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


                                  CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
     DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5    Representative of the ESTATE OF
7              Plaintiff,
8    vs.                                     VOLUME 2
     and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
15    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                          Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
      CONTENTS:           Testimony of Vaughn Young.
      DATE:               June 17, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
      PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19                        St. Petersburg, Florida.
20    BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
                          Circuit Judge.
      REPORTED BY:        Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22                        Deputy Official Court Reporter,
                          Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

116 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR 3 DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 4 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 8 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 MR. KENDRICK MOXON 10 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 11 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 12 Organization. 13 MR. LEE FUGATE 14 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 15 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 17 18 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 19 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 21 22 23 24 25
117 1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS 2 3 Direct Examination (resumed) - Mr. Dandar 121 4 Cross-Examination - Mr. Weinberg 217 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
118 1 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, could I bring up 2 something before the witness gets back on? 3 THE COURT: Sure. 4 MR. MOXON: I think you have in your office now 5 the list from Mr. Keane of the summaries of these 6 videotapes from LMT. 7 You can sit down, Mr. Young. 8 So -- 9 THE COURT: I don't know if I do or not. I 10 haven't seen them. 11 MR. MOXON: I saw the courier come a little 12 while ago. And I spoke to Mr. Keane this morning 13 and he said he was finally wrapping that up. 14 So just to let you know you have that, and to 15 refresh everybody's recollection of what I believe 16 was the procedure, you were going to take a look at 17 the summaries and determine which ones we get or are 18 available for the parties and which not. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. MOXON: And I understand from him what he 21 did, he summarized them in a form of saying which 22 witnesses have statements on the videos and which 23 ones are considered to be private, just Mr. Bunker's 24 family or whatever. 25 THE COURT: Okay.
119 1 MR. MOXON: Obviously we don't want that. So 2 we have, you know, a list -- 3 THE COURT: Did you-all get a copy of whatever 4 it is he -- 5 MR. MOXON: No, he said he was making the list 6 itself just to the Court. 7 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 8 MR. MOXON: He said he had a cover filing which 9 I haven't received, which hasn't been served yet, 10 but I assume we'll get today, which was just kind of 11 a summary of what he had been doing. 12 But the list he said he would not serve on 13 anyone, it would just go to you because he 14 understood your instructions. 15 THE COURT: Okay, I'll try to take a look at 16 it, probably not until tonight, but I'll take a look 17 at it tonight. 18 MR. MOXON: Fine. If you could let us know in 19 the morning. 20 THE COURT: I'll try. 21 MR. MOXON: We are keeping you hopping. 22 THE COURT: Yes, don't forget I'm trying to buy 23 and sell a house at the same time, as well as chair 24 reading, and as well as be on the panel, and as well 25 as handle this.
120 1 So, yes, everybody is keeping me hopping. 2 MR. MOXON: Okay. 3 (A discussion was held off the record.) 4 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, if you do -- even if 5 you don't finish, if you find some available and 6 they can be released -- 7 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, I'll get to it as fast 8 as I can, and as soon as I can release anything to 9 you, I will do so. 10 MR. MOXON: Thank you, your Honor. 11 THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Dandar. 12 MR. DANDAR: May we make copies of this Rinder 13 affidavit while I question the witness? 14 THE COURT: Sure. 15 MR. DANDAR: And if it is too much noise, then 16 I'll stop. 17 THE COURT: We all have it, though. 18 MR. DANDAR: I haven't been able to find an 19 exhibit number. 20 THE WITNESS: I left my copy on the bench. 21 MR. DANDAR: But have we used this before? 22 THE COURT: I believe so, but maybe not. 23 MR. DANDAR: '94 Rinder affidavit. 24 THE COURT: My clerk had some problem with some 25 child in school so she's not here to help us.
121 1 MR. WEINBERG: I have learned in my employment 2 I have to be somewhat careful of that, of those 3 things. 4 THE COURT: We'll have to get that straightened 5 out before the trial. I don't know about these home 6 problems, they just don't exist when we get to 7 trial, so -- 8 MR. WEINBERG: I agree. 9 We're checking the list of exhibits to see if 10 it is because, frankly, I don't remember one way or 11 another. 12 THE COURT: Well, I certainly remember having 13 it referred to, because I remember Ms. Young 14 testifying about it, I remember Ms. Yingling 15 testifying she saw it. I remember Mr. Minton 16 testifying about it. But Ms. Young, I think, 17 actually saw it. That is when I think I actually 18 saw it. I think it might have been introduced. 19 It doesn't matter. Proceed on. 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Mr. -- Mr. Young, in Scientology, were you 23 familiar with something called a routing form? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And what is a routing form?
122 1 A A routing form is used when a person starts a 2 new -- what could be referred to -- as a service which could 3 be counseling or a course. And your name is at the top. 4 The name of the service is there, the date. And then it is 5 numbered with sequences, that you then go through a series 6 of sequences to route onto the course, which means you pay 7 your money, materials. And they are not very long, usually. 8 Q Is there any service or action in Scientology that 9 is not governed by a routing form? 10 A There shouldn't be. It's -- it's pretty much 11 standard. There is policy that covers anything that you do, 12 you should have a routing form. 13 Q Can a staff member, for instance, just wander 14 around the organization and choose what he or she is going 15 to do for the day? 16 A No. 17 Q Can a Sea Org member perform any activity or 18 provide a service without being ordered or delegated by his 19 or her senior? 20 A Other than the position that you hold, no. 21 Q Now, in Scientology, is there -- are you familiar 22 with the phrase a PR flap? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And why are you familiar with that phrase? 25 A It was a phrase that we used quite often. Ever
123 1 since I moved into the PR bureau, I heard it. 2 Q And can you tell us what a PR flap is? 3 A It's an adverse PR situation that would produce a 4 media story, article, print or electronic, that one might 5 deem to be critical of the organization practices. 6 And you can also have a PR flap with your 7 landlord. Say you are behind on your rent and the landlord 8 is upset. So that could be a PR flap. I don't want to 9 restrict it to just media, but any situation that could be 10 bad public relations. 11 Q Who steps in to handle PR flaps? 12 A Supposed to be a trained PR person is the people 13 that always should be stepping into it to handle it. 14 There is policy that Hubbard wrote that said 15 public relations persons handle the PR, so that would 16 include a PR flap. 17 Q Are PR flaps handled by any special department? 18 A If it's an external PR flap, then it would be in 19 Department 20. It would be a trained person in Department 20 20 PR. 21 Q To a Scientologist -- and for the entire 22 organization of all of Scientology -- what does the 23 Clearwater's Flag Land Base signify? 24 A Well, from the time that it became known as 25 that -- because there was a period of time when it wasn't
124 1 known as that, it was something else -- it became three 2 things. 3 First of all, it carried the name Flag. And that 4 was a word that was reserved only for the ship Apollo where 5 Hubbard resided. He borrowed the name from the Navy. So 6 the Flag ship was the ship that the commandeer of a fleet -- 7 where that commander was. Regardless of which ship, it 8 always became the Flag ship. 9 So Apollo was the Flag ship. So when the Apollo 10 was basically put to rest and the Flag Land Base came, it 11 acquired the name Flag. So this is a very revered word. 12 It's the only organization that carries that in its name. 13 The second thing is that -- well, actually there 14 is more than what I just said, three. It was also sort of, 15 in a way, Hubbard's legacy from the Apollo. So, again, it 16 is very revered. 17 Thirdly, it's called the mecca of tech, which 18 means you just get almost any service there. There is some 19 that are given at the new ship they have acquired. But you 20 can get anything there. So that was important. 21 And the last thing that was important was it was 22 in Clearwater. And just because of the history, it became 23 very important. 24 Q What do you mean, it was important because it's in 25 Clearwater? What do you mean by that?
125 1 A Well, the records are quite clear from -- after 2 the FBI raid of '77, what came pouring out of the files was 3 a series of covert ops being run against the mayor of 4 Clearwater. There was intimidation, there was laws being 5 broken, fake hit-and-run accidents, records being stolen. 6 And this was in the middle of the long history of 7 conflict that had been going on between Scientology and the 8 City of Clearwater. And so when that came pouring out, it 9 became evident what had been going on quietly behind the 10 scenes while they denied it. So it became just a serious 11 confrontation. 12 And executives, because of it being Flag and 13 because of what it was, there was no way that they're going 14 to leave Clearwater. 15 THE COURT: That thing of yours is about as bad 16 as the tap tap tap. 17 MR. DANDAR: All right. 18 MR. WEINBERG: While he's doing that, my 19 objection is I think at the beginning of his 20 testimony, your Honor, you said you didn't want to 21 repeat the trial testimony or -- really most of what 22 we've heard today, my recollection is, is part of 23 trial testimony. 24 So my objection is based on what you said 25 earlier, I hope that we can limit what has already
126 1 been testified to in his deposition that took place 2 two years ago during his trial testimony. 3 THE COURT: I agree. But, you know, I don't 4 know exactly where Mr. Dandar is going with this. 5 If we're talking about Clearwater, that is of 6 benefit. 7 MR. DANDAR: We have three pages to go. Could 8 we finish it? 9 THE COURT: Okay. Yes. 10 MR. DANDAR: All right. 11 THE COURT: But remind me in the future when 12 you say could we just run something, if it is more 13 than just one page, the answer is no. 14 MR. DANDAR: I'll take it out in the hallway 15 next time. 16 MR. WEINBERG: By the way, we found the exhibit 17 number, it is 15V -- as in Victor -- Plaintiff's. 18 That is Mr. Rinder's. 19 THE COURT: Okay. So it is in evidence? 20 MR. WEINBERG: Well, what I don't know, if it's 21 in evidence. I assume it is, but the exhibit number 22 is 15V -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. WEINBERG: -- as in Victor. 25 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
127 1 THE COURT: I don't remember anything from 2 plaintiff having anything A through V. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I don't, either. 4 MR. DANDAR: Anyway -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sure it's in that stack over 6 there. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Were you involved in any of these overt or covert 9 operations? 10 A No -- wait a minute. You mean in Clearwater? 11 Q In Clearwater. 12 A No. 13 Q Were you involved in overt or covert operations 14 anywhere else? 15 A Well, overt operations. I was a PR. 16 Q Okay. Within your experience in Department 20, 17 were there times when private investigators were retained to 18 follow people in open so the person knows they are being 19 followed? 20 A Yes. That -- that is -- I'm familiar with that. 21 Q Is that called something in Scientology or in 22 Department 20? 23 A Not in particular. 24 THE COURT: What does that have to do with this 25 motion?
128 1 MR. DANDAR: It has to do with Mr. Minton's 2 harassment time line. 3 THE COURT: Okay. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q What was that -- what was the purpose of following 6 somebody but letting them know the PI was obvious to the 7 person being followed? 8 A Just to harass them, to make them feel that 9 they're being watched. A lot of people get very 10 uncomfortable with that, to have a tail on them, to be 11 sitting across the street, somebody knocking at your door. 12 Private investigators weren't used until after the 13 raid. Prior to that, the Intelligence Bureau did it. But 14 private investigators were later on used. 15 Q Okay. When you left in 1989, who was the head of 16 Sea Org? 17 A Well, that would have been Mr. Miscavige. 18 Q And if Mr. Miscavige, in 1995, November/December 19 of 1995, was still the captain, earned rank captain, the 20 only one of the Sea Org, who would be the head of the Sea 21 Org? 22 A He would still be the head of the Sea Org. 23 Q How much control does the Office of Special 24 Affairs Department 20 have over staff? 25 MR. WEINBERG: I object. This man was never in
129 1 the Office of Special Affairs. He was in the 2 Guardian's Office prior to 1982, according to his 3 testimony. But now Mr. Dandar is asking him about 4 the Office of Special Affairs, which is -- you know, 5 as of 2002. So I object to his competence to 6 testify -- 7 THE COURT: During what period of time are you 8 asking about? 9 MR. DANDAR: Well -- 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Were you ever in the Office of Special Affairs? 12 A I was in it during the change-over. Then while I 13 was in Office Services, I directed other activities in the 14 Office of Special Affairs. So I still knew about it because 15 we gave orders. 16 Q What type of orders would you, in a for-profit 17 corporation, ASI, give to the Office of Special Affairs? 18 A With regard to media, with regard to PR flaps, 19 with regard to their liaisoning with other sections that had 20 public relations functions besides just them, such as a 21 public relations agency, a public relations agency was hired 22 early on to try to help with the PR. So we had to work out 23 that coordination. 24 Q How would you -- what function would you play in 25 ASI to Department 20, the Office of Special Affairs, to
130 1 handle PR flaps? 2 THE COURT: My biggest problem here is, 3 Counselor, ASI didn't even exist in 1995. It was 4 gone. 5 MR. DANDAR: It was. 6 THE COURT: So this man is talking about 7 something he did from one department that didn't 8 even exist at the relevant time of this proceeding 9 to an agency -- or to an organization that he never 10 belonged to. 11 You'll just have to bring it up to present day 12 and time. And I don't think he's competent to do 13 that. 14 MR. DANDAR: I'll do that right now. 15 THE WITNESS: Could I correct one thing? 16 THE COURT: Sure. 17 THE WITNESS: ASI continued to exist. It did 18 not cease existence. You may be thinking of another 19 organization. 20 THE COURT: No I'm thinking of ASI. 21 THE WITNESS: Office Services continued, and 22 continues today. 23 THE COURT: Well, that testimony differs from 24 other testimony, so -- 25
131 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q What was it about ASI, when you were in ASI, no 3 longer Department 20, that gave you the power to send orders 4 over to Department 20, Office of Special Affairs? 5 A Because we acquired the power through David 6 Miscavige. And that was because we were the ones that 7 controlled the communications of L. Ron Hubbard into the 8 rest of Scientology. 9 David Miscavige picked these things up from the 10 courier, from Mr. Hubbard. We distributed them. And the 11 same way it went back to the traditional Flag, whoever 12 distributes the orders and command intentions, as we called 13 it, of L. Ron Hubbard had that power. 14 Q What about after Mr. Hubbard's death? 15 A Then there was a power struggle between 16 Mr. Hubbard's aide, Pat Broeker, and David Miscavige, Vicki 17 Aznaran, a number of others, until finally the dust settled 18 and Mr. Miscavige was the only one left in power. 19 Q And you, of course, were still in Scientology when 20 the dust settled? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And after the dust settled, were you still at ASI? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And was ASI -- did ASI still have that power it 25 had before Mr. Hubbard died?
132 1 A By that time, especially afterwards, Mr. Miscavige 2 established himself with RTC, so the power moved over to 3 RTC. 4 Q And did you move to RTC with Mr. Miscavige? 5 A No. 6 Q You stayed at ASI? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did you -- after Mr. Miscavige moved over to RTC, 9 did you still have the power to give orders to the Office of 10 Special Affairs? 11 A No. 12 Q Did the Office of Special Affairs work inside of 13 RTC, or outside of RTC, after Mr. Miscavige went over? 14 A It was -- you mean geographically? 15 Q No, command line-wise. 16 A Even command line-wise, it has what is called the 17 international office in Los Angeles is geographically quite 18 separate from the body of RTC itself. 19 Q Okay. And the Office of Special Affairs, before 20 you left in '89, did it have any control or power over staff 21 of other organizations? 22 A If it fell within the domain of, you know, public 23 relations, a legal threat, something that involved some 24 external matter -- when I say external, I really mean 25 outside the body of the organization, landlord, media,
133 1 lawsuit -- then they can take control. They're expected to 2 take control. 3 Q Have you ever heard of a condition in Scientology 4 called danger condition? 5 A Yes. Every staff member knows that one. 6 Q What does that mean? 7 A To make it simple, it means that your senior is 8 going to go around you, the term was bypass, and they're 9 going to get the job done because you can't handle it. So 10 let me give you an example. 11 You were just xeroxing something -- your associate 12 was xeroxing something and she's having trouble, so you go 13 over and you say, "Step aside, I have got to do this." 14 Well, that is a bypass when you come in and start 15 handling it yourself. That is a danger condition. 16 Q And within your 20 years of being a Scientologist, 17 did you ever encounter a danger condition where either 18 Department 20 steps in, even if it's not part of that 19 corporation, and takes over? 20 A Oh, yes. 21 Q Under what types of circumstances? 22 A Well, for example, when I gave the example of -- a 23 while ago when I was preparing for the Gerry Armstrong case 24 to testify, that organization wasn't able to do it so we 25 went ahead and handled it. That would be a clear bypass
134 1 condition right there. 2 But most of them end up being done through the Sea 3 Organization, more than through the OSA. 4 Q Now, in Scientology there is something called an 5 org board, right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And in an org board, you remember all of the 8 different divisions that are listed? 9 A Well, you can try me. 10 Q Are there -- are there just a lot of different 11 divisions? 12 A There is a history of org boards and it is just 13 nothing more than an organizational chart. And there are 14 seven divisions. And when you see it represented, the 15 seventh division is over on the far left, and then after 7, 16 it starts 1 through 6, and each of the different divisions 17 has three departments. And so it is broken down. And each 18 of the divisions have basic functions, like the technical 19 division, the public division, treasury, which handles the 20 finance, which going back to that word we used, HCO. There 21 is an HCO division. Division 7 was the executive division. 22 And that is where Department 20 was. There are 21 23 departments. So Department 20 was at the very end of 24 Division 7. 25 Q When you left in '89, is that how the organization
135 1 board was, I mean, established? 2 A Yes. And it has been true in later issues I have 3 seen such as the one you have there that has been published 4 since. 5 Q So in 1995 was the organization board the same as 6 when you left in 1989? 7 A According to their publications, they are. 8 Q Now, in reference to a senior case supervisor, a 9 senior case supervisor, say, at Flag, are you aware of who 10 would be senior to the senior case supervisor? 11 A That would be the senior CS Int. The "Int" stands 12 for international. 13 Q That is in California, right? 14 A Correct. 15 Q Can you tell us if there is any circumstance where 16 the senior CS would have a senior at Flag? 17 A If there is an organization that has some 18 organizations within it -- and in Clearwater they might have 19 changed it around a bit -- but there has always been several 20 organizations in the Clearwater section. 21 If there is different CSs and each of the CSs 22 would be known as a senior CS, you could find it under an 23 umbrella locally where there would be a senior CS over them, 24 and then that person would report to the CS Int. 25 Q Do you know who would be senior to the senior CS
136 1 Int? 2 A That would be somebody in RTC. 3 Q Does the Sea Organization have power over regular 4 staff, staff who are not part of the Sea Org? 5 A It's pretty much now what they call the Class 4 6 organizations, which is, you know, like San Francisco 7 organization, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta have been converted 8 into what they call Sea Org orgs, which means a sea 9 organization. 10 The only ones that have been pretty much left out 11 of the loop have been much lower organizations. So they 12 would have -- they would all be Sea Org orgs. 13 Q Where does the Flag Service Organization here in 14 Clearwater rank among other Scientology organizations? 15 A It pretty much has its own rank. The command 16 channels, you can see, it has its own rank and position. 17 It's not over the same category as Class 4 orgs. It's not 18 in any other category. It pretty much has its own rank. 19 Q Is that a higher, or lower, rank? 20 A It's a high rank, but -- I mean, it's just a high 21 rank. 22 Q And in the command channels in the org board does 23 everybody who is a member follow that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Why is that?
