wollersheim? 16 THE COURT: -- told -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 18 THE COURT: If you remember. 19 A I don't believe that there were any preconditions. 20 I believe what the church was attempting to do was have a 21 global settlement with Mr. Wollersheim, encompassing 22 different litigation that he was involved in and different 23 activities that he was involved in with the Church of 24 Scientology. And we were never able to reach an agreement 25 that all of those matters could be resolved.
147 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q So the church didn't want to pay the judgment when 3 it became final, because Mr. Wollersheim would not agree to 4 stop his other activities criticizing the church, or engage 5 in other litigation. And I want you to tell me what the 6 other litigation was. 7 A That was not my testimony, Mr. Dandar. 8 Q All right. Then correct me. 9 A The church wanted to have a global settlement with 10 Mr. Wollersheim in which all outstanding litigation and all 11 outstanding activities that Mr. Wollersheim was carrying on 12 against the Church of Scientology would be resolved at the 13 same time. 14 Q So that -- okay. So a global settlement was not 15 the Wollersheim judgment. So when you previously said 16 Mr. Wollersheim, over all these years, refused to accept the 17 church's offer to settle for the amount of the judgment, 18 that wasn't the complete story, was it? 19 A Mr. Wollersheim did refuse to accept the judgment. 20 I personally offered the full judgment to Mr. Wollersheim's 21 counsel simply with no strings attached, and he refused it. 22 Q When was that? 23 A That was this year. 24 Q And that was to Mr. Leipold? 25 A No, it was not.
148 1 Q Mr. Stein? 2 A Yes, it was. 3 Q What -- 4 And was that in writing? 5 A Yes, it was. 6 Q Was that the first time you offered the payment of 7 the full judgment with interest, without any strings 8 attached? 9 A It was not the first time that the -- that the 10 full judgment was offered, no. 11 Q Was that the first time it was offered with no 12 strings attached? 13 A The -- there was one -- there was one condition 14 with respect to the full judgment, just to make sure that 15 the -- my testimony is complete, and that is that the amount 16 would be -- be kept confidential. And that was actually 17 something that Mr. Wollersheim wanted. 18 But beyond that, there were other times that the 19 full amount of the judgment was -- was offered, yes, under 20 the same -- same circumstances. Mutual releases and 21 confidentiality, and nothing else. 22 Q Why do you need a mutual release if you're paying 23 a judgment that's final? 24 A I can answer that question hypothetically. I 25 think whenever you settle litigation, it's certainly my
149 1 practice to try to have both sides execute mutual releases 2 so that you can hopefully end all controversy between the 3 parties for the future. 4 Q Did the mutual releases that accompanied your -- 5 the offer to settle to Mr. Wollersheim include the other 6 terms of this global settlement to him -- for him not to do 7 other things that he may want to do or he was currently 8 doing? 9 A There were times that those kinds of issues were 10 on the table, but these were -- Mr. Wollersheim -- when 11 Mr. Wollersheim would ever enter into these global 12 settlement discussions, it was always his position that 13 that's what he wanted. He wanted to end all controversy 14 with the Church of Scientology and get on with his life. 15 That would be his position at the outset. And then when we 16 would try to narrow that down to the actual controversies 17 that were outstanding, there would always be some difficulty 18 in resolving them. 19 But this wasn't a demand by the Church of 20 Scientology. This was, like any other negotiation, both 21 sides saying what their position was. 22 Q And in trying to get Mr. Wollersheim to enter into 23 a global settlement rather than just pay the final judgment 24 and get a satisfaction of the final judgment, did the global 25 settlement include requests by the Church of Scientology for
150 1 him to recant anything? 2 A Not that I recall. 3 Q Did it include the Church of Scientology making a 4 request for Mr. Wollersheim to get certain affidavits of 5 experts that he used to recant or withdraw their affidavits? 6 A Not that I recall. 7 Q Is there any condition, on paying the final 8 judgment of Mr. Wollersheim, at any time, to include any 9 type of conditions or actions to be taken by his corporation 10 known as FACTNet? 11 A FACTNet was an issue that was part of some of the 12 negotiations that I had been involved in. 13 And it was the church's desire to have FACTNet 14 closed down. The church believed that FACTNet was simply 15 being used to support anti-Scientology litigation, and that 16 if FACTNet's activities continued with Mr. Wollersheim's 17 involvement, that there could not be a complete 18 disengagement between the church and Mr. Wollersheim. And 19 for that reason they believed that FACTNet should be shut 20 down. 21 Q And it's true that the mother church that he 22 originally sued, Church of Scientology of California, and 23 had a judgment against, that -- that corporation's assets 24 were transferred to the new mother church after the judgment 25 was entered, is that right?
151 1 A That's not correct. 2 Q When were the assets of the old mother church 3 transferred to the new mother church? 4 THE COURT: Why in the world are we -- do I 5 have to listen to all this? I mean, honestly, why 6 do I have to care about what in the world went on in 7 California? I don't frankly care if somebody did 8 wrong out there, to tell you the truth, or if you 9 think they did. I mean, if we had some money here, 10 if we were talking about a judgment here, I might 11 care. Right now I'm dealing with something totally 12 different. 13 MR. DANDAR: I -- 14 THE COURT: Bring it relevant, would you? 15 MR. DANDAR: I am. 16 There's two reasons: 17 Number one, it was brought out by Mr. Weinberg 18 on direct -- 19 THE COURT: So what? I mean, why -- maybe I 20 didn't care when he did it either, but he asked one 21 or two questions and I let him go. 22 Now I care. 23 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 24 THE COURT: You're wasting my time. 25 MR. DANDAR: All right.
152 1 THE COURT: I mean, I don't know. Are you 2 gathering some information for some other lawyer 3 or -- 4 MR. DANDAR: No. 5 THE COURT: -- or what? 6 MR. DANDAR: I'm -- I'm trying to -- I'm going 7 to connect this to their negotiations in -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. DANDAR: -- this case. 10 As you know, the -- Wollersheim was the second 11 case they talked about. 12 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Did I disturb you? 13 MR. DANDAR: I lost it. 14 THE COURT: All right. Well -- 15 MR. DANDAR: It's not going to look good on the 16 record when I say that, but -- 17 Read back the last question. 18 THE REPORTER: "When were the assets of the old 19 mother church transferred to the new mother church?" 20 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That's like asking, 21 "When did you stop beating your wife?" That's the 22 second question along that line. I object to the 23 form of it. 24 THE COURT: I -- why don't you just object on 25 relevancy grounds? And I'll sustain it.
153 1 MR. WEINBERG: Then I object on relevancy. 2 THE COURT: Good. Sustained. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q Mrs. Yingling, do you recall saying on direct 5 examination that the reason why Mr. Wollersheim didn't 6 collect on his final judgment is because he waited too long 7 to try to collect on his final judgment and the mother 8 church's assets were gone? 9 A I don't believe that was my testimony. 10 Q And correct me. What was your testimony? Or what 11 is your understanding? 12 A That at the time that he finally tried to collect 13 his judgment, the Church of Scientology of California was a 14 dormant corporation and was essentially insolvent. 15 Q And isn't -- isn't that because the Church of 16 Scientology did not want to pay that judgment? 17 A No. That is not correct. 18 Q Do you recall in -- since you've been representing 19 the Church of Scientology since, I believe you said 1986, 20 that the slogan by the Church of Scientology was, "Not one 21 thin dime for Wollersheim"? 22 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Relevance. 23 MR. DANDAR: And now I'm going to connect it. 24 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to 25 overrule that, just to see if he can connect it.