137 1 A But you have to understand that is a reflection of 2 already existing policy. They don't follow the command 3 channels booklet; they follow the policies under which the 4 command channels booklet was drawn up. 5 Q Do you know of any instance where a staff or a Sea 6 Org member does not have a senior? 7 A David Miscavige. 8 Q He's the only one that does not have a senior? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you know what a success letter is? 11 A You may be referring to a success story. 12 Q Okay. Do you know what that is? 13 A A success story, yes. 14 Q Can you tell us? 15 A After you finish what in our slang we might call 16 an action, which is auditing, counseling, a course, and you 17 finish it and what they call you attest to it that you 18 completed it, then you write a success story. 19 And a success story basically is just, you know, 20 whatever you want to say. You just are given a blank piece 21 of paper. Sometimes it has a success story printed on the 22 top, maybe just a blank piece of paper, and you write what 23 is called your wins, just how you feel about it. 24 And it can also be used for just ordinary things, 25 "Hey, I'm having a great time today."
138 1 "Well, go write a success story." It is not 2 attached only to an action counseling or auditing or 3 training; it could be for any reason. 4 Q What if you are required to write a success story 5 and you don't write it in a positive tone? 6 A Then a number of things can happen. But -- 7 they'll send you back -- basically, the point is if you 8 don't have a success story, then something went wrong and 9 we've got to get it fixed until you write a good success 10 story. 11 Q Have you heard the term "acceptable truth" in 12 Scientology? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What does that mean? 15 A That was a phrase that Hubbard used in one of the 16 policy letters where he said a PR should never lie but you 17 can tell an acceptable truth. 18 What that means is -- basically we see it every 19 day on television with politicians, you know, they're going 20 to wiggle out from a tough question, and they'll tell you 21 something that is true enough to get by and they're not 22 going to lie. It is hardly something that Hubbard dreamed 23 up. He just gave it a name. 24 So that is what you do is you -- somebody asks you 25 a really tough question, you say something else and you
139 1 divert it away. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, when he 3 said PR, did he mean this was for public relations 4 people? Was that the -- 5 THE WITNESS: The policy letter was written for 6 public relations people. And it is part of a PR 7 series. But it's used for other people as well, 8 other than just to train PRs. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Now, would someone who is mentally unstable, 11 psychotic, be a PR flap? 12 A It could be. 13 Q And, of course, in your review of the Lisa 14 McPherson case, did you have an opinion whether or not she 15 would have been a PR flap? 16 A She would have been a serious PR flap from the 17 moment the accident happened. 18 Q Why is that? 19 A First of all, she's out on a public street. 20 Second, she takes off her clothes. Thirdly, she's in 21 Clearwater, which has, what now, 15 years of battling with 22 the authorities and media and everything else as to their 23 presence. 24 Next, it's with Flag Land Base, which is 25 considered quite senior.
140 1 So the point is PR flaps have degrees. You know, 2 I'm sorry to put it this way, but if the young lady has an 3 accident and takes off her clothes in Boise, Idaho, it is 4 not the same thing as Clearwater. Clearwater has a history 5 of problems, and it is one of these, "We don't need a 6 problem." So this would be a serious PR flap. 7 Q Would this condition known as danger come into 8 play at all with Lisa McPherson? 9 A Probably. You have got to remember, danger occurs 10 if you don't like the first response. As they said, you are 11 doing this and you don't feel it should happen so you jump 12 in, but you could also consider it enough of an immediate 13 threat that you jump in immediately and start giving orders. 14 Q Can you explain why OSA, the local OSA office 15 person, Mr. Fontana, appeared at the ER where Lisa McPherson 16 was taken following the accident at Morton Plant? 17 A That is -- 18 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, speculation. He's 19 asking for an opinion based, to some event, on what 20 happened six years or so after he left the Church of 21 Scientology. 22 THE COURT: Overruled. 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Go ahead. 25 A That is his job. By definition Department 20
141 1 handles external affairs. External situations. The PR 2 handles PR flaps. 3 You don't send in the senior CS or anything else. 4 You have to send in policy -- the policy is you send in a 5 trained PR, so the trained PR has to be there on the scene 6 of a PR flap. 7 Q And based upon what you know about the Lisa 8 McPherson circumstances, would only the local OSA office be 9 involved in this? 10 A No. 11 Q Why is that? 12 A Well, you have several factors going. Not only 13 was there a PR flap of somebody going crazy or taking off 14 their clothes, but you have whatever degree you consider it, 15 you have got an accident in a city and the authorities can 16 be called in. So you have the possibility of a legal 17 threat. 18 On top of that, you have someone going -- has the 19 word -- has the word PTS 3 been used here? 20 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 21 THE COURT: Many times. Really, when I asked 22 you that question about what was HCO, frankly, it 23 was simply because I hadn't looked at the top. 24 Everything else you explained to me, everything I 25 have heard and understand better than I ever dreamt
142 1 I would have to. 2 THE WITNESS: That makes it very easy. Thank 3 you. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 A Somebody that is PTS 3, well, you have the 6 technical people that are going to become involved in it but 7 not right away. 8 First, you contain the PR flap. Then you check 9 out the legal threat. And then you'll have to deal with 10 this on a technical level, so there is more than just OSA 11 can handle. 12 When you go into the technical area, Department 20 13 doesn't handle technical. That is on a different command 14 level. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Well, does Department 20 take over all of the Lisa 17 McPherson circumstances even if it involves a technical 18 division because of the PR flap? 19 A It can, because the PR and legal threats are a 20 direct -- you have to understand they are a direct threat to 21 the organization. The survival of the organization and the 22 technology is senior. 23 So if it's necessary, they can give the orders in. 24 Q Would reports about Lisa McPherson taking off her 25 clothes and going to the ER be sent up lines?
143 1 A They would be knowledge reports. They could be 2 part of your weekly report. First of all, any person 3 involved in a situation would have written up a report. 4 Q How do you know that? You weren't there. 5 A This is -- this is per policy. And if they are 6 not doing it, then it's not per policy. And going back to 7 the first policy letter, this is how it's done and you do it 8 no other way. And that is RTC's role. And it is stated 9 constantly, they're there to make sure you do it exactly 10 that way. 11 THE COURT: The knowledge reports and weekly 12 reports going up line, in your opinion, would have 13 gone up line in what fashion? 14 THE WITNESS: For this, the first thing would 15 have been, you know, you even get on the phone 16 before you even write anything to see what is going 17 on. But it would go -- it would go by electronic 18 means through E-Mail. 19 THE COURT: Okay. I guess what I'm suggesting 20 is if it went to -- a knowledge report, for example, 21 who would write it? 22 THE WITNESS: As I said, each person involved 23 would write a knowledge report. But the senior over 24 the area who was in command of it, who is taking 25 command -- in this case it would probably be the
144 1 commanding officer of the OSA for the local unit -- 2 would do this because it's legal and PR, and that 3 person is over it. So that person would send it to 4 the OSA International. 5 THE COURT: To whom? 6 THE WITNESS: That would be Mike Rinder. 7 THE COURT: But they send it directly to him? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. And CC's would then go to 9 the relevant departments so they are advised. 10 THE COURT: What if local OSA didn't take over; 11 what if, as it was suggested, that it was an 12 ecclesiastical function and, therefore, it was the 13 senior case supervisor who was in charge, 14 Mr. Kartuzinski, where would he send anything? 15 THE WITNESS: I just got lost on ecclesiastical 16 function. 17 THE COURT: Ecclesiastical function which would 18 be an introspection rundown, which is -- 19 THE WITNESS: Oh. 20 THE COURT: -- an ecclesiastical function of 21 the Church, according to certain testimony. 22 THE WITNESS: Ecclesiastical is not a word they 23 use internally. You cannot find it in the volumes. 24 If it is a technical matter that will come 25 secondarily when she goes back and is taken over by
145 1 the technical people, but first you have to deal -- 2 it's sort of like a person in an accident. First 3 you handle the tourniquet and do that, then you go 4 for the rest of the care later. So PR and legal 5 comes first, and then they'll move her out of there, 6 then take care of the rest of it later. 7 So Mr. Kartuzinski would have reported to 8 senior CS Int and RTC and would have CC'd some other 9 people, too. 10 BY MR. DANDAR: 11 Q Would Mr. Kartuzinski be out policy if he didn't 12 write a report to the senior case supervisor international 13 in California about Lisa McPherson? 14 A He could lose his position in the organization if 15 he didn't do that, because it's that serious. 16 Q And in order to lose your position in the 17 organization, wouldn't that require a Committee of Evidence? 18 A Usually. But there are people that are also just 19 removed by somebody saying, "You are removed." I have seen 20 that. And it's happened. It's in the evidence -- evidence 21 of that is in the documents I presented, the Wollersheim 22 declaration. But usually the procedure is a Committee of 23 Evidence. But if it is serious, you just say, "You are out, 24 you are in, let's go." 25 Q And that person, of course, being taken out of
146 1 position would know about it, right? 2 A Sometimes. 3 Q I mean, when they're no longer the senior CS, they 4 would understand why they're no longer the senior CS? 5 A Oh, in that sense of the word, definitely. 6 Q How long would OSA Int be involved in the Lisa 7 McPherson matter? 8 A They'll continue until it goes away. Because 9 it's -- it's a lawsuit, it's legal and PR. 10 Q And is that because you are speculating, or is it 11 because of something else? 12 A It's according to the policies of L. Ron Hubbard, 13 it is an external matter, all external matters, legal, PR 14 threats, are Department 20. 15 THE COURT: When Mr. Rinder as OSA -- is he OSA 16 Int, is that his title? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 18 THE COURT: When Mr. Rinder, assuming 19 Mr. Rinder got this OSA Int, what does he do with 20 it? 21 THE WITNESS: He reports up further. And -- 22 but he just doesn't sit and report. He has to be 23 taking action. There was always a form that you 24 report such things. It was called situation 25 handling. Situation -- it's like -- situation,
147 1 there is a fire going on in the hall, handling it. 2 We put it out. 3 You just don't report a situation. You report 4 the situation and what you are doing, you handle it. 5 So he would be required to report up what is 6 happening and what actions are being taken and then 7 also what he's proposing for the future. 8 So you just -- you just don't report a flap. 9 You report it only when you can report a handling. 10 THE COURT: When he sends it back -- when he 11 sends it downline, who -- 12 THE WITNESS: You do know the language, don't 13 you? 14 THE COURT: Yes, I do, actually. 15 When he sent it downline, who would he send it 16 to? Would he send it to -- assuming that -- that 17 Ms. McPherson is at the hotel, she's in a fairly 18 paranoid state, and this is being reported up and 19 downline, who actually is Mr. Rinder going to report 20 back to and tell them how to handle it? 21 THE WITNESS: The same thing. Once -- there 22 would have come a point when she was in the hotel 23 being taken care of, as we might say, technically, 24 that the OSA will move their attention more to the 25 prospect of what might come out of this. You know,
148 1 is there any authorities involved, any police 2 reports, et cetera. 3 And the bulk of the work will move over to the 4 technical people. OSA will monitor, because it 5 could have been a serious flap and it might turn 6 into -- to be one again, so they'll closely monitor. 7 But the bulk of the work and the attention will move 8 over to the more technical people. 9 THE COURT: I'm sorry, maybe when I said 10 ecclesiastical I was in error, it could have been 11 technical. But, in any event, assuming the way to 12 handle it was to perform an introspection rundown, 13 "perform" may be the wrong word, but -- 14 THE WITNESS: Right. 15 THE COURT: -- but to start that process, that 16 will then move over to the technical people, such as 17 Mr. Kartuzinski? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, that would not be the domain 19 of OSA because it is no longer an external matter. 20 She's out on the street, she's at the ER, she's in a 21 hospital, wherever else. It's externally. 22 Once the person is brought in physically and is 23 being handled by the internal personnel, that part 24 of it is no longer an OSA Department 20 matter 25 because it's not external. It was, but it's been
149 1 brought inside, so you just monitor to make sure she 2 doesn't, say, run out of the Ft. Harrison naked and 3 we have another problem. As long as it is contained 4 internally, then Department 20 simply monitors. 5 THE COURT: So now those people watching over 6 her would send their reports to the senior case 7 supervisors? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 9 THE COURT: What does he do with it? 10 THE WITNESS: He will send it on up to RTC. 11 And he might also be asked to be -- 12 THE COURT: IRTC? 13 THE WITNESS: Religious Technology Center. 14 THE COURT: To RTC? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: He might also be asked to keep 18 Department 20 apprised of how it's going so they can 19 get an estimate that we may not have a situation on 20 our hands. 21 THE COURT: Would that be local? Would he then 22 advise the local Department 20? Or would he advise 23 Mr. Rinder at the international level? 24 THE WITNESS: No, he would be advising locally, 25 then local would report back up.
150 1 THE COURT: Would report back up? Okay. 2 THE WITNESS: You try to hold the chain of 3 command in those command channels as much as 4 possible. Or if you haven't been able to hold them 5 at the time it happens, you try to bring them back 6 to some sort of normalcy where everybody has their 7 echelons and we're sort of back on the track. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Now, you said OSA Int would monitor if she's at 11 the Ft. Harrison Hotel after leaving the hospital. Right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, if someone needed to make a decision while 14 OSA Int is monitoring her, per policy, who would be the ones 15 making the decision to decide we're going to take her back 16 to the emergency room if she needed to go back? 17 A Well, first of all, in your hypothetical it would 18 be a technical matter not related to an OSA matter. They're 19 the ones that would propose it. I can't imagine them 20 proposing it. But they would be the ones that would propose 21 it. And they would have to get -- per the policies, they 22 would have to have senior okay on this. 23 THE COURT: A senior okay? 24 THE WITNESS: From the senior CS Int or someone 25 else. They just can't decide this locally because
151 1 it was a situation. 2 See, until you know that everything is fully 3 handled and we're out of the woods and there is no 4 possibility of any further threat, everybody just 5 sort of stays on a minor alert and everybody has to 6 continue to be appraised, because this could blow up 7 at any time. So they can't just say, "Oh, well, 8 let's take her back to the ER," you know, "Or let's 9 do something else." They can't without serious 10 emergency. Somebody could fall down in the Ft. 11 Harrison and break a leg, you run them to emergency. 12 You don't need to ask RTC for that. 13 I was just talking about, as the normal course 14 of events going along as the days following the 15 accident, that is how it would have been done. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q What about Lisa McPherson, though, her 18 specifically? Who would be the ones who would make a 19 decision, if a decision needed to be made, to take her to a 20 hospital, who -- 21 THE COURT: He already told us it would depend 22 whether it was an emergency or whether it was just 23 sort of in the normal course of things. Different 24 people make that decision based on whether it is an 25 urgent emergency.
152 1 MR. DANDAR: I think he was speaking generally. 2 I need to make sure -- 3 THE COURT: No, I think he was talking 4 generally. And I think he was talking specifically 5 as to this case. 6 And it would, once again, depend on whether the 7 situation was as you and your experts think it was, 8 or was it a situation where the Church and their 9 experts think it was, it seems to me. 10 MR. DANDAR: Could I ask that? 11 THE COURT: Yes, you can, but I think he 12 already answered that. 13 THE WITNESS: Could I make a request? Could I 14 have a short break, please? I only need about five 15 minutes. 16 THE COURT: All right, we'll take a five-minute 17 break. 18 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 1:48 to 2:03 p.m.) 19 __________________________________ 20 THE COURT: Okay. Let's continue. Is this 21 101? Did he move this into evidence? 22 MR. FUGATE: No. 23 MR. DANDAR: No. I move it into evidence. 24 THE COURT: I'm getting tired of telling you 25 this. If you don't want something into evidence,
153 1 fine. But I never know. I just sit here and hold 2 it and wonder what in the world it is. 3 Is 99 in evidence? 4 MR. WEINBERG: What is that? 5 THE CLERK: Yes. 6 THE COURT: 99, 98 and 100 are in evidence? 7 THE CLERK: No. 8 MR. DANDAR: I move them into evidence. 9 THE COURT: Any objection? 10 MR. WEINBERG: I do object. It is Mr. Young's 11 declaration. Is it to bolster his testimony? If 12 he's not impeached he can -- based on that, I don't 13 understand why he'll put some prior affidavit in. 14 THE COURT: I think probably this is 15 information Mr. Dandar had and relied on. Is that 16 right? 17 MR. DANDAR: Part of it. Most of it is, but it 18 is nice and concise and all together, and that is 19 why I'm moving it into evidence. 20 MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, I mean, it was 21 written in December of '99 -- December 7 of '99. So 22 he's -- that is -- 23 THE COURT: Part of the problem is -- and part 24 of why I think -- some of this information is going 25 to be admissible if it's not barred by the First
154 1 Amendment -- is because there is no information here 2 to suggest that things change from day to day. So, 3 I mean, I don't know how much of it is relevant and 4 how much isn't. I just don't have time to read it. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I haven't read it. 6 THE COURT: I haven't either, so I'm going to 7 let it in. If there is anything relevant in it 8 we'll use it. If there isn't, we won't. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 10 THE COURT: I mean, I think what I heard was 11 that that had to do with the chain of command and 12 those types of things which are at issue here, I 13 suppose. 14 MR. DANDAR: Well, they are because of 15 Paragraph 34 in their motion. 16 THE COURT: Well, yes. 17 MR. DANDAR: I didn't make it an issue. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Now, Mr. Young, in the case of Lisa McPherson, if 21 it became -- 22 THE COURT: By the way, for whatever it is 23 worth, I don't have any doubt at the time you wrote 24 your complaint that you had a good faith basis to 25 believe that David Miscavige knew about the
155 1 situation. I mean, that is obvious from all your 2 witnesses. Whether it is true or not doesn't 3 matter. What matters is whether your complaint was 4 false or whether you had a good faith basis for it. 5 I think you did. So, frankly, that you don't have 6 to beat into the ground anymore. 7 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 8 THE COURT: But what we really ought to be 9 talking about here, more so than that, is whether or 10 not there was any information or any basis upon 11 which the rest of that paragraph was -- in other 12 words, I think you had a basis upon which -- that 13 you could believe that he had some information about 14 what was going on. 15 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 16 THE COURT: All right? 17 MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q All right. Mr. Young, in reference to Lisa 20 McPherson then, if it came to be that the people who were 21 watching her saw her physically decline as Heather Hof says, 22 and she wrote reports to the senior CS, Kartuzinski, and she 23 stated to the police under oath she was frantic there was a 24 physical decline, Lisa was not eating or drinking enough to 25 survive, those words that she said under oath to the police,
156 1 and Mr. Kartuzinski did not respond to any of these reports, 2 number one, do you have an opinion, based upon your 3 experience, who would be the one in charge of making the 4 decision what to do with Lisa McPherson during the last days 5 as she was at wherever she was, the Ft. Harrison Hotel? 6 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form because 7 in the question he said things that I don't think 8 there is any factual basis for. 9 It is also not important to the question, which 10 is completely different than this premise to the 11 question, which was all this evidence that 12 supposedly happened. He's asking about -- I suppose 13 if he has some idea about who was in charge. 14 THE COURT: Well, I assume he has some evidence 15 from a police report that Heather Hof said she was 16 frantic, nothing else -- nothing was happening. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I would like to know where that 18 was. 19 MR. DANDAR: It was marked as an exhibit in her 20 deposition. 21 THE COURT: I presume he had some evidence to 22 support that. I assume there is certainly evidence 23 in the report to support the fact that nothing 24 happened because nothing, in fact, did happen. And 25 so, therefore, I have to assume unless
157 1 Mr. Kartuzinski says to the contrary that he said 2 take her to the hospital, nobody paid any attention 3 to him, that, therefore, that part of what he said 4 is true and factual. 5 So as far as your objection it's not based on 6 facts, that is overruled. 7 You know, assuming there is something in the 8 record that says Ms. Hof said this. 9 MR. DANDAR: All right. And now I'm telling 10 the Court that that is in the record. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. DANDAR: And I'll make sure you get a copy 13 of that and her statements to the police. 14 THE COURT: All right. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q So, Mr. Young, who would be the person making the 17 decision in the final days as to whether or not Lisa 18 McPherson leaves the property of the Church of Scientology 19 and goes to a public facility like an emergency room? 20 A Since she was in -- she was a very serious 21 potential PR flap, possible legal threat, that would not be 22 a local decision, because the person leaving the premises, 23 you lose control over the situation. So that would have 24 been -- involved more than just local people. 25 Q Who would it involve?