154 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Do you recall that? 3 A No, I do not recall that. 4 Q Do you recall in your discussions that you had in 5 New York City with Mr. Minton, Mr. Rinder or Mr. Rosen, 6 saying that the estate of Lisa McPherson and Ken Dandar will 7 not get a dime out of this case? 8 A No, I don't recall that. 9 Q Do you recall saying that -- Mr. Rinder and 10 Mr. Rosen or yourself -- I don't know who -- saying that 11 this case, the Lisa McPherson case, will be just like the 12 Wollersheim case; that the estate will not get a dime out of 13 this case? 14 A No, I don't recall that. 15 THE COURT: Your relevancy objection is 16 overruled. I see now where he was going. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I thought I'd try that, though, 18 since you suggested it. 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Would you look at page 10 of Defendant's Exhibit 21 191, your typed notes of that meeting? And look on the top 22 where it says "MR." Who's MR? 23 A That's Mr. Rinder. 24 Q Okay. Read what he says there out loud, please. 25 A He says, "We have a different perspective. Dell
155 1 Liebreich and Dandar are not going to get anything out of 2 this case, so I'm saying you will not get your money bank." 3 It should say "back" rather than "bank." 4 Q Okay. 5 A But that was not because they said they are not 6 going to pay a dime to the estate. That's because the 7 church believed at that time, and Mr. Rinder was expressing 8 that belief, that the -- the case is meritless, and that 9 there will not be award of any damages, and that in fact if 10 there is a money flow from this litigation, it will go the 11 other way because it is the Church of Scientology that has 12 an award of damages against the estate, and also an 13 attorneys' fees award against the estate. 14 So this wasn't any reflection of any unwillingness 15 to pay a judgment, should there ever be one, but rather an 16 expression of the church's belief that there would not be a 17 damage award because there's no merit to the estate's claims 18 against the church. 19 Q You said the wrongful death case against Lisa 20 McPherson was brought for an improper purpose, on direct 21 examination. What did you mean be by that? 22 A That was not my testimony. 23 Q What was your testimony? 24 A That it was being litigated for an improper 25 purpose.
156 1 Q What was the improper purpose? 2 A To destroy the Church of Scientology. 3 Q What about the dead Lisa McPherson? Where does 4 she fit into the purpose of this litigation? 5 A Do you want my opinion? 6 THE COURT: You know, in all honestly, you're 7 asking the -- one of the primary lawyers for your 8 so-called opposition here -- 9 Do you really want her to sit there and blast 10 you with this or not? 11 MR. DANDAR: No. 12 THE COURT: Well, then, don't ask. 13 MR. DANDAR: All right. 14 THE COURT: She was gracious in asking you if 15 you really wanted her opinion. You don't want her 16 opinion, I'm sure. 17 But the next time, don't ask. 18 If you ask such a stupid question, answer him. 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: And I apologize for saying it was 21 stupid. 22 But you know, honestly, you don't want to -- 23 you -- 24 You do understand you're dealing lawyer to 25 lawyer here. She is not on your side. She is on
157 1 their side. If you ask her what she thinks about 2 the merits of your case, she is going to tell you. 3 If you ask her, "Why do you say that," she's going 4 to tell you. Everything she is going to tell you is 5 going to be hurtful to you. You probably don't want 6 to hear it. She's not going to help you one wit 7 here, Mr. Dandar, in that line of questioning. 8 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Now, the first thing Mr. Rinder said at the 11 March 28th meeting was that within Florida, the cases have 12 to go, they all have to go. 13 And isn't it true, Ms. Yingling, that the only 14 case that is controlled in any way to any degree by the 15 estate of Lisa McPherson is the wrongful death case? 16 A Well, first of all, if I could just correct your 17 characterization of Mr. -- Mr. Rinder's statement. 18 Mr. Rinder said that all outstanding litigation 19 that involved Mr. Minton needed to go away in order to have 20 a complete disengagement between the parties. And as part 21 of that general statement, he included all of the cases in 22 Florida. 23 I'm not sure. I suppose it's within the estate's 24 control to pay the damage award in the breach case, and that 25 would make that case go away.
158 1 Q And how's the estate going to do that? 2 A I don't know that, Mr. Dandar. 3 Q And the Florida -- the civil case, that's the 4 wrongful death case, correct? In your notes? 5 A I'm not sure. I imagine it probably was, but I'm 6 not sure. 7 Q And that's the first case that was mentioned by 8 Mr. Rinder, correct? 9 A I'm not sure if it was or not. 10 Q That's the first case that's named in your list, 11 number one. 12 A My notes are not a reflection of absolutely 13 everything that was said at the meeting. My -- my notes are 14 a reflection of what I thought was important for me to try 15 to remember at some point in the future or my impression of 16 what was going on or things of that nature. So they 17 don't -- don't necessarily reflect every -- every word that 18 was stated at the meeting. 19 THE COURT: You're not saying it wasn't the 20 first thing that -- 21 THE WITNESS: No. I just doesn't know that for 22 sure -- 23 THE COURT: Right. 24 THE WITNESS: -- your Honor. 25
159 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Now, what was your understanding of Mr. Rinder's 3 comments when they say -- when you say "All have to go"? 4 Does that mean dismissal? 5 A That in order to have a complete disengagement, 6 that ultimately they would have to be dismissed. Now, 7 whether they were dismissed because there was a voluntary 8 dismissal or whether they were dismissed because there was a 9 stipulation of settlement or some other resolution, we never 10 got into that level of details. But I -- I think as I -- I 11 responded to your Honor, that when Mr. Rinder used the 12 term -- "go away," that he was talking about to settle or to 13 resolve or to dismiss. 14 Q The breach cases included both Texas and Florida, 15 correct? 16 A I believe that's correct, yes. 17 Q And when you went there on March 28th, without, of 18 course, disclosing any confidences, did you have your own 19 understanding how in the world -- Bob Minton was not a party 20 to the estate of Lisa McPherson; not a beneficiary; wasn't 21 even named in the wrongful death case in the counterclaim at 22 that time -- how he could possibly get the Lisa McPherson 23 death case to go away? 24 A The Church of Scientology believed that Mr. Minton 25 was controlling that litigation; that the money that he had
160 1 provided to fund the case had changed the direction of that 2 case, had turned it from a simple wrongful death case into a 3 crusade against the Church of Scientology; that Mr. Minton 4 was behind that; that he was funding all the witnesses; that 5 he was paying the witnesses; he was paying them to provide 6 you with false affidavits. And the church believed that if 7 he took away his funding, that if the witnesses that he 8 controlled were no longer willing to provide their -- their 9 false testimony to you, that the case could be dismissed. 10 The church simply believed that, if he was 11 controlling it, he could dismiss it. 12 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, that's another one of 13 those questions that you really ought to think about 14 before you ask it. Now you see? Remember, you're 15 dealing with the church's lawyer here. They have a 16 different thought process about this case than you 17 have. 18 Do you know, I've tried to tell -- 19 See, I'll bet this witness would understand 20 this. 21 I've tried to explain to both sides here. 22 Occasionally they don't -- they don't have any 23 seemingly meeting of the mind. Perhaps as a 24 settler, she might see, as a judge does sometimes, 25 that I can see things on both sides.