158 1 A It would involve both the OSA Int level, as well 2 as the RTC level. 3 Q The fact that you know and worked with David 4 Miscavige while you were inside Scientology, do you have an 5 opinion as to whether or not David Miscavige, number one, as 6 captain of the Sea Org, would have known about Lisa 7 McPherson in the beginning when she had the car accident and 8 went to the emergency room, and knew about her throughout 9 her seventeen days until she died? 10 A I worked with him seven years, and this was his 11 pattern. He insisted upon knowing anything that could be a 12 serious threat. Media threat, legal threat, were the two 13 most important things. And he insisted on being -- knowing 14 about this. 15 Either he's told immediately by the locals, or he 16 could be told by his immediate juniors. 17 Q Mr. Young, we're going to get to -- we're going 18 back to when I first discovered you and met with you and 19 Stacy in Seattle. 20 But right now, since we're on this topic, let me 21 ask you just to stay with us on this point. In the 22 summer -- August of 1999 we filed a motion to add parties. 23 And I believe in October of 1999 you filed a 24 declaration in this case. And part of that declaration 25 which the Court has is in your statement by you under oath,
159 1 I believe it is an under-oath affidavit, stating that you 2 reviewed the August '99 declaration of Jesse Prince in this 3 case about his experience and why he believed Lisa McPherson 4 died. 5 Do you recall that? 6 A Yes. 7 THE COURT: Do I -- do I understand you have 8 that? Are you sure I have that? 9 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 10 THE COURT: If you say so, then fine. But I 11 don't remember whether I do or not. 12 MR. DANDAR: It is part of the -- it is part of 13 the defendant's notice of additional authorities 14 filed in October of '99 in the first -- when we had 15 a motion to set aside the agreement not to add on 16 parties. 17 MR. WEINBERG: You mean the plaintiffs? 18 MR. DANDAR: It is part of the plaintiff's 19 package of materials of additional authorities that 20 includes Stacy Young's declarations, Vicki Aznaran's 21 declarations -- 22 THE COURT: I don't know if I have that or 23 whether that is something filed with Judge Moody. 24 MR. DANDAR: I think it is both. But I'm going 25 to make sure --
160 1 THE COURT: You make sure I have it then. 2 MS. WEST: We gave it to Judge Schaeffer. 3 MR. DANDAR: We did notice of judicial -- 4 request to take judicial notice of what we 5 previously filed with Judge Moody. 6 THE COURT: Somewhere in this hearing? 7 MR. DANDAR: Somewhere in this hearing we gave 8 it to you. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. DANDAR: But we'll doublecheck with Sue to 11 make sure -- 12 THE COURT: Doublecheck it with the clerk to 13 make sure I have it in my booklet. 14 MR. DANDAR: Okay, we'll do that, too. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Do you recall what you concluded, your comments, 17 concerning Jesse Prince's affidavit? 18 A I believe I said that based on my 21 years and 19 everything that I have learned through all of the policies 20 and books, even in the years following, that I couldn't find 21 anything in there that I considered to be contrary to my 22 personal experiences, my familiarity with policy. 23 Q Now, do you have an opinion, sir, based on your 24 21-plus years, as to whether or not -- well, I want you 25 first to assume that the pathologists for the estate have
161 1 testified Lisa died as a result of intentional medical 2 neglect. And I believe Dr. Spitz and Dr. Bandt both say 3 that the watchers of Lisa McPherson watched her die, in so 4 many words. I'm paraphrasing. 5 Do you have an opinion, if those doctors are 6 correct, as to why Lisa McPherson -- why the watchers 7 watched her die? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. 9 Objection as to the form, as well. 10 THE COURT: Mmm -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: Does he have an opinion based 12 on, what? In his trial testimony he said he has no 13 personal knowledge of what occurred in Clearwater. 14 THE COURT: I don't know about his trial 15 testimony. This isn't a trial. This is his hearing 16 and he's here -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand. But we do 18 have some basis in this case. He was offered before 19 as to certain issues. This was not one of them. 20 But he made clear in this testimony before he had no 21 personal knowledge of what happened. 22 THE COURT: There is no one who has been 23 excluded by me from this hearing. Therefore, I 24 don't care what evidence you have anyplace else in 25 existence for anything. For this hearing --
162 1 MR. WEINBERG: It's no agreement. 2 THE COURT: Right. 3 MR. WEINBERG: It is part of the discovery in 4 this case. Mr. Dandar had to identify what the 5 issues were that Mr. Young was going to testify 6 about. We took his deposition, and then Mr. Dandar 7 took his trial testimony. 8 THE COURT: He didn't know at that time you 9 were going to accuse him of perjury and suborning 10 perjury and filing false and -- and perpetrating 11 fraud on the Court and all that sort of stuff. That 12 is different. 13 Your objection is overruled. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I understand -- well, okay. 15 THE COURT: You move on, Mr. Dandar. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Do you have an opinion, Mr. Young -- 18 A I just didn't hear that question. What? 19 Q Do you have an opinion as to why, if the estate's 20 pathologists are correct that they watched her die, do you 21 have an opinion how that -- 22 THE COURT: I have read those pathologists' 23 depositions. And I don't think that -- with the 24 exception perhaps of Dr. Spitz -- that Dr. Bandt 25 says that. I mean, he may say gross negligence. He
163 1 may have a lot of things he does say. But I don't 2 think that he says they stood around and watched her 3 die. 4 MR. DANDAR: Dr. Bandt said intentional medical 5 neglect, homicide, and -- 6 THE COURT: He said homicide of a manslaughter 7 nature, doesn't he? 8 MR. DANDAR: Well, homicide -- well, based on 9 Minnesota -- his understanding of Minnesota law, it 10 is not first degree murder, it would be second 11 degree homicide based upon intentional medical 12 neglect, not simple negligence or gross negligence. 13 It is a higher level than just manslaughter. 14 THE COURT: Well, intentional medical neglect 15 could mean standing around watching somebody die. 16 It could mean that you are so reckless and you are 17 so grossly negligent that you don't see something 18 that should be obvious to any person that it rises 19 to the level of intentional even though it isn't 20 intentional. 21 So I don't know that they have said that those 22 workers stood around and watched her die. The only 23 person that I saw that said he didn't believe the 24 workers was Dr. Spitz. 25 MR. DANDAR: Okay, Dr. Bandt does specifically
164 1 say he doesn't believe -- in fact, he used the 2 phrase "pure fantasy" to talk about how 3 Ms. Arrunada, the person who has the medical degree 4 from Mexico, unlicensed, what she described the last 5 two days of Lisa McPherson. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then it's your 7 hypothetical. If your hypothetical turns out not to 8 be based on any facts, then it is worthless. 9 So I was trying to suggest the way you might 10 put it in a fashion that I know is factual. But if 11 you are pretty sure it is factual, go ahead. 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q If Dr. -- let's just go with Dr. Spitz. If 15 Dr. Spitz is correct that they stood around and watched her 16 die and, as you say, the orders to do anything had to come 17 from the senior CS Int in California, can you tell us, based 18 upon what you know about Scientology, why that would happen? 19 A Well, first of all, from my recall of reviewing 20 the records such as the notes being kept by the watchers, as 21 well as what I know, first of all, they weren't medically -- 22 medically trained to be able to recognize a condition. 23 So what that means, you have been assigned a job 24 so you follow orders of people who know better than you. 25 That is what you are always taught.
165 1 So you don't act without being told what to do. 2 And that is what they did. They -- those people sitting 3 right there needed orders to rush her to an ER, say. Or to 4 do something else, unless there was just a -- what is called 5 a standing order, which is make sure she gets liquids, and 6 so you do that every day, you don't need to be told that 7 every day. But if anything changes, you need to be told 8 what to do, because you are protected. 9 Q Assuming that the order never came in after Janis 10 Johnson, the formerly licensed anesthesiologist, now on 11 staff in the MLO at Flag, she testified that on December 5 12 Lisa was majorly dehydrated and she recognized that, and she 13 called Dr. Minkoff and asked for penicillin, and he said, 14 "No, take her to ER, and if you don't take her to the local 15 ER, then you can bring her up here, but I'm not going to 16 give you a penicillin prescription over the phone." 17 A He's telling it to the wrong person. She has no 18 control over her. The watchers don't have control over her. 19 Q Even someone who has a medical degree? 20 A You need a post or position. Just because you 21 have a degree and you are walking around the Ft. Harrison or 22 in this court doesn't mean you can just sort of assume and 23 take a person on as a patient. There is positions. There 24 is command channels. There is a structure of the 25 organization. It has to be followed. That is always
166 1 senior. And that is hammered in, hammered in, hammered. 2 So those people needed orders, regardless of what 3 they may have been trained to do as a doctor or 4 anesthesiologist. 5 Q Well, assume the workers were writing reports, 6 including the ones that are missing, that this situation is 7 not good and, in fact, Heather Hof testified that she wrote 8 that something needed to be changed, and that was on 9 Saturday, December 2nd, but she gets no reply. 10 Do you have an opinion as to why these workers -- 11 and as she said she was frantic -- why these workers would 12 not get a reply from OSA Int or the senior CS Int? 13 A It's -- it's a shock to me, too. Because my 14 experience was when you feel you have a situation, you 15 respond quickly. You respond in a matter of hours. You 16 have to respond within 24 hours. 17 And it's -- the only time, in all of my years, et 18 cetera, the only time that went quiet and you didn't hear 19 back was somebody was up there trying to decide what to do. 20 Or maybe the mail got lost. But that is the only way. 21 But normally people would move fast. So that not 22 hearing, when you are being told something is wrong, is 23 unusual. 24 Q Well, do you have an opinion as to what policies 25 the Church of Scientology would be following if they decided
167 1 not to do anything? 2 A There is -- there is nothing that just says don't 3 do anything. First of all, to clarify that. What you do 4 sometimes is you just say continue to do the same thing. 5 It's like a presidential pocket veto. You don't say veto; 6 you just leave it alone and it dies. I didn't mean to use 7 that word like that. 8 So just by leaving the action alone and giving you 9 orders, it means you continue to do what you have been 10 doing. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I remember, in reading 12 Mr. Kartuzinski's deposition, that Mr. Kartuzinski 13 said he did call David -- not David Miscavige, he 14 did call Dr. Minkoff himself. 15 MR. DANDAR: He did call Dr. Minkoff several 16 times during the 17 days. 17 THE COURT: I'm talking at the end. That he -- 18 did he call Dr. Minkoff and asked him to see her, 19 not Janis Johnson? I mean, she may have, too. But, 20 I mean, it did seem as if, at that point, it was the 21 upper level at the Church -- or at Flag that was 22 making some decisions there. Janis Johnson went to 23 her senior who was Mr. Kartuzinski, right? 24 MR. DANDAR: No. 25 THE COURT: No?
168 1 THE WITNESS: May I offer something? 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Is there anyone at Flag that could call 4 Dr. Minkoff? 5 A Say -- ask that again, please? 6 Q Is there anyone at Flag that could have called 7 Dr. Minkoff, per policy? 8 A Let me distinguish here something, if I may 9 explain it. 10 If this was a young woman at the Ft. Harrison who 11 had taken deathly ill and she'd not been out there in an 12 automobile accident and taken off her clothes, there is 13 complete local control and they could have called the doctor 14 and said, "Hey, can we bring her over?" 15 "Come on over and see her." 16 It is very normal, even if she was yelling in the 17 Ft. Harrison Hotel, you know, and they are calming her down. 18 The fact she was in an automobile accident, and 19 authorities were there, and you have this serious PR 20 situation and a legal threat, you lose local control until 21 that is completely gone. 22 So, yes, he could call Minkoff. But he does not 23 have the authority, because OSA Department 20 is watching. 24 We have -- we're in Clearwater. We have been at war with 25 this city for 15, 20 years. You just don't rush the person
169 1 who was -- might get us all in trouble again and do this 2 and, you know, this. So he could not just make it a local 3 decision as if she had been somebody not involved in an 4 automobile accident, taken off her clothes. That changes 5 the matter. 6 As soon as it goes to Department 20, you lose some 7 control. You do, until that situation is fully gone. 8 Q And is there any policies in Scientology where 9 this Department 20 PR flap situation that you discussed 10 would be paramount over the life of Lisa McPherson? 11 A You will never see something worded like that. 12 No. I'll say that flat out. 13 Q Okay. 14 A But you are always taught, the first thing that 15 came in, the most important thing -- it's not just you are 16 saying the life of a person is unimportant. But the most 17 important thing is the organization, the technology. Then 18 you take your priorities from there. 19 So you always have to judge it from that. It's 20 not somebody says Scientology is more important than the 21 life of a person. You'll never see that stated, et cetera. 22 But you are just told what is important. Because if that is 23 not preserved, then other people can't be helped. 24 Q Where does the individual rank on the scale of 25 importance, starting with the Scientology and the tech at
170 1 the top? 2 A Well, you -- the individual is of the least 3 importance. And even Hubbard said groups are more important 4 than individuals. And so it builds up from there, sort of 5 like, you know, building a pyramid. And so you judge your 6 priorities from there. 7 The maxim that everybody works by, one of the most 8 important maxims in Scientology, is the greatest good for 9 the greatest number. And it's just a utilitarian -- Hubbard 10 didn't think of it. It was a principle, utilitarian 11 principle, John Stewart Mills. 12 So you have to take into consideration who will be 13 hurt the most and decide from there. 14 Q Okay. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar gave you a hypothetical 16 that seems to be expressed in somewhat of, what 17 shall I say, a passive form. So let me see if I 18 understood it. 19 You indicated if I had your affidavit, which I 20 believe has been filed, and I think after I heard 21 something about it I may have seen it. But he said 22 in October of '99 you filed a declaration saying you 23 had read Mr. Prince's affidavit and you couldn't 24 find anything or say anything contrary to what he 25 had concluded or something like that, I'm not sure
171 1 exactly what your testimony was. Is that what your 2 affidavit said? 3 In other words, did it say you agreed with him? 4 Or did it just say you couldn't find anything wrong 5 with his affidavit? 6 THE WITNESS: I couldn't find -- well, first of 7 all, let me clarify that. I did not have all of the 8 empirical personal knowledge Mr. Prince did. We 9 worked in two different sectors. 10 But my familiarity with what I knew and the way 11 he described it, there was nothing that he said in 12 there that I considered to be false according to my 13 personal experiences and my familiarity with the 14 directives of Scientology. 15 But I could also -- I -- there were certain 16 things he said I knew were true that I could say, 17 oh, yes, that is very correct. But I could not at 18 the same time -- since I couldn't attest to the 19 veracity of every statement, all I could say is as 20 to the rest there was nothing else I found contrary 21 to my personal experiences or my familiarity with 22 the directives. 23 THE COURT: Again, from what you have testified 24 to and what other persons, Mr. Franks included, have 25 testified to, and I haven't heard from Mr. Prince
172 1 yet, but -- and I have heard from Ms. Brooks, too, 2 who is an ex-Scientologist that has some familiarity 3 with the Church and its policy, it is inconceivable 4 to me, thinking about a PR flap and how the Church 5 would want to avoid that at all costs, certainly 6 here in Clearwater -- you have stated that, true? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: It is inconceivable to me that 9 Mr. Prince says that -- says that obviously the word 10 came down just to let her die because, otherwise, it 11 would have been too big of a PR flap so, therefore, 12 an end cycle was put out -- you have read it so you 13 know what it is he said. I can't imagine anything 14 that would create a bigger PR flap. 15 And the fact it did create a big, huge PR flap 16 and a huge lawsuit, all of which Department 20 is 17 supposedly geared up to -- to stop or -- or 18 hopefully stop, why any such order could ever have 19 come down from anybody in any position of 20 responsibility or authority, it just wouldn't make 21 any -- in other words, his statements and what you 22 have testified to and others who have been in the 23 Church have testified to don't seem to coexist. 24 THE WITNESS: Well, can I correct one thing, 25 your Honor?
173 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: If I may, first? It was not a PR 3 flap when she died. It was not known. It was 4 quiet. It took a while before this actually came up 5 as a lawsuit. In fact, it was -- it was -- I don't 6 even know how long it took. But I know it went out 7 through the Internet when people started digging 8 into it and finding out about it. So she died and 9 there wasn't a flap. 10 Secondly, even though that may sound 11 incredulous that a person could die and you don't 12 have a flap, that is because you have got somebody 13 like a Minkoff that you can go to who is 14 sympathetic, he's a loyal Scientologist, he will 15 give you the proper response. You can trust him to 16 do this because he's OT8. Can I use that here? 17 THE COURT: Sure. We know what that is. 18 THE WITNESS: He's an OT8. He has gone all of 19 the way. He has been on the ship, the Free Winds. 20 He's loyal. He's keeping Scientology working. 21 He'll help us. It is like saying we have friends in 22 high places. 23 So I'm saying just because the person can say, 24 yes, that could go wrong, well, except if you have 25 friends in high places, meaning in that case, a
174 1 doctor, and, secondly, when she died, it wasn't a PR 2 flap. It was quite quiet. It took a while before 3 this ever came up. Now it's a flap. But it wasn't 4 when she died. 5 THE COURT: It then came up pretty quickly 6 after she died. I mean, you would know if a -- a 7 doctor would absolutely have to, no matter what is 8 said to the contrary, a doctor who did not have 9 someone under his care who died, as Lisa McPherson 10 died, would have to turn that over to the medical 11 examiner. 12 THE WITNESS: True. 13 THE COURT: A medical examiner was not, is not, 14 never has been, I don't believe, a Scientologist. 15 THE WITNESS: True. 16 THE COURT: Dr. Minkoff would have known that. 17 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 18 THE COURT: So there could -- would have been 19 no one thinking in their right mind that wouldn't 20 have known if, in fact, she was dehydrated and they 21 stood back and watched her die in a dehydrated 22 state, that the medical examiner wouldn't pick up on 23 that and it would cause them, A, to perhaps be 24 charged with murder, or manslaughter, or practicing 25 medicine without a license, and on and on it goes,
175 1 and be sued for a lot of money. 2 I have to assume that these people like 3 Mr. Rinder and Mr. Miscavige are people of some 4 intellect. I mean, unless they are just fools, they 5 would realize that that could not be the answer or 6 the choice that they made and avoid a PR flap. 7 THE WITNESS: I understand how you are looking 8 at this, your Honor. I do. 9 THE COURT: Okay. So, I mean, that is why I'm 10 saying you were asked in a very oddball way, which 11 is you couldn't find anything contrary to what he 12 said. That is -- I don't know what that means. 13 Does that mean that you think that Mr. Miscavige put 14 out an end cycle and said let her die? 15 THE WITNESS: I don't have any personal 16 knowledge that he did, your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Well, do you have any way you would 18 want to render an opinion in this court that you 19 think that is true? 20 THE WITNESS: Let me put it this way. 21 THE COURT: You have as much knowledge as Jesse 22 Prince has. 23 THE WITNESS: I -- 24 THE COURT: As far as I know -- I don't know 25 what he's going to tell us when he comes in here.
176 1 But as far as what I know, he doesn't have any more 2 knowledge about this case -- I'm talking about the 3 Lisa McPherson case -- than you have. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 THE COURT: Okay? So I may be wrong, I haven't 6 heard from him. But let's assume that. Okay? 7 Do you have any basis upon which you could make 8 that statement? 9 THE WITNESS: The statement again was, your 10 Honor? 11 THE COURT: The statement was that 12 Mr. Miscavige, to avoid a PR flap, entered an end 13 cycle order. I heard it called drop the body, end 14 cycle, different sundry things, to avoid -- I mean, 15 this is the magic to me, or this is the -- this is 16 the part I'm having trouble with -- to avoid a PR 17 flap, that Mr. Miscavige entered an order that said 18 let her die, in essence. 19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe he would have 20 issued an order directly with that wording. I -- I 21 know Mr. Miscavige well enough in my years, nobody 22 ever issues those types of orders that may have 23 legal ramifications. We learned that back in '77. 24 So, no, you don't do that. 25 Whatever you say, you mask it, you put it into
177 1 a euphemism, maybe even don't even put it in 2 writing; you put it on the phone and just say, 3 "Never mind, let it go," something which basically 4 washes your hands of the situation. 5 I have seen it enough times that -- serious -- 6 serious situations where the person simply absolves 7 themselves and lets it evolve back to the junior, 8 let the junior take the heat. And sometimes by just 9 lack of issuing an order, that is an order. I have 10 been in those situations where no order was an 11 order. You were just left there and then if it went 12 well, then the senior takes the credit. If it goes 13 back, then you catch the heat. 14 THE COURT: Well, let's assume then that is 15 what happened for -- just to carry this thing 16 through to what I assume is something else you'll be 17 happy to tell us about, which is Mr. Miscavige just 18 decided, "Well, I'll do nothing and let the junior 19 take the heat." 20 Again, he would have to know that that decision 21 was going to bring on a huge amount of bad PR 22 because he would have to know that Dr. Minkoff would 23 have to call the medical examiner. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't think so, your Honor. 25 I -- when -- when it is called senior management,
178 1 you may imagine the lower units, but you are not 2 that familiar with how local authorities work 3 because you are only dealing with your personnel. 4 So I could sit up there and -- well, I don't know 5 how a local court works -- 6 THE COURT: Don't you ask? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, you need to be advised on 8 this. 9 THE COURT: Right. 10 THE WITNESS: That is why -- 11 THE COURT: And if Mr. Miscavige is at the head 12 of the Church, one would assume or hope that he 13 would make a decision based on some knowledge, "What 14 will happen if this lady dies in my hotel down 15 there?" 16 THE WITNESS: That is why you end up hiring 17 local counsels who will advise, and sometimes 18 they'll advise directly to upper management, you 19 know. Right here -- an attorney right here could 20 end up speaking to him to advise because he wants to 21 know straight from the horse's mouth. And I think 22 that is always a wise move. 23 THE COURT: He would have been told, if that 24 happened, "Gee whiz, get her to a hospital quickly, 25 because if she's dehydrated and she's dying and she
179 1 dies, she'll go to the medical examiner, they have a 2 halfway decent medical examiner down there that will 3 pick up on this, well, the Church is going to be 4 indicted again." 5 THE WITNESS: Also -- 6 THE COURT: "We'll get sued for a whole bunch 7 of money. This is a very bad choice. Do 8 something." 9 THE WITNESS: That is why I think we're missing 10 the last four days of the records. The last four 11 days of the record is like the 18-minute gap in the 12 Watergate tapes. What went down, what went down 13 those last four days? That is really crucial -- 14 THE COURT: I'm not sure it is four days. I 15 think it is like two and a half. 16 MR. DANDAR: It ended Sunday afternoon around 17 three. But that is just one of the caretakers -- 18 THE COURT: But the records that were 19 missing -- the records that were missing are not 20 records from up, coming down. What were missing are 21 the lowest echelon here, the workers. They wouldn't 22 know anything about anything you and I are talking 23 about or anything going on in this lawsuit. 24 They would just simply say, "Seems to be 25 getting worse. Looks like she's dehydrated."
180 1 And it is -- in its worst scenario this would 2 be, "This is really bad. This is getting worse. 3 Help." 4 I mean, that is the worst that you would see on 5 the records that were missing. 6 THE WITNESS: On their records. But their 7 records can also reflect what they're being told to 8 do. 9 For example, there is medications. They talked 10 to somebody and there is medications. That can 11 reflect something other than just, "Gave her a glass 12 of water today." 13 THE COURT: Well, I think the last record on 14 anything relevant to this case was she had two 15 liters of water -- or two liters of -- upon waking 16 up, I think that was the order from Janis Johnson. 17 THE WITNESS: Right. But what I'm saying, 18 those records, when I studied them, they reflected 19 more than what was going on in the room. It showed 20 liaison outside, contact with others, what was being 21 said, what was being reported; so one could get some 22 sense, just from those internal reports inside the 23 room, as to what was being -- transpiring outside 24 the room. 25 THE COURT: You don't think anyone would have
181 1 written down, "Gee, David Miscavige told us to end 2 cycle on Lisa McPherson," would they? 3 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, because they wouldn't 4 even have heard his name. 5 THE COURT: So those records -- that aspect of 6 those records wouldn't help that aspect of 7 Mr. Dandar's case at all. 8 THE WITNESS: No, not in that sense. 9 Mr. Miscavige speaks only to other people who will 10 execute orders. That would be either through the 11 Office of Special Affairs, or possibly he might talk 12 to somebody -- I think it is unlikely -- in the 13 senior CSN office. He would get somebody else to 14 talk to those people. He always uses an 15 intermediary as much as possible. 16 THE COURT: So you have no basis to tell us 17 whether there is any -- any truth to that assertion 18 or not? 19 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, I don't have any 20 empirical evidence. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS: And that is why I think it is -- 23 it is regrettable that those last few days are 24 missing, because we might have. 25
182 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Well, do you have an opinion, without the 3 records -- do you have an opinion as to why -- why she died 4 if, in fact, it was noticeable that she was in physical 5 decline? 6 A Well, one thing -- 7 THE COURT: Surely you are not asking him to 8 render a medical opinion. 9 MR. DANDAR: No, not medical. Scientology 10 reason. 11 THE WITNESS: Scientology reason as to why she 12 died? 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q Yes. Why wasn't she taken a minute down the road 15 to Morton Plant Hospital instead of 50 minutes up to 16 Minkoff? 17 A Because Minkoff is OT8. It's -- it's a very 18 incestuous relationship at times. You always try to do 19 business with other Scientologists. You always try to give 20 a Scientologist the job, you know, to paint your house or 21 anything else. So you do this. 22 But in this case Minkoff, he's an OT8 and 23 Scientologist, so that is where you go, that is where you 24 are going to get your best chance. 25 Q Best chance meaning like Dr. Minkoff tried and
183 1 wrote letters to the medical examiner saying that Lisa 2 McPherson died from sepsis? 3 A No, I didn't mean your best medical chance, your 4 best PR chance. 5 Q Do you think Dr. Minkoff's letter to the medical 6 examiner saying she died of sepsis, rather than anything 7 else, was his attempt to squelch the PR flap? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 9 A First of all, I'm not a -- 10 THE COURT: That objection will be sustained so 11 you don't get to answer at all. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. 13 Your Honor, may I make a special request for 14 two minutes while I make a run, if nobody leaves the 15 room? My apologies. It is a prostate thing. 16 Thank you. 17 (Whereupon, the witness is excused from the 18 stand for a brief period.) 19 THE COURT: While they are gone, do you want to 20 make sure I have that package? 21 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 22 THE COURT: I'm talking now about the package 23 you submitted to Judge Moody that had all of these 24 affidavits. 25 MR. DANDAR: Yes. I'm going to make sure.
184 1 THE COURT: When did the State Attorney begin 2 their investigation in the case? 3 MR. WEINBERG: The Clearwater Police began on 4 the night of the death. And when the State Attorney 5 got involved, I'm not quite sure but it was sometime 6 in the fall of 1996, I think, or early 1997. So the 7 Clearwater Police did the investigation up until, 8 you know, Joan Wood went on TV, which was in late 9 '96, early '97, then the State Attorney did its 10 first interviews, as I remember correctly, early 11 '97. 12 THE COURT: Did the Clearwater Police 13 Department ever shut down their investigation? In 14 other words, they took it to the State Attorney 15 eventually, then they picked it up? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. What happened, they 17 started the night -- the night of the death. And 18 then, if I remember correctly, because of all of the 19 publicity, the State Attorney sort of got involved 20 in early 1997. And at that point it was sort of in 21 conjunction with one another. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 (WHEREUPON, the witness returns to the 24 courtroom and to the witness stand.) 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
185 1 THE COURT: You are welcome. 2 MR. DANDAR: Judge, we did file request for 3 judicial notice on May 15, 2002 which attached the 4 notice of the following affidavits, and what I think 5 is I handed the clerk just this and I think I handed 6 you the whole stack. But I'll get you another copy. 7 THE COURT: I have a feeling -- I don't think I 8 have ever seen this request for judicial notice. 9 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 10 THE COURT: Maybe I have. But if what you -- 11 if what you asked me to take judicial notice of is 12 the notice of filing affidavits and other documents 13 in support of a motion, I may well have said fine, 14 I'll take judicial notice of it. If I did, I don't 15 remember seeing it until just now. 16 I don't mind taking judicial notice of part of 17 a court file, but I don't think I got it. The 18 reason I think that is because I think I have seen 19 Ms. -- Ms. Brooks' affidavit which I didn't even 20 really understand until somewhere midway in this 21 hearing that it was an affidavit from someplace else 22 that was attached. I don't know that I have ever 23 seen Mr. Young's affidavit to date. 24 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 25 THE COURT: And if there was any others, I
186 1 think I just heard you say there were others, I 2 don't think I even know who they are, let alone have 3 I seen them. 4 MR. DANDAR: I'll have another copy tomorrow. 5 THE COURT: You don't have any objection to me 6 taking judicial notice of whatever part of the file 7 it is he's having me take judicial notice? 8 MR. WEINBERG: I don't. I just want to know 9 what it is. I don't think any of his affidavits are 10 in evidence. 11 THE COURT: I don't, either. First day you 12 gave me two requests to take judicial notice, and I 13 don't think it is either of those. 14 MR. WEINBERG: All I remember as to Mr. Young 15 is that I think that in evidence is the motion to 16 add parties in September of '99, and I think the 17 supplemental filing by Mr. Dandar before the 18 October 8 hearing, which would have included 19 Mr. Young's affidavit. I think that was put in 20 evidence in this case. 21 But I don't -- I'm not even sure of that. 22 THE COURT: So you better get that to me, 23 Counselor. Okay? 24 MR. DANDAR: I will. I'll have that to you. 25
187 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and 9. It 3 is already in evidence. 4 First of all, can you tell us what Exhibit 8 is, 5 please? 6 MR. WEINBERG: Well, can you -- 7 A Exhibit 8 is a photocopy of a policy letter 8 written in 1967 entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions." 9 And it is written by L. Ron Hubbard. 10 MR. WEINBERG: It is very confusing to us but 11 our 89 has to do with the first amended complaint. 12 THE COURT: This is the clerk's exhibit. 13 MR. DANDAR: It says Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, 14 5/7/02. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q And Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 in the bottom under 17 the -- is the bottom the "worst condition" or the "worst" 18 something? What is the word? 19 A Well, condition -- should I explain conditions? 20 Or not? 21 Q Does that have anything to do with conditions? 22 A Yes. These were conditions that are called lower 23 conditions as of 1967. 24 Q What is meant by conditions? 25 A Mmm, Hubbard built many things in layers and
188 1 hierarchies of things. It seemed like floors on a 2 skyscraper going up and down. 3 And ethics was basically, to keep it in simple 4 terms, morals, how you behaved, how well you are doing. And 5 lower conditions meant you were doing very badly. 6 And at the bottom here in this one was a condition 7 of enemy. You can't go any further than a condition of 8 enemy. And so he describes what this condition of enemy is. 9 And then sometimes these gave advice as to what 10 the person needs to do. But in this case it just says what 11 needs to be done to them. 12 Q Is that called fair game? 13 A This was called fair game. It says right here: 14 "Enemy. SP order." And "SP" stands for suppressive person. 15 And the second sentence says: "Fair game. May be 16 deprived of property or injured by means by any 17 Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. 18 May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." 19 Q Was that policy canceled? 20 A This was amended because there was different 21 conditions that came out. But the policy itself remained 22 because there is information here. 23 Q What about Exhibit 9 -- what do you mean, there is 24 information here? 25 A Well, let me put it this way. There is very
189 1 seldom Mr. Hubbard canceled a policy. He would amend a 2 policy. He would update it. 3 And in this case this was updated. So that 4 different things were said in the lines of these conditions. 5 But you don't just cancel them and throw them away 6 because this is a valuable document. He never just simply 7 got rid of policy. 8 Q What is Exhibit 9 then? 9 A Exhibit 9 is -- is a page with two policy letters 10 on it. Because they're both short. This is one from one of 11 the volumes, the same pages. You printed more than one of 12 them to a page. 13 Number one is entitled "Cancelation of Fair Game" 14 written in 1968 by Hubbard. 15 Q So did that cancel Number 8, Exhibit 8? 16 A No. This was -- this is one of the most -- more 17 controversial policy letters. It is often cited by 18 Scientology to say fair game was canceled, here is the 19 policy, see this cancelation of fair game. 20 When I was a PR working with media, governmental 21 authorities, I did that. I pulled it out and I said, "See, 22 fair game was canceled." 23 And that is because the person didn't understand 24 the rest of it. Because it says here, "This PL," meaning 25 policy letter, "does not cancel any policy on the treatment
190 1 or handling of an SP." 2 Well, this other one that we have here was "How 3 you handle an SP. May be sued, tricked or lied." 4 What he's saying here, and it says it clearly -- I 5 mean, I hate to say it says what it says, but this has gone 6 into courts, government, media, government agencies and they 7 haven't caught on, so pardon me if I said -- point out he 8 says fair game may not appear on any ethics order. 9 In other words, the words "fair game" may not 10 appear on any ethics order because it is bad public 11 relations. 12 The next sentence, "This does not change any 13 policy on how to handle SPs." 14 So all we stopped doing is we stopped using the 15 words "Fair game," but everything else he wrote about how to 16 destroy an SP, you do it, fair game policy was not canceled, 17 just the use of the words. 18 Q Okay. How did I meet you? 19 A You called me. 20 Q And do you know how I found your name and phone 21 number? 22 A I don't remember right now. 23 Q Do you know when I did that? 24 A Mmm, it was earlier in 1997, if I recall. Around 25 maybe April or somewhere in the spring.