161 1 However, she is the church's lawyer. She is 2 going to see this from the church's perspective. 3 When you ask those kinds of questions, you're going 4 to get knocked through the wall with them. 5 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q So that brings us to the point number two: The 8 declarations or affidavits are false. 9 Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks and Vaughn Young -- how 10 did Mr. Rinder explain why these declarations or affidavits 11 were false? 12 A I don't know that Mr. Rinder actually did that at 13 the -- at the meeting. The discussion with respect to the 14 declarations and affidavits had to do with needing to 15 resolve them and not have them be available to -- to pop up 16 in future litigation so that they could somehow cause the 17 parties to be in controversy. 18 However, I believe Mr. Rinder knew, from personal 19 knowledge, that the affidavits were false. And as a matter 20 of fact, I have personal knowledge with respect to a number 21 of -- of items that are set forth in affidavits of Jesse 22 Prince, Stacy Brooks and Vaughn Young, and I know from my 23 own personal knowledge that they're false, because I was 24 representing the churches of Scientology during some of the 25 years that are covered by their affidavits.
162 1 Q And how did Mr. Rinder suggest to get Vaughn 2 Young, for instance, to recant his previously filed 3 affidavits? 4 A He did not suggest that. 5 Q Or Jesse Prince. 6 A He did not suggest that either. 7 There was not -- as I said, Mr. Dandar, there 8 wasn't any substantive discussion about the specific 9 affidavits, but just that in -- I think it says it in my 10 notes, it was a question of how to do it more than the 11 principle. But how to do it wasn't discussed at the 12 meetings. 13 Q Now, you talked on direct a lot about what 14 Mr. Rosen said, what Mr. Rinder said, what Mr. Minton said, 15 what Mr. Jonas said. What did you say at this two-day 16 meeting? 17 A I didn't say very much. There were a few times 18 when the discussions seemed to maybe go off the rails a 19 little bit, and I tried to get everybody focused back to the 20 extent there was any -- 21 At one point I remember Mr. Jonas was trying to 22 make an explanation, and he was cut off by Sandy Rosen. I 23 suggested to Sandy that he allow Mr. Jonas to continue. But 24 that was pretty much the extent of my involvement. 25 Q Well, by March 28th of 2002, the Church of
163 1 Scientology already had in its possession the bank records 2 of the Lisa McPherson Trust. They already knew about 3 Operation Clambake, $300,000; they already knew about a 4 $500,000 anonymous wire transfer from Europe to the LMT. 5 That wasn't discussed at all on March 28th or March 29th? 6 A It was not. 7 Q Mr. Minton's tax situation with the Internal 8 Revenue Service, or other countries outside the United 9 States -- that wasn't discussed on March 28th or March 29th? 10 A It was not. 11 Q Was money laundering that Mr. Rosen questioned 12 Mr. Minton about in October, 2001 in his deposition -- was 13 that talked about? 14 A It was not. 15 I think I explained what happened at this meeting. 16 It was -- it took -- it took the form of many, many 17 settlement negotiations that I've been involved in over the 18 years. Each side set out its position with respect to the 19 outstanding issues between the parties, and what their ideal 20 situation would be in terms of -- of achieving a settlement. 21 There were no accusations. There were no threats. It was a 22 very matter-of-fact back-and-forth across the table. 23 If you -- if you knew Mr. Jonas you would have no 24 hesitation in understanding that if there had been a single 25 threat issued at the meeting, he would have left.
164 1 Q Well, Mr. Jonas wrote me a letter on April 10th 2 concerning this meeting. He didn't say, "We've got to make 3 the case go away in Florida." He didn't say, "We have to 4 settle the case in Florida." His letter says, "The case in 5 Florida has to be dismissed." 6 So I'm -- I'm trying to figure out why the 7 language of dismissal isn't on page 1 under the "Florida 8 cases" of your notes. Wasn't that term used by Mr. Rinder? 9 A The term "dismissal" was certainly used at some 10 point during the discussions, but I think that was 11 Mr. Jonas's interpretation or understanding of how he 12 thought the case would be resolved. And if the case were 13 settled, ultimately it would be dismissed. If the case were 14 resolved, ultimately it would be dismissed. 15 And I believe Mr. Jonas's letter also made it 16 clear to you, Mr. Dandar, that there were no threats at the 17 meeting, and that he did not tell you that there were any 18 threats at the meeting, even though you intimated that in 19 your letter to him. 20 Q Have you reviewed the transcripts of this hearing 21 before today? 22 A I have seen the transcripts of the hearing, yes. 23 I can't say that I've read every word. I'd be brain dead. 24 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I feel sorry -- 25 THE COURT: Yeah. Thank you.
165 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Now, your understanding of Mr. Minton's 3 involvement in litigation in the United States that was 4 talked about at this meeting on March 28th, Mr. Minton was 5 providing funding to people who were being sued by the 6 Church of Scientology so they could have a lawyer to defend 7 themselves. The only thing was -- that didn't fall into 8 that category was Mr. Wollersheim and the Lisa McPherson 9 case. 10 A That's not correct. 11 Q Which other ones then involved plaintiffs? 12 A The Lopez case; the Armstrong case come to mind. 13 I could look at my list and see if there were other ones. 14 Q What money did Mr. Minton provide to the Lopez 15 case? 16 A He provided funding to Dan Leipold, who was the 17 attorney in that case. 18 Q Did he provide funding to Dan Leipold well in 19 advance of the Lopez case ever being filed? 20 A I'm not sure of the exact dates, but I know he 21 provided funding to Mr. Leipold so that he could open his 22 own law firm to carry on his anti-Scientology litigation. 23 And I believe that included the Lopez case. 24 Q And the Lopez case was filed a year or more after 25 Dan Leipold received his last dollar on a loan from
166 1 Mr. Minton. You still can connect that to the Lopez case? 2 A I just stated the facts as I know them. I don't 3 know anything beyond that. 4 I know that Mr. Minton provided funding to Dan 5 Leipold to carry on anti-Scientology litigation and I 6 believe that included the Lopez case. 7 Q And -- and making cases going away, the 8 Wollersheim case was included in this list, correct? 9 A Yes. That was one of the cases that was talked 10 about. 11 Q And in the Wollersheim case, Mr. Rosen said or 12 Mr. Rinder said that the Church of Scientology had already 13 spent 5 and a half million dollars? 14 A If you -- I'll look at my notes. 15 Q Page 3? 16 A I don't recall any specific figures. I'm happy to 17 look at my notes and see if that -- that -- 18 No. That's not what he said. He -- what he said 19 was, looking at my notes, which refreshed my recollection, 20 that since the time of the -- the motion to add new 21 defendants or new judgment debtors had been added, which was 22 referred to as the alter-ego motion, that the church had 23 expended $2.5 million in attorneys' fees, and that if the 24 case continued and was not settled, they believed they would 25 spend another 3 million.