191 1 Q Did I come up to see you? 2 A You spoke on the phone and asked if you could come 3 up to talk. 4 Q And was it you who I was talking to? 5 A Yes. 6 Q So did I fly to Seattle? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And I met with you and Stacy, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And you and Stacy were married at the time. 11 Correct? 12 A Yes. 13 THE COURT: When was this, please? 14 THE WITNESS: 1997, earlier part. 15 THE COURT: Early 1997? 16 THE WITNESS: Spring, early somewhere, 17 somewhere around there. 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q March, April, I believe. 20 A Yes. As I said, around my birthday in April. 21 Q Okay. And what did we talk about? 22 A Well, you explained that you were counsel for this 23 case down in Florida, and that -- and you just wanted to 24 know pretty much the way I described it to Leipold and 25 Graham Berry. You were involved in litigation involving
192 1 Scientology, it is complex, you were having trouble with the 2 language, structures, policies, vocabulary, knowing which 3 organization fits with what, and you just wanted to see what 4 we might know. 5 Q Did I -- what did I ask you to do? 6 A Well, you wanted help with the case. 7 Q Okay. And what was your response? 8 A I don't remember how quickly I responded. But I 9 agreed. 10 Q What about Stacy's response? 11 A She was a little -- she was a little slower on it 12 at the time. But she finally -- you know, she agreed. 13 Q Okay. And what did you do to consult with me or 14 help me? 15 A Well, after you got back, then you sent me some 16 materials so I could catch up on it, because at that time 17 all I knew was what you had given to me orally by describing 18 the case. And you sent -- I believe you sent the complaint 19 and maybe a couple of other papers. 20 And then you said you would get more material to 21 me. 22 Q Did I -- did I talk about adding on parties at 23 that first meeting, outside of Flag? 24 A No, I don't recall that at all. 25 THE COURT: Just a minute. Is this what you're
193 1 talking about (indicating)? 2 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? 4 MR. DANDAR: That is it. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I do have that. 6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. That is the whole thing. 7 THE COURT: All right. For some reason, I'm 8 not sure if I ever took this -- this may have ended 9 up over here, never to be seen again. So I'm glad I 10 saw it. Okay. 11 MR. DANDAR: I'm glad you saw it, too. 12 THE COURT: So you do not need to give this to 13 me again. 14 MR. DANDAR: All right. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, what is the 16 title of that thing? 17 THE COURT: "Notice of Filing Affidavits and 18 Other Documents in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to 19 Add Parties." 20 This is a -- 21 MR. WEINBERG: That is what I was referring to. 22 That is the supplemental filing in October of '99? 23 THE COURT: It is a filing in the -- on the 7th 24 of October of '99. 25 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I would like that to be
194 1 part of the evidence of the plaintiff. And if you 2 want me to file another copy with the clerk, I'll do 3 that. 4 THE COURT: You can't have this because this is 5 mine. I told you I like to write on mine, so -- 6 MR. DANDAR: That is why I did a notice to take 7 judicial notice request, so we don't keep filing the 8 same things over and over. 9 THE COURT: Right. So I have taken judicial 10 notice of it. But if you want it to be evidence in 11 this hearing, you're going to have to mark it. 12 MR. DANDAR: Then we'll do that. 13 THE COURT: And have the clerk accept it. 14 MR. DANDAR: All right. 15 THE COURT: And on and on. 16 MR. DANDAR: All right. 17 THE COURT: And I do not object to that if you 18 want to do that. 19 MR. DANDAR: All right, we'll do that. And 20 I'll do it tomorrow. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q All right, Mr. Young, did there come a point in 23 time when I talked about David Miscavige or -- or his name 24 came up somehow? 25 A I'm sure it did. I'm just saying I don't recall
195 1 exactly at what point. 2 Q Okay. And do you recall helping me or offering 3 suggestions for allegations of the -- what was going to be 4 the first amended complaint? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And how did that process take place where you 7 suggested factual allegations concerning the history of 8 Scientology? 9 THE COURT: Give us a date here because this 10 could be important. 11 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 12 A This was probably -- I'm still talking April/May 13 because I got the complaint just a matter of days after he 14 returned to -- 15 THE COURT: This was a draft of the first 16 amended complaint? Or was this an actual copy of 17 the complaint that had been filed? 18 THE WITNESS: I believe there was an actual 19 copy of the filed complaint. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Was this the one that has 21 been referred to as kind of the simple wrongful 22 death complaint? 23 THE WITNESS: I wasn't here for that 24 description, your Honor. I don't know. 25 THE COURT: Okay. And I can understand why you
196 1 would not know necessarily what that meant. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q Let me -- it is already in evidence but let me 4 just show you the original complaint and see if that helps. 5 THE COURT: There are five of them, so -- or 6 more, so don't just assume it is the one you saw by 7 reading the first few lines because they're probably 8 all the same. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I think the date may have more 10 bearing than anything. 11 THE COURT: Pardon me? 12 MR. WEINBERG: I think the date may have more 13 bearing than anything. 14 THE WITNESS: That seems to be it. I know it 15 was identified as the first -- the original 16 complaint that was filed. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q It only names Flag as a defendant, correct? 19 A Mmm, I guess so. I would have to look at it more 20 closely. 21 THE COURT: He probably doesn't even know -- 22 A Oh, okay, up there, "Scientology, d/b/a FSO." 23 BY MR. DANDAR: 24 Q Now, turn to the first amended complaint and see 25 where there is added parties. Could you see if there is any
197 1 paragraphs that you recognize that you helped create? 2 A Well, most of the stuff talking about the 3 background, history of Scientology and -- I don't mean to be 4 blunt but you didn't know that much about it. You were 5 fairly typical of attorneys that are dealing with 6 Scientology litigation; you didn't know the language, you 7 didn't know the structure, you didn't know if A was 8 underneath B or -- et cetera. 9 And I remember reading the original complaint just 10 thinking, no, no, this is -- I didn't know the facts of the 11 case right then, but I did know enough about the structure 12 of the organization and language to see that this -- this 13 didn't reflect the situation. 14 So my task was to first of all advise you of that. 15 I did not know any of the facts of the case yet. I hadn't 16 been given that material. I just wanted to advise you as to 17 the vocabulary, structure, language of the organization. 18 Q Well, could you look at the first amended 19 complaint and tell us what paragraph, by looking at the 20 number, you believe that you contributed to writing? 21 A Well, for example, Paragraph 4, which says "The 22 Church of Scientology was created in the early 1950s by 23 science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and --" 24 THE COURT: Don't -- when you read -- everybody 25 does this, tends to read so fast, and that court
198 1 reporter still has to take it down. So please don't 2 read it at the speed level -- 3 THE WITNESS: I shall. Thank you. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q All right. 6 A So, I mean, you didn't know any of this stuff 7 about the background and the history. And there is -- there 8 were points in here that I knew enough about, without even 9 knowing the facts of the case, but just knowing what the 10 suit was about, that I could advise you on, which was such 11 as what a situation was in Scientology, which is we were 12 using the word "PR flap" and "situations" is in quotes. 13 Knowing that a person who would take off their clothes and 14 run around the streets, we have a situation here. 15 So I was trying to put this into the body of the 16 vocabulary, sort of like I was trying to do in my testimony 17 this morning. 18 Q Okay. And do you know when I was meeting with 19 you -- how many times did I meet with you in Seattle? 20 A Mmm, I believe it was twice. 21 Q Okay. Do you know if you or Stacy were advising 22 me -- 23 MR. DANDAR: Here I go again, I have to 24 watch -- we still have the -- the stipulation of 25 privilege that if I talk -- start talking about what
199 1 they are advising me, the privilege is waived just 2 for that conversation and not for anything else? 3 THE COURT: I think so. 4 MR. DANDAR: All right. 5 THE COURT: Do you agree with that? I think 6 that is kind of what we've been doing throughout. 7 MR. WEINBERG: I think what we've been hearing 8 is a lot of conversation. So I assume it has been 9 waived as to the questions we just had. 10 MR. DANDAR: Right. Right. 11 BY MR. DANDAR: 12 Q All right, so do you recall you or Stacy or me 13 being gung-ho to add David Miscavige as a defendant in the 14 first amended complaint? 15 A No. 16 Q Do you recall me talking to you about the role of 17 David Miscavige? 18 A Well, you couldn't have talked to me about it 19 because you didn't know his role either way. 20 Q Let me show you what is marked as the Church of 21 Scientology's Exhibit 73. Let's see if you can recognize 22 that. 23 A I vaguely remember this. 24 THE COURT: What are you showing him? 25 MR. DANDAR: I'm showing him the May '97 letter
200 1 that Ms. Brooks handed over to the Church of 2 Scientology. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 MR. DANDAR: This letter is May 2nd, '97. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q Do you know if you and I or your wife Stacy talked 7 about adding David Miscavige on as the managing agent for 8 all of Scientology? 9 A I believe she did. 10 Q Okay. And this letter that is May 2nd of '97, is 11 that a letter that I sent to you -- did you respond to that 12 at all, if you recall? 13 A I don't believe so. 14 Q Okay. Do you know if Stacy did? 15 A No, she -- she wouldn't have done that. I would 16 have carried on the correspondence. 17 Q Because you and I were the only ones in contact 18 with each other. Correct? 19 A Early on, yes. 20 Q Okay. When did that change, if at all? 21 A I can't say exactly. But early on all we had was 22 just -- all I had was just the facts of this lady, 23 automobile accident, died under mysterious circumstances, 24 da-da-da. I had no other information. 25 I don't think I even knew the introspection
201 1 rundown was involved at that time. It wasn't until you 2 provided further information, documents, so that the case 3 could be better understood, that is when Stacy came in. 4 Stacy's role, quite often, with us working as a 5 team, was that she took care of the technical side. She had 6 much more technical training than I did, whereas I had more, 7 you know, public relations, legal organization externally 8 training and experience than she did. So we sort of 9 complimented each other inside and outside. 10 So I know that as we became more acquainted with 11 what I might say is the medical side of this case, that she 12 got interested because of the things like PTS 3 and 13 introspection rundown. 14 THE COURT: Let me see what it was you were 15 showing him. I'm still not sure if I know. Let me 16 see it. 17 And is what you are indicating you would have 18 responded to that part that is in yellow here that, 19 "Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of 20 those in isolation and their condition," is that 21 what you are saying you would have responded to? 22 THE WITNESS: He would have asked about that. 23 Obviously, he wanted to ask me. 24 THE COURT: This is in a letter sent to you? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
202 1 THE COURT: I take it what you are saying is 2 you would have responded to this? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 THE COURT: I take it over the telephone or -- 5 THE WITNESS: Well, he's indicating he wants to 6 meet and talk about it. 7 THE COURT: Okay. To your knowledge, you did 8 not respond to this in writing? 9 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 10 THE COURT: So it either would have been over 11 the phone or in person or something like that? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Shall I give this back to 14 the clerk? 15 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Madam Clerk. 17 THE WITNESS: Could I explain one point on 18 that, Mr. Dandar? 19 BY MR. DANDAR: 20 Q Yes. Go ahead. 21 A My experience, having worked with some attorneys 22 before I met you, is that when they don't know about the 23 Scientology language and the structure, they can write me a 24 letter like that. And half the time I might even disregard 25 it because they don't even know what they're asking for.
203 1 So that is why we have to sit down and talk until 2 they understand what it is that they're really looking for. 3 Q Well, let me show you Paragraph 12 of the first 4 amended complaint. Take a look at Paragraph 12 and see if 5 you recognize anything in there that you may have 6 contributed to in the formulation of the paragraph. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Is the question whether he 8 actually wrote it or drafted it or something? Is 9 that -- 10 MR. DANDAR: Contributed. 11 THE COURT: I think so. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 13 A I don't recognize it as my style of writing, as 14 having written it. But I know I advised you on the various 15 informations and the content that went into it. But if I 16 would have written it, I wouldn't have written it like that. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q All right. 19 A So obviously you or somebody took the information 20 that I provided and then wrote the paragraph. 21 Q All right. Let me jump and -- well, first off, 22 let me hand you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 23 102. And this is only one page of a multipage document. 24 I'm trying to -- 102 doesn't look very good on that one. 25 Do you recognize this document?
204 1 A Yes. 2 Q Which is only the first page of October 25, or 26, 3 1971, it's a Flag Order 3057. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Is there -- this is called "Shore Flaps." Is 6 there a difference between a shore flap and a PR flap? 7 A No, it is basically the same. Shore flap is just 8 because this was dealing with the ship and it would dock at 9 certain ports, and so it was a shore flap. But a shore flap 10 and PR flap would be pretty much equivalent. 11 MR. DANDAR: I would like to move that into 12 evidence. 13 MR. WEINBERG: I object, and I don't think we 14 should put part of the policy in. 15 MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the whole thing. 16 I'll copy it during a break and put it in. 17 THE COURT: All right. 18 MR. DANDAR: And I'll substitute the one page 19 and I'll add on the other two pages. 20 MR. WEINBERG: But I would like to see the rest 21 of it to see what the relevance of all this is. 22 MR. DANDAR: Here. 23 THE WITNESS: Do I leave these up here with 24 these? 25 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
205 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Okay, I want to jump back to Mr. Rinder's 3 approaching you and your wife back in 1994. 4 First of all, you had already turned Mr. Rinder 5 down a few times before Stacy called you and asked you to 6 come to Seattle and meet with Mr. Rinder, correct? 7 A A few times, yes. 8 Q What was it Stacy said to you that finally 9 persuaded you to meet with Mr. Rinder? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to 11 conversations like that. He has already gone over 12 the subject matter once. 13 THE COURT: I don't think he has gone over with 14 him why it was he changed his mind. I don't know 15 what the hearsay would be. 16 MR. WEINBERG: His conversation with Stacy as 17 to hearsay. He said, "What did Ms. Brooks tell you 18 that caused you to change your mind?" 19 THE COURT: Oh. Technically, what she said to 20 him is hearsay. 21 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 22 THE COURT: However, if it is being used to 23 impeach what she said, then it is not hearsay. I 24 don't remember -- I have absolutely no idea what she 25 said about this, and I certainly don't know what
206 1 he's going to say. So you'll have to be the judge 2 of that. 3 BY MR. DANDAR: 4 Q All right. How did she persuade you to come up 5 there and meet with Mr. Rinder? 6 A In her estimation, she had withdrawn from the 7 consultation work. So the way she put it was, "As long as 8 we are out of this," and I never understood why she made it 9 "we," that "maybe there is a way that we could just extract 10 ourselves and get something out of this," whatever that 11 meant. And that she thought it wouldn't hurt to do it. 12 It wasn't that what she said was persuasive to me 13 as much as I was trying to give her as much support as 14 possible. And if she wanted to do it, it is almost like 15 saying, "Okay, I'll let you do it because you have asked for 16 it." It wasn't a case of what she said as much as she 17 simply asked for it. 18 Q Okay. Do you have your copy of Mr. Rinder's 19 declaration? 20 A No. 21 Q Maybe I -- 22 A I wasn't given back that copy. 23 Q It is actually marked, Mr. Weinberg is right, as 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit 15V as in Victor. 25 THE COURT: Okay.
207 1 MR. DANDAR: I'll hand the Court another copy 2 just for convenience. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 MR. DANDAR: Since we already made all that 5 noise copying it. I don't remember using letters 6 but I guess I did. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q Did you have a chance, during lunch, to read this 9 affidavit? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And are there any statements made by Mr. Rinder in 12 this affidavit that are not true? 13 A It would be a lot faster if I pointed out to you 14 what was true. It's -- it's such an amazing fabrication of 15 events and descriptions. 16 I had seen this once before, but I only looked it 17 over lightly just to see he was contesting. This is the 18 first time I seriously read it. And it is just staggering 19 with what is being said in here. 20 Q Okay, what is true then? 21 A Well, I didn't mark them. But the fact that he 22 came -- you know, even saying I spent several days in 23 Seattle. Six days. Not several. You know, so like Seattle 24 is true, but the several days is not. 25 And the fact that Mike Soter came along. But
208 1 after that, it just wanders off into some other land that 2 just makes me wonder what he's smoking. 3 Q Well, let me ask you a point-blank question, all 4 right? Paragraph 4 at the bottom says, "Their --" talking 5 about you and Stacy, "Their professed guilt about the 6 dishonest quality of their sworn statements could not 7 overpower their craving for money." 8 A And they say I spin things? It's -- first of all, 9 there was no -- there was no guilt. In fact, somewhere in 10 here he says this -- now what I'm doing with you is going to 11 damage me as far as my work. Well, I continued to do the 12 work for another couple of years. There was no -- there was 13 no guilt. 14 And trying to put it on the point of money, I 15 mean -- but, see, he says right after that, "Thus we 16 resolved nothing in these talks." 17 Well, nothing was resolved because I said no. And 18 it's -- I found it amazing that he says they are offering me 19 close to half a million dollars and I turned it down. And 20 yet I brought him up to Seattle to get the money. And yet I 21 am asking for half a million dollars. 22 But I -- I -- to me, if somebody just carefully 23 reads it, even not knowing that "he said she said," because 24 we've just got differences of opinions here, can see it just 25 doesn't fit together.
209 1 Q Paragraph 4 he says that you and Stacy were 2 manipulating the facts to attack and embarrass their former 3 religion. 4 Were you manipulating facts in your declarations 5 that you had filed in the Fishman case? 6 A No. I have always constantly tried to rely upon 7 their documents, as I did with the Wollersheim declaration 8 that I gave to the Court. I tried to minimize my personal 9 experience except to show that I had 21 years and knew the 10 vocabulary and I could find the material. My job was to 11 present documents of the organizations and not my personal 12 experience. 13 The Wollersheim declaration is so thick that we 14 gave to the Court. It is thick because that is their 15 documents. I'm not trying to say I did the following. In 16 fact, you'll find in there just a minimum of my talking 17 about my experience, only to give the context I knew. So 18 that is what I did in the Fishman case. 19 So me spinning lies, obviously he doesn't say 20 what. I was providing the documents. They can characterize 21 it as they want, but I always relied on the organization's 22 documents. 23 Q Do you recall Mr. Rinder, at this meeting, asking 24 you that he was only there to either set the record straight 25 or get the record set straight?
210 1 A Yes. He uses that phrase in here. That is what 2 he told me, he just wants to set the record straight. 3 Q Do you recall Stacy telling Mr. Rinder, look at 4 Paragraph 9, "Stacy said she had me willing to say under 5 oath whatever Barry wanted her to say if it would result in 6 getting paid." Is there truth to that? 7 A I -- I have no basis as to what he would say that 8 for. I never saw, never heard once Graham Berry say to her 9 or to me what should be in a declaration as far as the way 10 you word it. 11 He -- he might ask for a declaration, as 12 Mr. Leipold asked for a declaration, could I show the 13 command channels of Scientology. Yes, I can show that. But 14 at that point the attorney's role drops away. That is the 15 way Mr. Berry operated. 16 She -- I watched her write her declarations. I 17 read her declarations. I have -- this is completely false. 18 He had no input on this. 19 Q Did you ever tell Mr. Rinder, as he says in 20 Paragraph 11, that you and Stacy were lying as a way of 21 life? 22 A It's just an accusation. I always stood by my 23 declarations and what were attached. And if people want to 24 argue with my declarations, they can argue with the 25 attachments.
211 1 Q Do you recall at any time you or Stacy saying to 2 anyone, even to yourselves, "What we put in that declaration 3 is not true"? 4 A Never. 5 Q Or it's -- or it's a -- in any way a fabrication? 6 A Not at all. In fact, after the meeting with 7 Rinder, she and I talked about that, "Isn't it amazing that 8 they want us to characterize our declarations, as well as 9 anything else being said, as -- as perjurious?" And it just 10 stunned us that we would be asked to do something that was 11 so incredulous to us. 12 THE COURT: It really isn't going to help us 13 much for him to go down and say Mr. Rinder is lying, 14 and if we could have Mr. Rinder here he would say he 15 was lying, and Ms. Brooks now says she filed a false 16 affidavit. 17 But the truth of the matter is that his 18 affidavit would reflect better what was said than 19 her affidavit, which I assume is true, but -- I 20 mean, this is all very -- 21 MR. DANDAR: All right. 22 THE COURT: -- convoluted. I assume, sir, you 23 stand by your testimony in court today that you have 24 stated under oath as to what happened in that 25 meeting between you and Mr. Rinder?
212 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 2 THE COURT: And anything he has said in the 3 affidavit or otherwise to the contrary in your 4 opinion is false, is that true? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. And if I may say, 6 that is why I -- when he asked the possibility of my 7 testifying here, he said he could -- he knew that 8 travel for me is very difficult and very tiring, 9 sometimes painful and exhausting. 10 And I said, "I want to be in court. I want the 11 Court to look in my eye. I want them to hear my 12 voice. I want no video between me," because I knew 13 that my credibility as a witness and what I have 14 done with all my work for all these years would be 15 challenged and put into question. "And I want to be 16 here when that challenge is made so you can hear me 17 and look at me so you can decide. I don't want 18 video." 19 THE COURT: So really there is no point in him 20 going through here -- there may be a lot of things 21 in here he hasn't testified to, and we'll just 22 assume that is because they may not be relevant at 23 this hearing. There may be some disagreements 24 between this witness and Mr. Rinder as far as what 25 occurred during that conversation.
213 1 MR. DANDAR: I would like to -- we have been 2 going almost 1 hour and 15 minutes. I would like a 3 break and then I think I would be finished. I just 4 want to look over notes and then be sure. 5 THE WITNESS: Could I make one comment that is 6 not a "he said she said." 7 THE COURT: I don't know. This is unusual. 8 What is it you want to say? 9 THE WITNESS: On Page 13 Mr. Rinder said that 10 we turned down -- we decided to withdraw our 11 extortion attempt, I guess, because we had been 12 given legal advice -- right in the middle of the 13 page -- that if they were to correct the 14 declarations, the insurance company could sue them 15 for breach of contract. 16 My position is that right there is the 17 falsehood. The case was over, all expenses had been 18 paid. There was no breach of contract that anybody 19 could ever do. And I think just right there I can 20 say anybody that knows how the court cases work and 21 insurance companies knows that would be false. 22 THE COURT: I don't even see a Page 13. 23 MR. DANDAR: It is Paragraph 33. 24 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 25 THE COURT: Paragraph 33?
214 1 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right. You want to take a 4 break, did you say? 5 MR. DANDAR: Yes, please. 6 THE COURT: All right. You want to take a 7 break until 3:30? 8 MR. DANDAR: That is fine. Well, it is -- wow, 9 it is quarter after 3? 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 MR. DANDAR: All right. Sorry. I thought it 12 was quarter after 2. 13 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:15 to 3:30 p.m.) 14 _______________________________________ 15 THE COURT: You may proceed. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Mr. Young, since you and your wife Stacy divorced, 18 have you been in contact with her over the years? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were you in contact with her while she ran the 21 Lisa McPherson Trust? 22 A Occasionally. 23 Q And did she ever tell you what the Lisa McPherson 24 Trust was all about? 25 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
215 1 THE COURT: Sustained, unless it is for 2 impeachment or something like that. 3 MR. DANDAR: It is for impeachment of her and 4 Bob Minton. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 A Not -- not immediately. It was -- it was quite a 7 ways into it before she talked about it. I don't even know 8 when it was formed. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Okay. When is the first time she talked to you, 11 and what did she say? 12 THE COURT: Well, this is awfully -- this is -- 13 I mean, about what? 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q The purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust? 16 A Well, she took a great deal of pride in helping 17 other people. It was supposed to be a way to provide 18 information on the Internet, to collect testimony, not in 19 the sense of sworn testimony, but the stories of people that 20 they could put up, to be a resource to families. Education, 21 not only of families, but of -- say, of any government 22 agencies, I mean, as simple as local or otherwise, that 23 would want to know about the organization, how it operates. 24 THE COURT: I don't need to hear all this. 25 Did she ever tell you part of the basis of the
216 1 Lisa McPherson Trust was to provide a stable of 2 witnesses for the Lisa McPherson lawsuit? 3 THE WITNESS: Never. 4 THE COURT: Did she ever tell you that the LMT 5 was going to be forever endowed because of an 6 agreement between Mr. Minton and the family of Lisa 7 McPherson? 8 THE WITNESS: Nothing even close to that 9 subject was ever discussed. 10 THE COURT: Those are the things you need to 11 ask him. 12 MR. DANDAR: They were leading questions. I 13 didn't hear an objection. I am trying -- 14 THE COURT: That is not a leading question. 15 That can be answered yes or no. 16 MR. DANDAR: All right. 17 THE COURT: When you say, "Isn't it true that 18 she told you," that is a leading question. 19 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 20 BY MR. DANDAR: 21 Q The last question I have on -- back to Mike Rinder 22 in 1994, the last question, as part of his proposal to you 23 and Stacy, did Mr. Rinder tell you that he wanted you and 24 Stacy to be available to testify or file declarations in 25 other cases?
217 1 A Yes. I just remembered that. Yes. Mmm, it was 2 part of the secret agreement that was to be between us that 3 we each would be available to provide declarations, 4 affidavits, and to testify with regard to any matters 5 involved in the public document, which meant repudiation of 6 our sworn testimony, Graham Berry had told us to lie, et 7 cetera. 8 So while we couldn't speak publicly about 9 Scientology, they could require us -- oh, and one more 10 thing. 11 There was also penalty clauses, I think it was 12 $10,000 or something per item, which meant anytime we 13 violated the agreement, we had to pay money. And that 14 clearly included if I were to refuse to provide a 15 declaration, then I would be in violation of the agreement. 16 MR. DANDAR: That is all I have. 17 THE COURT: You may inquire. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, your Honor. 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Young. 22 A Good afternoon. 23 Q You -- your background, as far as the post or job 24 you had in the Church of Scientology, was essentially a PR 25 background. Correct?
218 1 A In the widest sense of the word, which includes 2 writing. But essentially in the public relations field. 3 Q Well, I mean, as a public relations person, 4 whether it is in the Church of Scientology or for some 5 political candidate or for some organization, part of that 6 function of being in PR is to spin things in favor of the 7 person you were working for. Correct? 8 A We didn't have the word "spin" back then. But I 9 suppose that is the current word. But you are to best 10 represent your client as you can. 11 Q Right. And -- and you carried that function over, 12 once you left the Church of Scientology and began to write 13 declarations for lawyers, you took advantage of that 14 training, when you were writing those declarations in cases 15 against the Church of Scientology, to spin things in favor 16 of the side that you were writing the declaration for, 17 didn't you? 18 A No. 19 Q Now, when you wrote the declarations, you would -- 20 you would write them on occasion and leave inferences, 21 without actually having a factual basis for those 22 inferences, didn't you? 23 A I -- I don't understand the question. 24 Q Well, the question that was asked by Mr. Dandar is 25 whether you ever manipulated the facts when you wrote a
219 1 declaration. Do you remember being asked that question? 2 A Basically, yes. 3 Q And from time to time, you would write 4 declarations that would leave inferences that were not 5 supported in any fact, didn't you? 6 A I tried not to. That is why I relied upon 7 documentation as attachments. 8 Q Well, do you remember in the declaration that you 9 wrote -- I suppose it is your first declaration -- is the 10 declaration in the Fishman case the first declaration that 11 you ever -- is that the first declaration that you ever did 12 after you left the Church? 13 A The first declaration in the Fishman -- you would 14 have to show me. 15 Q Okay, I will. I'll get a copy of it for you. 16 MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach. 17 THE COURT: You may. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, we'll put 19 an exhibit number on it. I don't know if I will 20 offer this exhibit, but since I'm showing it to him, 21 I'll put a number on it. It is Defendant's -- 22 THE CLERK: 201. 23 MR. WEINBERG: -- 201. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q If you go to the last page of that --
220 1 A Excuse me, the last page? 2 Q Yes, the signature page, in other words. 3 A Yes? 4 Q That is a declaration that you executed on 5 December 10, 1993. Is that right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And was that for this Fishman case? Go to the 8 first paragraph. 9 A Yes. It appears it is, yes. 10 Q Is it your recollection this is the first 11 declaration you did as a consultant for lawyers that were in 12 litigation against the Church of Scientology? 13 A No. They were not in litigation against the 14 Church. They were defending litigation brought by the 15 Church. 16 Q What I said was is this the first affidavit or 17 declaration you remember doing for lawyers that were in 18 litigation with the Church of Scientology? 19 A Mmm, it -- it could be, sir. I really hate to 20 swear to it without knowing the chronology. But I will 21 assume for the moment that is correct. 22 Q If you'll go to Page -- actually to Paragraph 28, 23 it looks like at the bottom Page 683. 24 A Okay. 25 Q And -- and at the bottom of that paragraph, there
221 1 is a sentence that says: "Weapons were hidden but quickly 2 available." 3 Then on the next page you say: "Mr. Miscavige has 4 a penchant for guns and is known to shoot at pictures of his 5 critics." 6 Then you drop a footnote. The footnote says: 7 "Mr. Miscavige's behavior was overlooked in the 8 investigation of the death of his mother-in-law, Mary 9 Florence Barnett. She died in Carson, California in 1985 10 from three shots to the chest and one to the temple from a 11 .22 rifle. It was reported to me that she was about to 12 defect and talk to the wrong people. The incident was known 13 to only a few in Scientology because Mr. Miscavige ordered a 14 lid on the matter." 15 My question to you, was it your purpose, in 16 dropping that footnote, to leave the inference to the 17 reader, whether it was a judge or someone else, that 18 Mr. Miscavige somehow had been responsible for the death of 19 his mother-in-law? Was that the purpose of dropping that 20 footnote? 21 A No. 22 Q So -- and -- and did you have any factual basis 23 for believing, at that time or any later time, that 24 Mr. Miscavige had anything to do with the death of his 25 mother-in-law?
222 1 A No. 2 Q And -- and, in fact, subsequently, you learned 3 that -- you might have known at the time you put that 4 footnote, that the coroner, the medical examiner, had 5 already determined it was a suicide, didn't you? 6 A I either knew before or later, yes, it was indeed 7 a suicide. 8 Q Do you think it is just possible that you might 9 have been manipulating the facts in that declaration, when 10 you dropped that footnote about Mr. Miscavige, who at the 11 time you wrote this declaration you knew to be the 12 ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology? 13 A No. It was -- to be quite frank, it was my 14 ignorance. As you say, it was my first one. I later 15 learned you should not even do footnotes in declarations. I 16 didn't really -- to tell you the truth, sir, I didn't know 17 how to put together a well-written declaration. And if I 18 were to have done this today, I wouldn't have footnotes in 19 here. 20 Q Well, did the lawyer that you were writing this 21 for tell you it would be useful to suggest in a footnote 22 that Mr. Miscavige had something to do with the death of his 23 mother-in-law under suspicious circumstances? 24 A Not at all. 25 Q Now, do you remember that you filed other
223 1 declarations in the Fishman case? 2 A I did file other declarations. Yes. 3 Q Do you remember there was a declaration where you 4 suggested that there was something suspicious about the 5 death of the witness? Do you remember that? 6 A No, I don't. 7 MR. WEINBERG: May I approach, your Honor? 8 THE COURT: You may. 9 MR. WEINBERG: This will be marked as 202. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Now, 202 is an affidavit -- is another affidavit 12 that you -- or I guess they are called declarations in 13 California -- that you filed in the Fishman case. Is that 14 right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And at this time Graham Berry was one of the 17 lawyers? 18 A He was the lead counsel for the case. 19 Q Was he the lead counsel at the time you filed the 20 first one, as well? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And this one, if I'm reading this correctly -- 23 well, I am -- on Page 9 you filed this as of -- or you 24 executed this on January 3, 1994. Correct? 25 A Yes.
224 1 Q This is a month after the first one that we looked 2 at. Right? 3 A Approximately. 4 Q Okay. Now, if you turn to Page 4, Paragraph 11, 5 you say, "In that vein, I call to the Court's attention two 6 events that occurred in Florida --" 7 THE COURT: Well, where are you again? 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry, Page 4. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 11, at the bottom. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Do you see that, Mr. Young? 14 A Paragraph 11, Page 4. Yes. 15 Q Okay. And you say, "In that vein, I call to the 16 Court's attention two events that occurred in Florida on 17 December 30, 1993. 18 "One, a key witness in this case was fired from 19 his job when information provided by him in this case was 20 given to his employers. 21 "And, two, the wife of one of the defendants was 22 killed." 23 Do you see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Now, were you trying to leave the inference in
225 1 this declaration that somehow the Church of Scientology had 2 to do with a witness being killed? 3 A No. 4 Q Was that the inference that you were trying to 5 leave? 6 A No. Never crossed my mind. 7 Q Well, do you understand that people reading this 8 might have gotten -- might have drawn the inference, because 9 you said other fairly uncharitable things about the Church, 10 that what you were suggesting was the Church had something 11 to do with the death of a witness? 12 A Well, they can draw what they want. But that was 13 not my intention. 14 Q And the truth is in this case this witness was run 15 over by a car and it had nothing to do with the Church, 16 correct? 17 A I don't recall exactly right now. 18 Q Well, you remember that is the case, don't you? 19 A I just said I don't remember the exact instances. 20 It is 1994. 21 Q And were you trying to manipulate the facts when 22 you suggested -- when you wrote that in Paragraph 11 that -- 23 A No. 24 Q -- that a witness was killed? 25 A No.
226 1 Q Was this some spin you were putting on this for 2 the lawyer, Mr. Berry? 3 A No. 4 Q You do remember that you were deposed about this 5 declaration? You remember that, don't you? 6 A About this particular declaration, I don't 7 remember that. 8 Q Well, do you remember that when you were 9 deposed -- let me just ask you this. 10 Do you remember that you said you had no 11 information about the death but that it had been an 12 automobile accident? 13 A No. I remember being asked about David 14 Miscavige's mother. My saying to you -- to your question at 15 that time -- that I had no evidence he was directly 16 responsible for her death. I don't remember testifying to 17 the other point. 18 Q Okay. Now, let's talk about Mr. -- Mr. Dandar 19 brought up this Fishman case. You remember that the 20 allegations in the Fishman case were that -- that Mr. -- 21 that Mr. Fishman had been given an order to kill himself, 22 basically to commit suicide, and to kill his psychiatrist. 23 That was the allegation. Do you remember that? 24 A That was basically it, yes. 25 Q All right. And that the Church had sued with
227 1 regard to that because -- for libel or whatever? I mean, is 2 that what the suit was about? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Fishman, as it turns out, had 5 concocted a scheme to try to set up the Church of 6 Scientology with regard to these allegations. Correct? 7 A That was the defense -- or that they were 8 putting -- they were putting forward. 9 Q Don't you remember that the FBI caught Mr. Fishman 10 and caught him in having a person try to make a call 11 indicating that there was some kind of order to commit 12 suicide, and that this was -- and that this was caught by 13 the FBI, and that Mr. Fishman was prosecuted, Mr. Fishman 14 was convicted, and Mr. Fishman went to jail for a long time? 15 Do you remember -- 16 MR. DANDAR: Objection. Form. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. 18 BY MR. WEINBERG: 19 Q Do you remember that? 20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, was that sustained? 21 THE COURT: It was sustained because it is kind 22 of multiple. Break it down a little bit. 23 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q Do you remember that Mr. Fishman was prosecuted by
228 1 the federal authorities for -- for cooking up this phony 2 scheme to try to set up the Church of Scientology in this 3 allegation concerning his suicide and the death of his 4 psychiatrist? Do you remember that he was arrested for 5 that? 6 A I can't agree to that way that you form it because 7 I don't remember the details. 8 My job was not to deal with Mr. Fishman's 9 background in that way but to advise with regard to the 10 structure and vocabulary of Scientology. 11 Q Well, do you remember -- do you recall that 12 Mr. Fishman was prosecuted? 13 A Somewhere there was a prosecution. But I don't 14 remember for what. 15 Q Do you recall that Mr. Fishman was convicted? 16 A No. 17 Q And so you don't recall that Mr. Fishman went to 18 jail for a long time, is that right? 19 A That is true. 20 Q You don't remember Mr. Berry or any of the lawyers 21 telling you about that? 22 A No, I don't. 23 Q Would it help to refresh your recollection to see 24 the minutes of his sentencing in front of the Honorable 25 Judge Lowell Jensen in the Northern District of California?
229 1 A I'm not going to question what you are saying 2 happened to him. I'm saying I did not have any real 3 information what happened to him. 4 THE COURT: So then the answer is seeing the 5 notes would not be of any help to you? 6 THE WITNESS: No. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q Now, the declarations in the Fishman case are just 10 two of a number of declarations that you executed over the 11 years from when you first got involved in these Scientology 12 cases in 1993. Correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Am I right that you have executed 21 declarations 15 for lawyers in cases involving the Church of Scientology 16 since 1993? 17 A I don't have a count. But I won't challenge it. 18 Q Let me show you what we'll have the reporter mark 19 as the next -- I'm sorry, the clerk mark as the next 20 exhibit. 21 THE CLERK: 203. 22 THE COURT: Do you have any other copies? Or 23 is this it? 24 MR. WEINBERG: I will, your Honor, offer 25 Defendant's 201, which is the 1993 declaration in
230 1 the Fishman case, and Defendant's 202, which is the 2 early 1994 declaration in the Fishman case. 3 THE COURT: Any objection? 4 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 5 THE COURT: All right. 6 MR. WEINBERG: This is the only copy that I 7 have, if I could stand up here. And I'll give this 8 to -- 9 MR. DANDAR: What? 10 MR. WEINBERG: I'll show Mr. Dandar a copy 11 before I use it. 12 MR. DANDAR: Could I have a copy? 13 MR. WEINBERG: That is the only copy I have. 14 THE WITNESS: Do you want to make a copy? 15 MR. WEINBERG: No. I just want to stand up 16 here for a minute. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q This is a list of 21 declarations -- 19 THE COURT: Well, let Mr. Dandar see it. That 20 little machine can probably make a copy in about 20 21 seconds. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 23 MR. DANDAR: Do I have your permission, Judge? 24 THE COURT: You do. That is one page. 25 Remember, I said that is all right.