167 1 That was the difference between the SH-A and B 2 categories that I believe I testified to earlier. 3 Q I see. Okay. And at this hearing -- get-together 4 on March the 28th, this meeting, Mr. Minton was told, 5 apparently, by Mr. Rosen, that Mr. Minton was going to be 6 added on to the Armstrong litigation in Marin County, 7 California, correct? 8 A The Church of Scientology believed that -- that 9 Mr. Minton had tortiously interfered with Mr. Armstrong's 10 breach of his agreement with the Church of Scientology not 11 to be involved in any anti-Scientology litigation. And for 12 that reason, they believed they had a claim against him. 13 And they did suggest, I believe, at that meeting, that he 14 was going to be added to that lawsuit, and I believe he was 15 shortly thereafter. I think it was already in process, and 16 he was being advised of that, yes. 17 Q And that -- Mr. Rosen told him that -- at that -- 18 there's 131 violations and $50,000 per violation, for, like, 19 $85 million. Is that right? 20 A I didn't do the math. 21 Q Or 8 and a half million dollars. My math may be 22 off too. 23 A I didn't do the math. 24 Q All right. But he told him 131 violations for 25 $50,000 each.
168 1 A I don't have a recollection of that, but if I 2 wrote that in my notes, it's probably accurate. 3 Q That's in your -- 4 A Unless it's a -- 5 Q -- notes. 6 A -- typo. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 131 times 50, if my math is 8 correct -- 9 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor will tell us. 10 THE COURT: -- is -- is six million five 11 hundred and fifty? 12 Is that right? 6,550,000. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q And do you have any idea how it went up to 15 $10 million in Count I of the Armstrong complaint, where 16 Mr. Minton was added on? 17 A I don't. 18 Q All right. Now, were you involved in the 19 tax-exempt petition by the Church of Scientology to the 20 Internal Revenue Service? 21 A I'm not sure I know what you mean by tax-exempt 22 petition. 23 Q Well, the -- 24 THE COURT: Are you asking her if she assisted 25 the church in getting its tax-exempt status?
169 1 MR. DANDAR: Yes. That's the question. 2 A Yes. I was the lead counsel. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q And did you know that the Church of Scientology 5 had retained private investigators to investigate the 6 personal lives of the IRS commissioner and -- and other 7 people on the committee that was looking into that matter? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. 9 Objection. Privileged to the extent that it would 10 require privileged information. 11 THE COURT: Sustained. 12 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I can answer the 13 question without disclosing privileged information, 14 because I did not know that and I do not believe it 15 to be true. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Are you aware that Mr. Miscavige, in a speech that 18 he gave about the success of getting the tax-exempt status, 19 stated that the investigators or the -- the church 20 investigators had uncovered the crimes of the IRS employees 21 and helped them get the tax status exemption? 22 A No. I am not aware that he said that. 23 Q Now, during this meeting on March the 28th, 24 Mr. Minton also talked about the church's private 25 investigators harassing him over the years, is that right?
170 1 A No, he did not talk about it. As part of the list 2 of demands that Mr. Minton had, he said that any 3 investigations that had been ongoing by the -- by the Church 4 of Scientology into any of his affairs, he wanted stopped. 5 I don't believe that the word "harassment" was suggested 6 by -- by Mr. Minton. It was simply part of the list of 7 demands that Mr. -- Mr. Jonas put forth. 8 Q Now, were you aware, at this meeting, there was a 9 signed letter of confidentiality to keep these meetings in 10 New York City confidential, not only among the parties but 11 not to disclose it at all to the court? 12 A I was aware of the confidentiality letter. It was 13 something that had been negotiated between Mr. Jonas and 14 Mr. Rosen. And I believe Mr. Jonas drafted it. It was 15 shown to me. I don't remember the details of the letter. 16 I'm happy to -- to look at it. 17 But the -- the -- the reason for that 18 confidentiality letter was because there had been prior 19 discussions between Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton sometime 20 earlier, I believe, in 1998. And after those discussions, 21 there were postings on -- on the Internet, among other 22 places, seemingly reporting the substance of the 23 discussions. And the church's view what was said on the 24 Internet wasn't correct. And so there was an agreement that 25 any of the discussions would not be broadcast in that
171 1 fashion. 2 Q So back in '98, when this -- Mr. Minton posted 3 what he claimed to be discussions with Mr. Rinder on 4 settling conferences between the two, Mr. Rinder back then 5 knew that Mr. Minton posted on the Internet false 6 information. 7 A Mr. -- I believe it was -- well, you'd have to -- 8 I think Mr. Rinder's understanding was that the 9 characterization that Mr. Minton attributed to those 10 discussions was not correct. 11 Q Was it false that Mr. Rinder, in 1998, as part of 12 the negotiations with Mr. Minton, demanded that Mr. Minton 13 stop funding the wrongful death case of Lisa McPherson? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the extent it calls 15 for privilege. 16 THE COURT: To that extent -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: Unless she was there. 18 A I was not there. And to the extent I would have 19 known anything about those discussions, I would have 20 received that information from my client. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Did you have anything to do with drawing up the 23 proposal for settlement in the FACTNet case? 24 A The one that ultimately resulted in the 25 settlement?
172 1 Q Yes. 2 A I believe I reviewed it. I'm sure I reviewed it. 3 Whether or not I had any specific input or suggestions that 4 made their way into the final agreement, I don't 5 specifically recall. 6 Q Do you know if any of the proposals before the 7 final one included "cease funding in the wrongful death case 8 of Lisa McPherson"? 9 A Not that I ever saw, no. 10 Q Now, isn't it true that the IRS negotiations to 11 get tax-exempt status for all the churches of Scientology, 12 detailed or explained the role of the Sea Org in the various 13 churches of Scientology? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Relevance, your 15 Honor. 16 THE COURT: Well, it might be relevant to this 17 hearing, but I suspect it's really far past the 18 point to which she was put on the stand. Isn't this 19 a little bit beyond the scope? 20 MR. DANDAR: I just have one follow-up 21 question, though. 22 THE COURT: Well, all right. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Wasn't that part of the disclosures to the IRS? 25 A There were questions asked by the Internal Revenue
173 1 Service about the role of the Sea Organization, and there 2 was information provided in response, and that information 3 is a matter of public record. 4 And that information makes it very clear that the 5 allegations that you've made about the Sea Org are totally 6 untrue; that the Sea Org is nothing but a fraternal 7 religious order. It is not a -- it is not an organization 8 of any kind. It has no officers, no directors, no heads, no 9 bosses, no nothing. It is a fraternal religious order. 10 And the members of the Sea Organization dedicate 11 their lives plus a billion years to the religion of 12 Scientology. They are -- then become employees of different 13 churches of Scientology around the world. Their positions 14 in the church is derived from whatever corporation they work 15 for. Their status derives from whatever position they work 16 for. The ranks that they have in the Sea Organization are 17 nothing but honorary. It gives them no power and no 18 authority over any other individuals. 19 And that's all a matter of public record in the 20 IRS files. 21 Q And isn't it true that David Miscavige is the only 22 Sea Org member that has the rank of captain, and the other 23 captain ranks are brevet ranks? 24 A It is not true that Mr. Miscavige is the only 25 captain. There are a number of captains. Some of them may
174 1 be brevet and some of them may be others. But there are a 2 number of captains in the Sea Organization. 3 Q Is there anyone in the Sea Organization that has 4 equal rank of that as of David Miscavige? 5 A Yes. A captain is a captain in the Sea 6 Organization. And there are a number of captains. I could 7 probably name a half a dozen. 8 Q These are captains that have a captain rank that's 9 not a brevet rank? 10 A A captain is a captain in the Sea Organization, 11 and they all have the title and rank of captain. 12 That's also a matter of public record in the 13 IRS -- IRS files. I think there's actually a list of 14 everybody that has the rank of captain. Or did at that 15 time. 16 Q Well, public record may be one thing, but what I'm 17 asking you is for the reality of how the Sea Org really 18 operates. 19 Isn't David Miscavige the head of the Sea 20 Organization? 21 A Mr. Dandar, I resent the insinuation that I would 22 have provided anything to the Internal Revenue Service that 23 is not reality. If it is a matter of public record, it is 24 because it reflects the operations and activities of the 25 church.
175 1 There is no head of the Sea Organization. 2 Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical leader of the Church of 3 Scientology, and he is the chairman of the board of 4 Religious Technology Center, and it is from that position 5 that he has the authority that he has in the Church of 6 Scientology. 7 Q And this is all based upon the information your 8 client has given you over the years, correct? 9 A It's based on information I've received from my 10 client and my own personal knowledge. 11 Q You're not a member of Scientology, correct? 12 A I am not. 13 Q So all your knowledge is derived from what your 14 client tells you, correct? 15 A That's not correct. I observe things, I see 16 things, I read documents, I participate in activities, I get 17 personal knowledge from lots of different avenues than just 18 being told things by my client. 19 Q Name the -- name five other captains of equal 20 authority and rank in the Sea Org other than David 21 Miscavige. 22 A I believe Norman Starkey is a captain. I believe 23 Marc Yager is a captain. I believe Mark Ingber is a 24 captain. They were -- at least were captains at the time we 25 provided the information to the Internal Revenue Service.
176 1 And I'm not sure I'm going to remember any other 2 ones at this point in time. 3 Q All right. Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. 4 Can you identify the captains of the Sea Org in that 5 picture? 6 A I don't see any of the individuals whose names I 7 just mentioned in -- in this picture. 8 Q Do you see David Miscavige? 9 A I do. 10 Q Is he forefront? 11 A He is. 12 Q Is he the one that has the most stripes on his 13 uniform? 14 A He does in this picture, yes. 15 Q Do you know what that picture is -- what -- 16 What's the purpose of that picture, or the 17 occasion? 18 A I know where the picture was taken because I 19 recognize the site, but I have no idea why this picture was 20 taken. 21 Q Okay. 22 A But I can assure you that this does not reflect 23 the entire membership of the Sea Org. The Sea Org has 24 thousands of members, and there could perhaps be a hundred 25 or less in that picture.
177 1 Q Does this picture depict the highest-ranking, in 2 descending order, of the people in the Sea Org? 3 A No, it does not. It doesn't depict anything 4 having to do with order. 5 Q You're -- do you know who this person is, in the 6 far left side of the picture, the older gentleman? 7 A Yes, I do. 8 Q Who is that? 9 A That's Mr. Greg Wilhere. 10 Q And what is his rank in the Sea Org, if you know? 11 A I'm not sure. 12 Q What's his -- what's his post in Scientology? 13 A He is employed by the corporation Religious 14 Technology Center. And he may be an officer or director of 15 that corporation. I know he has been at one time. But I'm 16 not exactly sure what his positions are. But that is the 17 church's -- 18 Q All right. Now, the meeting on March 28th, did 19 Mr. Minton come in and say why -- 20 THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. 21 Do you want to get her some more water? I 22 don't know if you have -- 23 THE WITNESS: Could I take a bathroom break? 24 THE COURT: Yes. We're going to take just a 25 little --
178 1 Well, actually, I need -- I have somebody I'm 2 meeting for lunch at 12. So let's take a -- let's 3 take a 15-minute break and we'll work till, maybe, 4 12:15, okay? Not a 15 -- 10-minute break. Short 5 little break. 10 minutes. Then we'll work till 6 12:15. I'll tell them I'm going to be 15 minutes 7 late. 8 (A recess was taken at 11:39 a.m.) 9 (The proceedings resumed at 11:51 a.m.) 10 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Dandar, we're going 11 to go to about 12:15, okay? 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q Before we leave the first matter of business that 15 Mr. Rinder brought up about litigation, when he said that 16 the cases -- the Florida cases have to go away, was there 17 any question from Mr. Jonas or Mr. Minton like, "What do you 18 mean, go away?" 19 A Not at this point in the -- in the conversation. 20 At some later point in the meeting there were questions 21 about -- about the litigation and so on. 22 Q And when Mr. Rinder then said there's three false 23 affidavits that have to be resolved, did anyone ask any 24 questions, "What do you mean, they're false?" 25 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form,
179 1 because I don't think that's what the notes say, 2 "false." Just says, "Declaration and affidavits." 3 That's the second time Mr. Dandar has included that. 4 And I object to the form. 5 THE COURT: Sustained. 6 BY MR. DANDAR: 7 Q Do you recall Mr. Rinder saying these three 8 affidavits were false? 9 A No, he did not. 10 Q Did he say -- 11 A He -- 12 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead. 13 A He simply said that we had to come to some 14 resolution on the questions of the affidavits of people like 15 Stacy Young and Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young, because we 16 didn't want them popping up in other litigation and causing 17 the parties to be in controversy again in the future. 18 Q Was there any discussion about how you could 19 conceal affidavits of these three individuals which were 20 already part of the court record? 21 A There was no discussion about how to do it, I 22 think as I testified earlier; simply the principle that we 23 would need to resolve the question of the affidavits. 24 Q On the movie The Profit, that's listed as, I 25 believe, number 4 on page 1, "Mike Rinder doesn't know the
180 1 status or what his rights are," what rights of Mr. Rinder 2 did he think he had or could have had in the movie The 3 Profit? 4 A He was referring to Mr. Minton's rights there; 5 that he didn't know the status of the film nor what 6 Mr. Minton's rights were in the film. 7 Q And again, resolving or making a resolution of the 8 movie The Profit, was there any discussion of -- further 9 explan- -- explaining that? 10 A I don't believe there was. Certainly it was our 11 position that we didn't want the movie ever distributed or 12 to see the light of day, but I'm not sure that that -- that 13 that was specifically discussed. 14 Q Now, when the movie was playing here in Clearwater 15 to a small audience at a movie pub, the Church of 16 Scientology stated to the St. Pete Times, and may have 17 published the statements somewhere else, that the movie has 18 nothing to do about Scientology. So why in the world would 19 you -- you just said the Church of Scientology didn't want 20 this movie shown anywhere. Why, if it has nothing to do 21 with the Church of Scientology? 22 A Well, I'm not aware of that specific statement. 23 But I -- I think you're misinterpreting a 24 statement of that -- that nature. 25 I think the church believed that the movie was a