231 1 THE WITNESS: But two copies. 2 THE COURT: Yes, two copies. That would be two 3 pages. That is all right. 4 (A discussion was held off the record.) 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Now, I have shown you a list of declarations with 7 dates from September of '93 in the Sterling versus Cann 8 (phonetic) case, through December 7 of 1999, which I think 9 is the one that Mr. Dandar just showed you a few minutes ago 10 in the Wollersheim case. 11 A Yes. 12 Q And does this -- do you believe this accurately 13 reflects the declarations that you have done at the request 14 of lawyers in Scientology cases? 15 A I wouldn't want to attest to it, but it certainly 16 seems accurate enough for the purpose of your question. 17 Q Now, you were being paid by the lawyers who asked 18 you to prepare these declarations. Correct? 19 A I was being paid to consult and advise. And if 20 the time was spent to gather information, write a 21 declaration, yes. But I wasn't -- I have always resented, 22 you know, "you are being paid to write an affidavit" sounds 23 like a hired gun. 24 Q Well, to a certain extent you and several other 25 former Scientologists were hired guns in the '90s to work on
232 1 these cases with this stable of lawyers like Mr. Leipold and 2 Mr. Greene and Mr. Berry, correct? 3 A No. It was Scientology bringing the litigation. 4 We were asked to consult. I didn't go out and seek the 5 cases. 6 Q Well, were you being paid to consult? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And am I correct -- I mean, I remember talking to 9 you about this in your -- in your depo in this case, from 10 1993 on the principal means of support for you was working 11 as a consultant in these Scientology cases. Correct? 12 A Yes. It has been both of our full-time jobs. 13 Q Both of our? You mean Ms. Young's, as well? 14 A Yes. 15 THE COURT: I think, Counselor, what he was 16 indicating was he doesn't object to you saying he 17 was paid as a consultant. He objects to you saying 18 he was paid to write an affidavit. He was given a 19 certain amount and he wrote an affidavit. He didn't 20 get extra for the affidavit. 21 MR. WEINBERG: I understood that is what he was 22 saying. 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Can you estimate the amount of money that you have 25 been paid since that first case, the Sterling case, to be a
233 1 consultant in cases involving Scientology? 2 A Me individually? 3 Q Yes, you individually. 4 A Because Stacy and I worked as a team. And the 5 rates were for two people. So if I do this like a joint 6 return versus a single return, I would have to cut the money 7 in half. 8 THE COURT: That is fine. Whatever it is you 9 need to do. He asked you a question, how much did 10 you get paid? 11 A Just taking my half of it, from the time of '93 to 12 '99, over six years, perhaps $30,000, $40,000 over 6 years, 13 which comes out to, what, $7,000 a year. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q And Ms. Brooks got $30,000 or $40,000 over 6 16 years, as well? 17 A No. There were cases I worked on, like the Time 18 Magazine case, that -- where she didn't work on it. So -- 19 Q So -- 20 A -- she was not involved in those. 21 Q So you support -- so she got something less than 22 $30,000 or $40,000? 23 A If we were to divide the rates where we were paid 24 mutually and then just add -- divide that by 2, then if I 25 was to throw on what I did in separate cases, I would have
234 1 made more money than her. Yes. 2 Q But the bottom line is that you are saying you are 3 testifying that you altogether received somewhere short of 4 $100,000 over the 6 or 7 years? 5 A No. Not that much. 6 Q Less than that? 7 A Yes. I said mine was 35 to 40. Hers would have 8 been much less than that. 9 Q And you were able to -- and this was your 10 principal means of support for those 6 or 7 years? 11 A It was my full-time job. Yes. 12 Q Well, do you remember -- were you involved in a 13 case involving Steve Keller? 14 A Steve Keller? 15 Q Child custody case that had to do with 16 Scientology? 17 A Oh, Steve Keller -- Mmm, I remember working with 18 him. I don't recall what I did on it. I know I spent a lot 19 of time just talking to him. 20 Q Were you paid in excess of $100,000 in that case? 21 A No. I would remember $100,000. 22 Q Well, in the -- in the Fishman case -- weren't you 23 and Stacy Brooks paid over $30,000 for your work in the 24 Fishman case for all these affidavits? I mean, there were 6 25 or 7 -- I'm not saying -- you know, for the work that went
235 1 into the Fishman case, weren't you paid over $30,000 for 2 that alone? 3 A The two of us, for something like a year and a 4 half of full-time work, 30,000? Probably. That would have 5 been $20,000, then $10,000 maybe. But, again, I would have 6 to divide it in half for the two of us. 7 Q Do you remember testifying in the Bridge 8 Publications versus FACTNet case? 9 A Yes. That was in Denver where I testified. 10 Q Well, the testimony was in L.A., right? 11 A No, the testimony -- 12 Q The depo -- 13 A The testimony -- I appeared before Judge Lane, I 14 think his name was, and gave testimony there. 15 Q Is there a deposition where Mr. Dandar was your 16 lawyer? 17 A No. I didn't have counsel when I testified in 18 Denver. It was before the Court like I'm doing right now. 19 Q Do you remember being asked how much you were paid 20 by -- 21 A I wasn't asked -- 22 Q -- Mr. Keller and saying it was $300,000? 23 A This boggles the mind that somebody thinks I made 24 $300,000 anywhere. I have no idea where that figure is 25 coming from.
236 1 MR. DANDAR: I ask the witness -- 2 A There are too many zeroes on that thing. 3 MR. DANDAR: I ask the witness be shown a 4 deposition so we can see where Mr. Weinberg is 5 referring to. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I can approach. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q I am referring you to -- this is the cover page 10 which indicates, for whatever it is worth, L.A. on 11 November 5, 1997. 12 A Okay. 13 THE COURT: Is that his deposition? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Then I'm referring to Page 871. If you start at 18 Line 8 of 871, and go to Line 14 on 872, if you just look at 19 that. 20 A And on the second page it says that I am 21 responding that over the year and a half, he paid me 22 300,000? That is -- well, if I missed that in the 23 correction thing, that is totally false. I never received 24 $300,000. I would have gone off and lived in the Caribbean 25 if I would have made that money.
237 1 Q All right. So you think this transcript is wrong? 2 A It is completely wrong. 3 MR. DANDAR: Could I see it? 4 A Maybe $3,000. But that -- I'm stunned that I -- 5 that you would get -- so many zeroes would be added. It is 6 completely out of the question. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q Now, you and your wife -- your ex-wife now -- but 9 Stacy Young at the time -- in the fall of 1997 Robert Minton 10 bought a house for approximately $250,000 for you-all to 11 live in, in Seattle. Correct? 12 A No. 13 Q That is not correct? 14 A That is not correct. 15 Q What is incorrect about that? 16 A Mr. and Mrs. Minton -- we did this in the depo. 17 Mr. and Mrs. Minton were the owners on the bill of sale. 18 Q So what was incorrect about my question was -- is 19 that Mr. and Mrs. Minton were on the bill of sale and not 20 just Mr. Minton. Right? 21 A That is one half of one. 22 Q Was my question right it was a $250,000 house and 23 that it was for you and Ms. Young? 24 A No. 25 Q That isn't right?
238 1 A No. 2 Q What is wrong with what I just said? 3 A It was to be an animal sanctuary. And we lived -- 4 a boarder, because we had the animals that we were in 5 trouble with in Seattle, which is why we needed a place to 6 build the kennels and the yard. So the house was for the 7 sanctuary and I so testified before in my deposition of 8 that. 9 Q But you were able to live in the house? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Along with Ms. Young, right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And during that same period of time, Mr. Minton 14 gave you and Ms. Young $50,000 in cash or checks. Correct? 15 A No. 16 Q What is wrong about what I just said? 17 A He never gave me any money. 18 Q Oh, so he just gave it to Ms. Young and not you? 19 A If he gave some money to her, he didn't give any 20 money to me. And we covered this, also, in the deposition. 21 Q Now, you said something about a power struggle 22 after L. Ron Hubbard died. Did I hear you say that? 23 A I don't know if I used those words, but that would 24 be accurate. 25 Q And I think you said that after L. Ron Hubbard
239 1 died, that at the end of the day when the dust all cleared, 2 that David Miscavige was standing and that -- that other 3 folks like Pat Broeker were gone. Didn't you say something 4 like that? 5 A Something like that, yes. 6 Q All right. And at least the implication was there 7 was a power struggle between Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Broeker. 8 Correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And -- and, in fact, what occurred is that there 11 were three people that -- in addition to Mr. Broeker that 12 were caught up in that power struggle, that was, Mr. Prince, 13 Vicki Aznaran and you, correct? 14 A We three. And there might have been some others. 15 But I know we three were caught up in it, yes. 16 Q Right. In other words, you and Mr. Prince and 17 Ms. Aznaran sided with Pat Broeker after L. Ron Hubbard 18 died. Correct? 19 A It was perceived as that. 20 Q And as a result, you lost and Mr. Prince lost and 21 Ms. Aznaran lost their posts? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And as a result, you blame Mr. Miscavige for you 24 having been demoted from your post in the Church of 25 Scientology, don't you?
240 1 A No. In fact, I corresponded about this while -- 2 long after that happened. That struggle was in 1986/87, and 3 I stayed around for two more years. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Bailiff, do me a favor and ask 5 my judicial assistant to come in here. I don't 6 think I have seen whatever it was Mr. Moxon was 7 referring to earlier, so I'm going to have my 8 secretary come in, before I forget it and she leaves 9 for the day and I don't have it. 10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I'm not sure if he's 11 here anymore, but it doesn't matter. 12 THE COURT: Well, I just haven't seen it. She 13 may have put it somewhere. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Give me one moment, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: You may. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Okay, you do not have good feelings toward David 18 Miscavige, do you? 19 A I don't understand your question. I mean, good 20 feelings -- 21 Q Well -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. 22 A No. Go ahead and ask your questions. 23 Q You believe you were mistreated by David 24 Miscavige, don't you? 25 A No.
241 1 Q Well, if you look at that affidavit, which was the 2 second affidavit from the Fishman case, up in front of you 3 dated January of 1994 -- 4 THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 6 THE COURT: It is there. She'll leave it for 7 me. Go ahead. 8 MR. WEINBERG: That was Defendant's Exhibit 9 202. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Do you have that affidavit? 12 A Yes. 13 Q If you turn to Page 6, Paragraph 17 -- Paragraph 14 numbered 17 -- 15 A Okay. 16 Q -- do you see how you say in that paragraph, 17 "Sometimes people are physically beaten in Scientology until 18 they comply"? 19 A Yes. 20 Q "This happened to me, and it has happened to 21 others, where one is simply physically assaulted and beaten 22 because of a refusal to obey"? 23 A Yes. 24 Q "The person who has done this the most is David 25 Miscavige, the head of the Scientology empire. He has
242 1 beaten me. I have seen him assault others. And others have 2 told me of beatings he gave them. These psychotic assaults 3 (Miscavige literally goes into a psychotic rage, screaming, 4 frothing at the mouth) have been witnessed by many people 5 who know if they were ever to tell the authorities that they 6 would be beaten or even worse." 7 Do you see that? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q Now, is that manipulating the facts? 10 A That is perfectly true. I used to be sprayed with 11 spit when he came after me. 12 Q Well, but did he beat you up? Did he physically 13 beat you up? 14 A Yes. 15 Q That is what it says. 16 A Yes. I was assaulted one time in his office when 17 I said something that he didn't like. 18 Q So he -- so he hit you is what you are saying? 19 A He came over and he grabbed me and he took a 20 swing, and I ducked, and he caught me underneath the throat, 21 which threw me against the wall, and then I was told to get 22 the you-know-what out of there. 23 Q Now, was this before, or after, you lost your 24 position in the power struggle? 25 A This is before.
243 1 Q All right. And -- and you didn't hold any 2 personal grudge or -- or animus toward Mr. Miscavige for, 3 purporting in your affidavit here, personally assaulting 4 you? 5 A No. At the time you are sort of -- like I was in 6 the Marine Corps, you are a loyal Marine. He was my senior. 7 He may have gone crazy, but I'm going to try to do better so 8 I don't get into trouble again. So I didn't -- I may have 9 been bruised, but I wasn't going to hold a grudge. 10 Q Well, you have gone on the Internet and made 11 postings that were very nasty as to David Miscavige, haven't 12 you? 13 A I wouldn't characterize them as that. But if you 14 have something to show me, I'll be happy to look. 15 Q I'm asking for your recollection. Have you been 16 on this ARS -- alt.religion.scientology site and 17 participated in -- what do you call it -- chats with the 18 people? 19 A Well, they are called postings where you post a 20 message. 21 Q And have you done that? 22 A I have done that. 23 Q And have you done that while you were a consultant 24 for Mr. Dandar? 25 A I don't recall which ones I made over what period
244 1 of time. It is possible, but I don't recall exact 2 chronologies. 3 Q And do you recall that when you did that you said 4 some very unfavorable or unkind things about Mr. Miscavige 5 and Scientology? 6 A Well, see, that is always the characterization 7 anything that is critical is considered to be an attack. 8 Q Can you answer my question? 9 A No, I don't think it was nasty. I think it was 10 very, very relevant and has always been true. 11 MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach, your Honor? 12 THE COURT: You may. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Normally I'm not like this, but 14 I don't have copies of these. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Let me show you this and ask you if this is a 18 posting that you made. 19 MR. DANDAR: You don't have a copy? 20 A It appears to be. 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q And did you go by the name of Eskimo North? 23 A No. Eskimo North is the -- it's the equivalent of 24 AOL. It's the service you use for service and access to the 25 Internet.
245 1 So Eskimo North was the service I was subscribing 2 to. 3 MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach the witness, 4 your Honor. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Your -- whatever it is -- what do you call this, 7 your E-Mail address? 8 A My E-Mail address was Writer@Eskimo.com. 9 Q Okay. So this would be a posting you would have 10 made to this alt.religion.scientology site on or about 11 January 3, 1998? 12 A It appears to be. Yes. 13 Q This was after you were a consultant for 14 Mr. Dandar. Right? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And, I mean, the thing -- the posting sort of 17 speaks for itself, but you would not consider this 18 particularly kind to Scientology or Mr. Miscavige, which is 19 "DM," would you? 20 A Well, what I'm saying about the publication is not 21 kind. But there is nothing about DM. I just say in there 22 about DM, he gives an order and it is passed on. 23 And the only one word I use, they get the drones 24 working. And drones is like worker drones for bees, but I'm 25 not speaking bad about him in there.
246 1 Q But you say things like masturbation, whacko, 2 things like that. Those were obscene implications, correct? 3 A In the context I was saying that internal 4 publications are similar to masturbation, they're just to 5 make everybody happy. 6 Q Do you remember doing a posting in which you -- at 7 or about the same time you posted about Mr. Rinder's baby 8 and how Mr. Rinder's baby had died? Do you remember doing 9 that? 10 A No, I don't. 11 Q I'm showing you what I have marked for 12 identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 204. 13 Is this another one of your postings to ARS? 14 A Yes -- 15 Q I mean, it is Defense Exhibit 204. I'm sorry. 16 A It appears to be. 17 Q And this is also -- this is on February 3, 1998? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And does this refresh your recollection that you 20 went on the Internet and talked about how Mike Rinder's 21 child died from what is usually called crib death, "which is 22 merely the still-unexplained phenomenon of newborns or very 23 young babies suddenly dying for no reason. What may not be 24 known is Rinder was in L.A. When his child died in Florida, 25 he requested a leave to go to his wife. DM," that is David
247 1 Miscavige, "refused it and Rinder was told to stay at work. 2 He did, and he rightfully carries the memory to this day of 3 how DM treated the death of his child." 4 Do you see that? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Was that intended to be somewhat inflammatory when 7 you put that on as it related to David Miscavige? 8 A No. It was -- it was intended to be -- reflect 9 that so many instances that I knew that you could have a 10 death in the family and you can't be approved to go 11 somewhere. 12 I wasn't speaking of Rinder; it was a case of -- 13 and Mike Rinder and I spoke about this years ago, how much 14 he was hurt that he couldn't do what he wanted to. It was 15 just a comment about the structure of the organization, and 16 not directed toward any particular person. 17 Q Now, you came to court voluntarily, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q No one subpoenaed you to come down here, right? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Mr. Dandar asked you to come down, but no one -- 22 no one could have because you live in -- where? Columbus, 23 Ohio? 24 A Cincinnati. 25 Q No one could have forced you to come down here.
248 1 Do you understand that? 2 A I understand that. 3 Q I mean, you weren't scared or intimidated or 4 anything like that as a result of your relationship with 5 Scientology, both as a Scientologist and as someone that has 6 filed 21 declarations and participated in a number of cases 7 since 1993, is that right? 8 A I'm sorry, that was way too long. Could you 9 shorten that? 10 Q Well, you didn't feel intimidated or threatened 11 when you came down today, I take it, right? 12 A I have never felt intimidated and threatened, even 13 when I was intimidated and threatened. 14 Q Okay. Now, prior to this meeting that you have 15 talked about in 1994 with -- 16 THE COURT: Are you -- are you -- I'll ask the 17 same thing. Are you introducing 203 and 204, or 18 not? 19 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, we are. 20 THE COURT: Any objection? 21 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 22 THE COURT: What? 23 MR. DANDAR: I'm not sure what it is introduced 24 for. 25 THE COURT: It is introduced to show bias,
249 1 obviously, against Mr. Miscavige. 2 MR. DANDAR: Okay. No objection. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q Now, prior to this meeting in 1994 with Mr. Rinder 6 that you have testified about, you said over six days, he 7 said several days, in Seattle, prior to that time a lawyer 8 in your behalf, i.e., Graham Berry, had made a demand on the 9 Church of Scientology for $3 million as it related to you 10 and Stacy Brooks, correct -- Stacy Young? 11 A Yes, that was something I found out about after it 12 was made. And I have so testified about that earlier. 13 Q And Mr. Berry was, as you understood it, acting as 14 your lawyer when he made a demand on the Church of 15 Scientology for $3 million as it -- 16 A No, he wasn't. 17 Q -- related to you and Ms. Young? 18 A No, he wasn't. 19 Q He was just acting on his own? 20 A It was a letter that, after I saw it was made, was 21 what was often called the global settlement. There were a 22 number of parties involved, and me and Stacy and I think a 23 dozen other people were all thrown together. Figures were 24 thrown on each one. 25 I never approved the letter. I never approved the
250 1 request. And he was not my counsel at the time. 2 Q So he has never been your counsel? 3 A He may have represented me in a deposition, but 4 never in any other capacity. 5 MR. WEINBERG: I'll have the reporter mark as 6 our next exhibit a February 16, 1994 letter, and 7 that would be Exhibit 205. Defense Exhibit 205. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q Now, Defense Exhibit 205 you recognize as a 10 February 16, 1994 letter to an attorney Jonathan Lubell, who 11 you knew -- or you know was an attorney that represented the 12 Church of Scientology. Correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And this is a letter from Graham Berry dated 15 February 16, 1994. Correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And you go to Page 3 of that letter -- 18 THE COURT: How is it that if he says he didn't 19 approve of this and he didn't know anything about 20 it, you are going to get this in? 21 And if you can't get it in, how is he going to 22 read from it? 23 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, it seems to me a 24 bit -- he's suggested and Mr. Dandar suggested 25 somehow the Church of Scientology was trying to do
251 1 whatever in the summer or fall of 1994 by meeting 2 with the Youngs. 3 And this letter clearly indicates that Graham 4 Berry, on behalf of Mr. Young, Ms. Young and a lot 5 of other people, have made a demand on the Church of 6 Scientology for a lot of money, including $3 million 7 for the Youngs. 8 THE COURT: I understand that. But I think 9 what he said, he didn't know anything about this, he 10 didn't authorize it, and when he saw it, it just 11 wasn't -- I mean, I don't know how you quite get it 12 in unless he acknowledges there is some truth to it 13 or he authorized it or something like that. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, let me try -- 15 BY MR. WEINBERG: 16 Q You knew about this letter before Mr. Rinder ever 17 met with you in the fall of 1994. Correct? 18 A Mmm, I'm trying to remember, because I -- the 19 first time I may have seen this letter was when it came up 20 in a deposition to impugn me, such as you are doing right 21 now, because I certainly didn't see it when it was sent, I 22 gave no approval, Graham Berry didn't show it to me after he 23 sent it. 24 And I haven't looked at it closely, but I don't 25 think you can even find in here where he said he was
252 1 representing me. He says in here something else about he is 2 thinking of adding other people to the lawsuits and includes 3 my name. So there is nothing here saying he's representing 4 me. 5 And I don't even know when I finally saw this. 6 And I was surprised when I saw the letter. 7 Q Well, if you look at Page 2, the bottom paragraph, 8 certainly the implication is, is that you and Stacy, among 9 others, are part of the group of people that he's trying to 10 get a global settlement for. Correct? 11 A Paragraph 2? 12 Q No, the last paragraph on Page 2. 13 A No, it says quite the opposite, actually. He 14 says -- Graham Berry said, "During that meeting you told 15 Gordon Calhoun and myself you now wished to settle not only 16 the Geertz case," then he goes on, "but additionally the 17 following," then my name is included. It is quite the 18 opposite of what you say. 19 Q Okay. And did you ever write to Mr. Berry and ask 20 him to withdraw this demand on the Church of Scientology for 21 the $3 million? 22 A No. It just -- as far as I can tell, it just died 23 and then ended up showing up in hearings like this. The 24 horse was far out of the barn. There is no reason to do 25 anything.