181 1 very offensive and ludicrous attempt at parodying the 2 church, but that it was so far afield of anything that in 3 truth has anything to do with the church or the way 4 Scientology practices its religion; that it would say it has 5 nothing to do with the church because it was a complete 6 distortion and a complete false picture of -- of the church. 7 But nonetheless, it was indeed to be a parody of the church. 8 Q The Lopez case that was discussed by Mr. Rosen, 9 that appears on page 4 of your notes, "Church spent 1 and a 10 half million dollars on that." By the time of March 28th, 11 2002, isn't it true that the Lopez case had already been 12 settled? 13 A I'm not sure where you were looking, Mr. Dandar. 14 I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: Page 4. 16 A Yes. That is correct. Which was why there was no 17 column B with respect to the Lopez case. Because the church 18 did not anticipate any -- any -- any further funds being 19 expended. And I believe the -- the settlement was for some 20 small amount that one of the insurance carriers of one of 21 the churches of Scientology agreed to pay. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q So if the -- above that is the FACTnet case. And 24 it says, "That case was settled, so we're not asking for any 25 relief here." The Lopez case was settled. So why is there
182 1 a figure of 1 and a half million dollars? 2 A As I said, I believe that the -- these figures 3 represented an estimate of the damage that -- that 4 Mr. Minton had caused through his funding of litigation and 5 through other means. 6 And Mr. Rosen's exact thought process in putting 7 the list together, I'm not sure I can testify to. 8 THE COURT: Hadn't Mr. Minton and the church 9 actually worked out a settlement in the FACTNet 10 case? 11 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 12 THE COURT: So don't you think there's a 13 difference where they've settled between them and 14 where they haven't settled between them? Could that 15 be a -- is that a possible distinction? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I think that 17 is -- I think -- 18 THE COURT: In other words -- that's the one I 19 remember where they had actually -- I don't know if 20 it stayed settled. Nothing seems to stay settled 21 here. 22 THE WITNESS: It did, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: It did. 24 THE WITNESS: Actually -- 25 THE COURT: So really, they couldn't really go
183 1 back and ask for something with regard to that. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Now, in the Texas breach case, you have a note 4 here that says, "Liebreich is a defendant." 5 Did Mr. Rosen or Mr. Rinder tell Mr. Minton that 6 Dell Liebreich was dismissed by the Texas court because no 7 cause of action was stated against her in her individual 8 capacity, or did he let Mr. Minton think that Dell Liebreich 9 was still a defendant and was subject to this judgment 10 obtained in Texas? 11 A I don't know which specific case he was referring 12 to when -- when he said that Liebreich was a defendant, but 13 he may have been referring also that she was a defendant in 14 the sense that she's the personal representative of the 15 estate, and therefore she is the individual who -- who 16 represents the estate, and in that sense, is the defendant. 17 I don't really know. 18 Q And also it talks in your note for Sandy Rosen, 19 SR, he was telling Mr. Minton how Mr. Minton could be liable 20 for the judgment in Texas as well as the judgment hoped to 21 be obtained in Clearwater breach case? 22 A I'm not sure that this discussion just involved 23 the -- the Texas breach case, and so I'm -- I'm not -- I 24 just -- I don't want to say that what he was -- meant there 25 or not. Because I know that Mr. Jonas did ask about both
184 1 cases, and the discussion may have gone into both cases at 2 that point. I just don't recall specifically. 3 Q Now, can you explain on the top of page 5, "IRS 4 harassment"? Is that by Mr. Minton or what? 5 A I believe I was asked this -- this question on 6 direct yesterday by -- by Mr. Weinberg, and I explained that 7 the -- the Lisa McPherson Trust had filed numerous -- 8 THE COURT: She really did go into -- 9 MR. DANDAR: Okay, never mind. 10 THE COURT: -- great detail about that. 11 MR. DANDAR: That's fine. 12 BY MR. DANDAR: 13 Q One more question on the movie The Profit. 14 What -- did Mr. -- Mr. Minton make any suggestions 15 on how he could make a resolution of the movie The Profit 16 that the church didn't want distributed anywhere? 17 A Not at that meeting, no. 18 Q Later on did Mr. Minton say he could put snippets 19 of the movie on the Internet or download the entire movie so 20 it would just destroy the entire market value of the movie? 21 A He never said that, no. 22 Q "Maria Pia Gardini, $22,000." What was that 23 about? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Which page is that? 25 THE COURT: Page 5.
185 1 MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. 2 Oh, I see. 3 A I don't specifically recall. I think that she's 4 someone that may have been a witness somewhere, and that 5 there were expenses incurred with respect to her testimony, 6 but I don't feel comfortable even saying that. I don't 7 recall. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q Are you saying that the $22,000 wasn't the bill 10 for the private investigators to investigate her and follow 11 her around? 12 A That was never discussed. 13 Q Are there any bills on here for private 14 investigators? 15 THE COURT: If she knows. I mean, these are 16 figures Mr. Rosen had come up with. 17 MR. DANDAR: If she knows. 18 THE COURT: Did you and Mr. Rosen discuss his 19 presentation and how he'd come up with his figures? 20 THE WITNESS: No. 21 THE COURT: So you were just making notes of 22 the figures he had come up with, and he did not 23 necessarily, I guess, at that time, go into how he 24 had -- 25 Or maybe he did, I should say.
186 1 THE WITNESS: He did not, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: He did not. 3 THE WITNESS: You are correct. He did not. 4 THE COURT: So he just gave dollar figures. 5 "This is what we believe the damages are that you 6 have caused; you, Mr. Minton, have caused." 7 THE WITNESS: Exactly. Sometimes he would say 8 it was attorneys' fees or attorneys' fees incurred 9 or security or something of that nature, but nothing 10 more detailed than that. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q So the second purpose of Mr. Rosen going through 13 details of the amounts as stated on page 5 is because he 14 wanted -- Mr. Rosen wanted Mr. Minton to know the magnitude 15 of a RICO case that was being planned against Mr. Minton. 16 A No. That was Mr. Jonas's statement, as I 17 explained a little earlier, when Mr. Minton asked for a 18 total, and Mr. Rosen responded that, "Well, no total is 19 necessary." He was just trying -- just giving an example of 20 the magnitude of what Mr. -- Mr. Minton was involved in. 21 And then it was Mr. Jonas who cut off Mr. Minton's question 22 by saying, "Oh, well, we know what the purpose is." And he 23 was the one who surmised that perhaps it had something to do 24 with ultimate damages that might be sought in a RICO case. 25 That was not something that Mr. Rosen ever said.
187 1 Q Mr. Rosen did talk about a planned RICO case, 2 right? 3 A He talked about the fact that the church had 4 undertaken research to see if there was any basis for a RICO 5 claim that could involve Mr. Minton, on the basis that 6 Mr. Minton was funding litigation all over the United States 7 to try to destroy the Church of Scientology. 8 Q Well, I don't know if you answered this. And 9 maybe you did. But when you go back to this Mr. Minton's 10 funding cases all over the United States, the only case that 11 he provided funding to where the people were suing the 12 church was Wollersheim, Lopez and McPherson, correct? 13 A Armstrong also. 14 And I don't know -- I don't know the status of all 15 of the suits involving, for example, Kathy Henson and -- and 16 Grady Ward and -- and whether they were plaintiffs in any of 17 those suits or whether they were just defendants. So I -- I 18 don't know. I mean, I do know that they're -- that in 19 addition to Wollersheim, Lopez and -- and the -- the 20 McPherson case, there was also Armstrong. 21 Q And the Armstrong case never went anywhere. I 22 mean, was dismissed quicker than it was filed, wasn't it? 23 A Well, it was dismissed because it was without 24 merit. But it was filed, and the church had to incur 25 attorneys' fees in order to have it dismissed. And I
188 1 believe that Mr. Armstrong even appealed it; that they had 2 to have -- incur attorneys' fees with respect to the appeal. 3 But the case was meritless, and that's why it was 4 dismissed. 5 Q At the bottom of page 5, Steve Jonas, you have 6 noted, says, "Okay," his understanding, according to Jonas, 7 is, "All the outstanding litigation would have to go. Do 8 you mean that Bob Minton would have to bring about the 9 dismissal of the McPherson case?" And Michael Rinder says, 10 "Yes. That's what we want." 11 A Well -- 12 Q The dismissal of the McPherson case, right? 13 That's what your note says at the bottom. 14 A But my notes go on, Mr. Dandar, to say that he -- 15 he explained that we would have to get rid of the case, or 16 we can't separate, ourselves, because Bob Minton is in the 17 case because of his funding. 18 And this was the continuous theme throughout the 19 meeting, about the -- the reason that all of the litigation 20 would have to go away. Because if all of the outstanding 21 litigation did not go away, there would not be a complete 22 disengagement between the parties and the controversy would 23 continue. 24 But as I explained, I don't know exactly what 25 Mr. Jonas had in mind when he said, "bring about dismissal
189 1 at this point," or when he said it in his correspondence to 2 you. Because there are lots of ways to get a case 3 dismissed. You can have a voluntary dismissal; you can 4 settle a case and file a stipulation of dismissal; you can 5 resolve it a different way and have it dismissed or 6 whatever. 7 So I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Jonas meant by 8 his use of that term. 9 Q So Sandy Rosen says in his recap, "If Bob Minton 10 caused it, he can make it go away," right? 11 A As I believe I testified a little earlier, it was 12 the view of the church that Mr. Minton was controlling this 13 litigation; that Mr. Minton was behind the -- the ongoing 14 Wollersheim litigation, and -- and the other areas that we 15 touched on. And because he controlled the litigation, the 16 witnesses in the litigation, that, yes, that he could make 17 it go away. 18 Q Now, at the time this meeting is taking place on 19 March 28th, 2002, you, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder have no 20 knowledge about this UBS check of March 7th, 2002, do you? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q So as far as you know, the only check that you 23 know about, the last check, was May of 2001, right? 24 A Mr. Dandar, I was not familiar with the exact 25 checks that -- that had been provided to you. I had a
190 1 general idea that in excess of a million dollars had been 2 provided to you, and that Mr. Minton had testified to that 3 effect. But I -- I was not -- I did not -- I was not aware 4 of the details of checks, when checks were provided, and how 5 much they were. So I did not know, no. 6 Q Now, the -- the bottom of page 6, after the 7 one-hour break, it has, "Wrongful death. No more money or 8 other support. Want the withdrawal of Jesse Prince and 9 Stacy Brooks' affidavits. Commit not to be witnesses. 10 Effort to try to exert influence over Dandar and Liebreich 11 to resolve the matter." Who -- who made those comments? 12 A Mr. Jonas. 13 Q Well, why did you put "SJ" next to that? 14 A I had "SJ" up at the beginning after the break. 15 And this was pretty much Mr. Jonas's presentation in 16 response to what he had heard before the break. And 17 basically, he said they had talked about some things that 18 they could do. And with respect -- respect to the wrongful 19 death case, they believed they could agree not to provide 20 any money or other support. They believed they could secure 21 the withdrawal of Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks's affidavits 22 because they controlled those witnesses. They could commit 23 themselves not to be witnesses. And they would exert their 24 best efforts to influence you and -- and Ms. Liebreich to 25 resolve the case.
191 1 Q So that -- that is Mr. Jonas's response to what 2 Mr. Rinder said. 3 A That was one of his responses. His -- there were 4 no firm commitments or anything. There were just reactions 5 to what each side was saying. 6 Q Now, on page 7, it says, "There's no willingness 7 to correct outstanding affidavits." Who said that? 8 A I believe this entire presentation was made by 9 Mr. Jonas, so if there aren't other initials in -- in front 10 of a particular statement, I believe it was said by 11 Mr. Jonas. 12 Q So Mr. Jonas told you, Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen 13 that there was no willingness from Minton, Brooks and I 14 guess whoever else they could influence to -- well, the only 15 other person mentioned were two -- Prince and Vaughn Young, 16 her ex-husband. And so Jonas says, "There's no willingness 17 at all from that side to correct outstanding affidavits." 18 What was the reply of Mr. Rinder or Rosen? 19 A Well, first of all, I don't believe he said that 20 there was no willingness at all. And at least my notes 21 don't reflect that. And I don't recall that he was talking 22 about any specific affidavits. I think that it was just a 23 statement that was made generally. 24 And I don't recall that there was any specific 25 reply from Mr. Rinder, and my notes don't reflect that there
192 1 was a reply from Mr. Rinder. 2 Q Well, the only affidavits he's talking about is at 3 the bottom of page 6, Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks, in the 4 wrongful death case. And then he concludes, before he 5 leaves the wrongful death case, by saying, quote, no 6 willingness to correct outstanding affidavits." That's your 7 note. 8 A No. That's not correct, Mr. -- Mr. Dandar. 9 That -- when the -- the question of affidavits was 10 first broached by -- by Mr. Rinder at the outset of the 11 meeting, he was talking about all declarations and all 12 affidavits filed by witnesses that the Church of Scientology 13 believed were controlled by Mr. Rinder. I mean -- excuse 14 me -- by Mr. Minton. Excuse me. And that examples given 15 were Mr. Prince, Mr. Brooks and Vaughn Young. 16 But I -- I just don't want you to have the 17 impression that that was exclusive. 18 Q Well, these are your notes. And the bottom of 19 page 6, there's a title called Wrongful Death. And on page 20 7 it goes to Wollersheim, Ward; page 8 -- 21 THE COURT: Where is Wollersheim on 7? 22 MR. DANDAR: "LW." 23 THE COURT: Oh. 24 MR. DANDAR: Right below where it says "No 25 willingness to correct outstanding affidavits."
193 1 THE COURT: I see it. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q So is it your testimony that this section, 4 entitled Wrongful Death, and the last statement under that 5 section, "No willingness to correct outstanding affidavits," 6 that statement of correcting -- not correcting affidavits 7 concerns all the cases that were discussed; not just the 8 wrongful death case? 9 A I think that's correct. 10 And just so you understand, I don't normally make 11 titles of categories in my notes. I may have underlined 12 "wrongful deaths" when I wrote it down, and so my secretary 13 thought that I intended that to somehow be a title or -- or 14 a category, and so she typed it up that way. But that's not 15 what I would normally do. I think that just reflects that, 16 when I wrote down "wrongful death," I underlined it, and 17 that somehow everything that follows after that is part of 18 that category. 'Cause certainly LW isn't part of that 19 category, and it would ostensibly be under that headline if 20 that's what it were. 21 So I just think that's my -- was my secretary's 22 pick-up of my handwritten notes. 23 Q What was your impression as to why Mr. Minton was 24 even at this meeting on March 28th? 25 This man looked like he was a tough guy or did he
194 1 look desperate? 2 A He didn't look either of those things. He didn't 3 look like a tough guy, nor did he look like he was 4 desperate. I don't think I would have drawn any conclusion 5 as to why he was at the meeting from looking at him. 6 Q Go to the top of page 8. "Stacy adds IRS domain." 7 Can you explain that? 8 A I think that was intended to be two different 9 things. And that was two things that Stacy was indicating 10 she thought wouldn't be a problem. 11 I'm sorry. Was this on page 8? 12 Q Yes. 13 A The IRS harassment issue, because it was something 14 she was familiar with it, because she had actually filed all 15 these requests from the LMT. And also the question of 16 domain names. That those were areas that we could reach a 17 resolution. 18 Q Are you aware of anything that has caused 19 Mr. Minton to come and have this meeting on March 28th, 20 2002, which on page 8 we see includes mutual releases, no 21 funding, no pickets, confidentiality, recognition of no 22 impropriety; similar -- extremely similar to his FACTNet 23 settlement -- why now he wants to come on March the 28th and 24 go forward in settling all outstanding litigation? 25 MR. WEINBERG: Object, just 'cause the
195 1 question -- I'm not sure what it was. It went on a 2 long time. Is there a specific question? 3 THE COURT: Let me hear it again. Read it 4 back, Madam Court Reporter. 5 MR. DANDAR: I can rephrase it. 6 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Are you aware of any extra-ingredient factor that 9 caused Mr. Minton, after six-plus years of being a critic of 10 Scientology, to come in on March the 28th and make a 11 complete turn-around? 12 A I don't think he made a complete turn-around on 13 March 28th. 14 But I think that what happened or -- and I 15 think -- I -- I -- this is my understanding because of 16 things that were told to me by Mr. Minton afterwards -- that 17 he had indeed gotten himself into this mess, as he calls it 18 and other people called it, on his own, as Mr. Jonas said. 19 And there had come a point where he -- he was feeling 20 overwhelmed by the fact that he was being required to -- to 21 testify about things that he felt uncomfortable testifying 22 about and things that he knew he had lied about. 23 And he had finally decided to consult a lawyer 24 about it. And that lawyer was Mr. Jonas. And Mr. Jonas 25 told him in no unequivocal terms that he had to tell the
196 1 truth, and -- and it didn't matter if it was going to ruin 2 the case or it was going to ruin anybody else; he had to 3 tell the truth. Mr. Jonas was looking out for his interest. 4 And Mr. Minton thought that perhaps he could avoid 5 that and avoid the disaster that he believed telling the 6 truth was going to cause to the wrongful death case, by 7 reaching a settlement and having it all go away. In which 8 case he wouldn't have to be deposed; he wouldn't have to 9 testify in front of Judge Schaeffer; he wouldn't have to 10 testify in front of Judge Baird; he wouldn't have to reveal 11 his own perjury; and he wouldn't have to reveal the fact 12 that the counsel in the case had advised him to perjure 13 himself. 14 Q And -- 15 A And that's what I believe happened that caused him 16 to change. 17 Q And none of that, not any of that, was discussed 18 on March the 28th and the 29th. 19 A Not any of that was discussed on March 28th and 20 29th, no. 21 Q As far as you knew, on March the 28th and the 22 29th, Mr. Minton had come in to speak with Mr. Rinder, just 23 as he had done in '98 and '99, to see if some type of 24 settlement could be made, just like he did in FACTNet. 25 A No. I think things were much, much different. I
197 1 think that Mr. Minton was really feeling the heat. I think 2 that -- 3 Q No, no. I'm not saying what he felt. I'm saying 4 as far as you know, when you sat down with Mr. Minton, it 5 was just a normal discussion about, "This is what we want 6 from you," and he's responding, "And this is what I want 7 from you." 8 A Yes. 9 But Mr. Minton's motivation was a lot different 10 and at this point in time in 2002 than it was in 1998. 11 Because at this point in 2002, he was in a position where he 12 was being forced to testify to things that he did not want 13 to testify to. And the church was relentlessly pursuing 14 what they believed to be discovery abuse, abuse of process 15 and false allegations that were being put forward in the 16 case. And that was all coming to a head. And I think 17 Mr. Minton realized that, and that that's why he wanted to 18 try to initiate settlement discussions. 19 The -- the actual facts behind that in his 20 discussions with Mr. Jonas, I didn't learn until later. 21 THE COURT: Of course, he also realized they 22 were getting awfully close to his foreign bank 23 account. 24 THE WITNESS: He never said that specifically, 25 your Honor, but I believe that was part of his
198 1 motivation as well. 2 THE COURT: Sure. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q And isn't that perhaps one of the reasons why you 5 were there as a tax expert? 6 A It was not one of the reasons why I was there, no. 7 Q In the middle -- 8 THE COURT: Counsel, save it for me. I mean, 9 this is the kind of thing -- 10 MR. DANDAR: Okay. I'm sorry. 11 THE COURT: Like I'm trying to tell you, please 12 understand that that's argument that you can make to 13 me, and I'll, you know, decide those issues. 14 MR. DANDAR: All right. 15 THE COURT: But you're not going to get 16 anywhere from her. 17 MR. DANDAR: All right. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q The middle of page 8 -- 20 THE COURT: And I'm not implying by that that 21 you're being untruthful. I'm just suggesting to him 22 that -- 23 THE WITNESS: I understand. 24 THE COURT: -- he needs to understand that 25 you've already stated what you've state --
199 1 THE WITNESS: I thought everyone would 2 recognize that I'm such a wonderful settlement 3 facilitator that they always want me at settlement 4 conferences. 5 MR. DANDAR: Well, I wish you would have come 6 down to our mediation then. 7 THE WITNESS: I wasn't invited, Mr. Dandar. 8 THE COURT: I hate to -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, was there a reason 10 you wanted to leave at 12:15? 11 THE COURT: Yes. I'm meeting someone and I'm 12 already late. Thank you. 13 We will be in recess until 1:30. 14 (A recess was taken at 12:18 p.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
200 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 5 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 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. 8 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. 11 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 12th day of June, 13 2002. 14 15 ______________________________ DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25