253 1 Q Was it your experience that Mr. Berry did things 2 like this, sent letters on behalf of people that he didn't 3 represent? 4 A No. 5 THE COURT: Isn't this a lawyer you-all have 6 introduced evidence -- or at least some statement -- 7 he was disbarred? 8 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Well, I don't know why he was 10 disbarred. But, I mean, if he was disbarred, he was 11 disbarred. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Actually, I do know why. As it 13 turns out, there is a notice, June 17, 2002, the 14 Daily Journal -- L.A. Daily Journal, which is the 15 equivalent of the Florida Bar News. 16 And it explains -- it is a notice on Mr. Berry 17 and it explains what the basis of his disbarment 18 was. 19 MR. DANDAR: My understanding, he was 20 suspended, not disbarred. 21 MR. WEINBERG: It indicates cases involving -- 22 THE COURT: Yes, suspended. 23 MR. WEINBERG: -- a Church. And I assume the 24 Church is the Church of Scientology. 25 MR. DANDAR: That was for failing to comply
254 1 with a court order. That has nothing to do with 2 suing the Church of Scientology. 3 MR. WEINBERG: You have to read the whole 4 thing, Ken. 5 THE COURT: This is just for my information, I 6 take it? 7 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Just for your information. 8 THE COURT: I'll take a look at it later. I'll 9 let you go ahead and refer to this letter, but I 10 think you have to understand that as far as -- as 11 long as this witness's testimony is he didn't 12 authorize this letter, that he didn't ask Mr. Berry 13 to write this letter on behalf of him, it only has a 14 certain -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I think Ms. Brooks already 16 testified about it. And, frankly, I asked all of 17 the questions I want to ask about it. 18 THE COURT: I don't know what she said about 19 it. We'll let it in, but as I say, it may not have 20 any evidentiary value. I don't know. 21 MR. WEINBERG: And I'm not going to even 22 venture to recall exactly what was said. 23 THE COURT: Thank you. I won't either. I 24 think if we were to go back and look at how many 25 things we let in that really weren't authenticated,
255 1 we would all be flabbergasted, because I'm sure 2 there are a lot of them, so -- 3 MR. DANDAR: I'll object for the plaintiff 4 because it wasn't his attorney and he had no 5 authority to send it. 6 THE COURT: Exactly. And don't misunderstand, 7 I'm not going to use this letter as any basis for 8 any ruling in this case. 9 You know, as I said, a lot of stuff that really 10 maybe hasn't been authenticated are in the record. 11 If they are not authenticated, and based on what he 12 said about this letter, it will probably have no 13 evidentiary value. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. Except there has 15 been this implication somehow apparently Mr. Rinder 16 appeared out of the blue in December. 17 THE COURT: That is his testimony. If you want 18 to refute that, you will have to bring Mr. Rinder. 19 MR. WEINBERG: I think this letter would 20 indicate otherwise. And I think Ms. Young indicated 21 otherwise. But I'll go on. 22 THE COURT: And she may have. As I said, I 23 don't know what she has said. It's been so long. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 25
256 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q By the way, just to close the loop on the power 3 struggle, the allegation was that what Mr. Broeker had 4 attempted to do -- is his name Broeker? 5 A Broeker. B-R-O-E-K-E-R. 6 Q Okay. That Mr. Broeker had, in essence, attempted 7 to change the tech. That is what he attempted to do. 8 Correct? 9 A No. He was attempting to take control of -- with 10 the help of Vicki Aznaran with the Religious Technology 11 Center, and Jesse Prince was directly involved in that. I 12 just heard stories about him. 13 Q Well, do you remember writing to Mr. Broeker in 14 June of 1988 and essentially telling him that he had done 15 wrong and that you'd gotten caught up in it? 16 A Yes. That was the letter that I was required to 17 send if I was to be able to continue. So I -- I agreed to 18 send it. 19 Q It was true, correct? 20 A No. 21 Q So you sent a false letter? 22 A No. It was one of those acceptable truths. And I 23 was trained at that time to be able to do it. So I wanted 24 to continue, so I sent it. And I later, you know, regretted 25 it.
257 1 Q You regretted it? Why? 2 A Sending that letter, because it was really 3 needless. 4 Q Now, you testified about fair game. Do you 5 remember that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And Mr. Dandar showed you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 8 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 9; Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 being 9 penalties for lower conditions, and Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 10 being the cancelation of fair game. 11 Do you remember that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, fair game -- the cancelation of fair game was 14 something issued by Mr. Hubbard, right? 15 A Written by him, yes. 16 Q Right. He canceled it? 17 A No. He canceled the use of the words. He -- he 18 specifically said the policies stay in place. We just don't 19 use the words anymore. 20 Q Do you remember that this became an issue in 21 litigation -- this is before you left the Church -- that 22 fair game is something -- this policy that had been created 23 in the '60s, canceled -- cancelation was 1968, that it had 24 become an issue that was used against the Church of 25 Scientology, right?
258 1 A Which part? I lost your question. 2 Q Fair game, the concept, it was being used against 3 the Church by opponents of the Church? 4 A No. The first time it was being used was in the 5 early '60s in the Australian inquiry in the state of 6 Victoria. That was one of the primary things that the state 7 of Victoria came out with when they were writing the reports 8 about Scientology. And that is actually the history of why 9 that issue came out was because, as Hubbard says, it causes 10 bad PR. 11 Q And do you remember that Mr. Hubbard, on 12 March 22nd of 1976, actually executed an affidavit 13 explaining fair game and explaining the reasons why he 14 canceled fair game, and affirming that, in fact, fair game 15 had been canceled and wasn't to be used? Do you remember 16 that? 17 A Right. And I point out to you that affidavit is 18 not policy of the Church. That was never given out to any 19 of the people of the Church of Scientology. 20 Q You didn't write that affidavit, did you? 21 A No. 22 MR. WEINBERG: I marked as 206, your Honor -- 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Do you -- do you recognize Defendant's 206 to be 25 an affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard, and a copy -- a copy of a
259 1 real affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard dated March 22, 1976, 2 explaining fair game and cancelation of it? 3 A This appears to be, yes. 4 Q This is true, isn't it? This is Mr. Hubbard 5 speaking and explaining exactly what fair game was and 6 exactly what the cancelation was, correct? 7 A This is not policy and was never given to anybody 8 in the Church of Scientology. Therefore, this has no 9 standing with regard to Scientology. He may have given it 10 to a court but it has absolutely no standing within 11 Scientology. 12 Q Well, let me show you what I marked as -- 13 MR. WEINBERG: By the way, I offer 206 into 14 evidence as Mr. Hubbard's affidavit of March of 15 1976. 16 THE COURT: Any objection? 17 MR. DANDAR: It's not authenticated as official 18 Church policy. It is total hearsay. It is not 19 authenticated. We object. 20 THE COURT: That is true. 21 MR. WEINBERG: So he can -- so Mr. Dandar has 22 stood here and put in policy after policy and 23 writing after writing -- 24 THE COURT: Well, it is policy. 25 MR. WEINBERG: And so this is -- this is an
260 1 affidavit by L. Ron Hubbard who no longer is alive 2 where he -- where he addresses the issue that 3 Mr. Young has been waxing eloquent with regard to 4 suggesting that when Mr. Hubbard canceled it he 5 didn't really cancel it and he submits an affidavit 6 on it? 7 THE COURT: I mean, I'm going to let it in. 8 But from everything I have seen and everything I 9 know about this case, this witness is absolutely 10 correct in what he just said. 11 This affidavit may have been submitted in a 12 court -- I have no idea where it was submitted -- 13 but if it isn't policy of the Church of Scientology, 14 it isn't policy. 15 The policy is what is fair game and what is 16 fair game cancelation. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Right, except he did 18 authenticate the affidavit. He recognized the 19 affidavit. I'm not offering it as policy. I'm 20 offering it as evidence in this case. 21 MR. DANDAR: He said -- 22 THE WITNESS: It doesn't change the policy. 23 THE COURT: I'm going to let it in for whatever 24 it is you want to argue about it. I am telling you 25 that an affidavit, I would suggest, is not policy of
261 1 the Church. Maybe it is. I mean, I don't know. 2 But nothing has been admitted yet to tell me 3 this would have any basis on which to determine what 4 is a policy of the Church of Scientology. 5 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. So Exhibit 207 is 6 in front of you. Do you see that? 7 THE COURT: Yes. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q Mr. Young? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q And -- and this is policy of the Church of 12 Scientology. Correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q This is Mr. Hubbard's policy. Right? 15 A No. 16 Q Well, what do you call this? 17 A This is a policy letter from the boards of 18 directors, not from Mr. Hubbard. 19 Q All right. So this doesn't count, either? 20 A No. You asked me if this was Hubbard's policy. I 21 said, no, it is not. 22 Q Well, you count this as part of the policy of the 23 Church of Scientology, correct? 24 A This is part of the policy of the Church of 25 Scientology. Yes.
262 1 Q All right. And Mr. Hubbard was alive when this 2 was issued. Correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q July 22nd, 1980? 5 A Yes. But he wouldn't have seen it. 6 THE COURT: Who wouldn't have seen it? 7 THE WITNESS: Mr. Hubbard. He wouldn't have 8 seen this. 9 THE COURT: What do you mean? I thought he 10 wrote it. 11 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, he didn't. At the 12 bottom of the second page you see it just said 13 "Boards of Directors of the Church of Scientology." 14 He's not the author. 15 BY MR. WEINBERG: 16 Q Well, you are not suggesting that anybody in the 17 Church of Scientology issued a policy that counter -- that 18 contradicted something that Mr. Hubbard did while he was 19 alive, are you? 20 A Oh, that -- that happened quite often, and those 21 policies had to be canceled, and he quite often found those, 22 and he would say so and so wrote a policy letter that is 23 contrary to and has been canceled. That -- that happened 24 quite often. 25 Q All right. So -- and was this canceled -- this
263 1 explanation of fair game, was this canceled? 2 A I don't have any information that it was. 3 Q Well, on the second page under "Reason for 4 cancelation of fair game," you see it says, "Fair game was 5 canceled and has remained canceled because it was found that 6 it could be misinterpreted by those anti -- anti -- 7 antipathetic to Scientology --" 8 A Antipathetic. 9 Q All right "-- to Scientology to authorize justice 10 actions of a more severe nature than expulsion. There was 11 no reason to retain it as part of our justice system if 12 there was any possibility of it being interpreted in that 13 way." 14 Do you see that? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And that accurately reflects where fair game was, 17 in other words, that it had been canceled long before and 18 was not in existence as of 1980, correct? 19 A That is incorrect. I point out to you, if you 20 read this carefully, they're not saying anything contrary to 21 the other policy letter. They're not saying the other 22 policy letters on the application. They're saying fair 23 game, in quote, was canceled because it could be 24 misinterpreted. 25 What they're saying is actually consistent with
264 1 Hubbard. The application of it, how you treat people, there 2 is nothing in here that cancels the other policy letters. 3 It just says don't use the words "fair game" but it says it 4 more cleverly. 5 Q There is policy from Mr. Hubbard that you are 6 supposed to follow the laws of the land, comply with the 7 law, correct? 8 A Well, yeah, until he found -- you know -- 9 Q Just answer that question. 10 A Yes. 11 Q Let me show you, have the reporter mark the next 12 exhibit. 13 Do you recognize Exhibit 208 to be -- to be a 14 policy issued by Mr. Hubbard? 15 A I don't have this marked as Exhibit 208, so if you 16 can just identify it. 17 Q Okay, it says "Sea Organization Flag Order 3395." 18 A Yes. I have that. 19 Q All right. And this is something issued by 20 Mr. Hubbard himself, correct? 21 A Yes. 1973. 22 Q Right. And what it says at the beginning of it 23 is, "A country has laws and regulations to coordinate its 24 activities. One does not seek to get around these or avoid 25 these or find loopholes in them. That is complicated and
265 1 dishonest. It is much simpler just to know and obey them." 2 Correct? 3 A That is what it says. 4 Q That is his policy? 5 A Until -- until it came out with what we were doing 6 in Clearwater and what we did with the break-ins of the 7 federal government. I'm afraid that the facts of his own 8 indictment of his wife -- 9 THE COURT: Well, you know what? What you are 10 doing is you seem to just want to alter things to 11 suit your own purpose, what have you. 12 The question simply was this is policy. 13 Whether it was followed or whether it wasn't or 14 whether some other policy was followed or whether it 15 wasn't may be subject to some other day. 16 This is what he wrote. This, therefore, is the 17 policy, right? 18 THE WITNESS: That is correct, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: All right. That was the question. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Right. Do you know of any policy written after 22 1968 which even mentions fair game other than to indicate 23 that it is canceled? 24 A After -- I would have to go through the volumes. 25 Possibly not fair game. No.
266 1 Q Now, Judge Schaeffer asked you a number of -- 2 THE COURT: I thought you were getting ready to 3 ask me a question. 4 MR. WEINBERG: No. I'm sorry. 5 MR. LIEBERMAN: I would have objected, your 6 Honor. 7 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not that bold. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q Judge Schaeffer asked you a number of questions 10 about the affidavit that you filed in this case, 11 particularly that part of the affidavit where -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, I have 13 some ringing in my ear. Can you hold on one second? 14 THE COURT: Sure. 15 MR. WEINBERG: It sounds like -- 16 THE COURT: Maybe it is from the jackhammers. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I don't know what it is but it 18 is hard -- 19 THE WITNESS: Maybe it is call waiting. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Huh? Maybe it is call waiting? 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q Judge Schaeffer asked you, you know, a number of 23 questions about the affidavit, particularly that aspect of 24 the affidavit where you said something to the effect that 25 there was nothing that you disagreed or really could
267 1 disagree with or whatever in Jesse Prince's affidavit. Do 2 you remember that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, what Mr. Prince opined to in his affidavit, 5 among other things, was that David Miscavige had ordered 6 Lisa McPherson to die, to be allowed to die. 7 Now, you didn't mean, by filing your affidavit, 8 that you had any basis for supporting that opinion set forth 9 by Mr. Prince, did you? 10 A I believe I answered that when the Court asked 11 that question that I didn't have any firsthand knowledge to 12 substantiate those portions. I just didn't find anything 13 being said from my own experience and policies of the 14 organization to say they were false. 15 Q Well, in -- in -- in -- you don't -- you were 16 asked some questions about various technical aspects of 17 Scientology. You were reluctant to refer to those as 18 religious or ecclesiastical, you kept calling them 19 technical, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And that is because you have testified in this 22 case and other cases that you don't believe that Scientology 23 is a religion, correct? 24 A My personal belief is that it isn't. 25 Q Right. But the technical part, which is the
268 1 religious or ecclesiastical part, you are not an expert in, 2 are you? 3 A Depends upon how we define expert. But as I said, 4 I have less knowledge than -- maybe I didn't -- but I have 5 much less knowledge than Jesse Prince and I have less 6 knowledge about the technical side than Stacy. 7 Q Right. In other words, when you were interviewed 8 by the police officers in Clearwater in 1997, when they came 9 out to Seattle, Sergeant Andrews and FDLE Agent Strope, they 10 asked you about the introspection rundown. And you told 11 them you really had to go look it up, you really didn't know 12 anything about it? 13 A I didn't know if that was my characterization. 14 But I would have said I wasn't that familiar with it. Stacy 15 was at the meeting. She was the one that spoke up about it. 16 Q Well, do you remember testifying in this case, 17 when -- when you were asked about your conversations with 18 Mr. Dandar, that when Mr. Dandar asked you about your 19 opinions concerning Lisa McPherson's physical condition and 20 possible ways that she was being treated, that you told 21 Mr. Dandar that you weren't a technical person and you 22 couldn't respond to that. 23 Do you remember saying that? 24 A No. If you were to put that question now, I would 25 put it more in terms of medical because you gave medical
269 1 conditions. I'm not a medical person. I couldn't testify 2 to that. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Well, can I approach, your 4 Honor, to show -- 5 THE COURT: Sure. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q I'm going to show you Page 210 from your 8 deposition of -- Volume 2 of your deposition of December 21 9 and 22, in this case, of 1999. And specifically on Page 210 10 the question that begins on Line 3 and the answer that ends 11 on Line 13. 12 A Would you like me to read this for the record? 13 Q Just read it to yourself. 14 A Okay. Okay. 15 Q Does that refresh your recollection that -- that 16 in response to Mr. Dandar's questions to you out in Seattle 17 about Lisa McPherson's physical condition and how she was 18 treated, that you told him that was really a technical or a 19 religious or ecclesiastical matter and you couldn't respond 20 to that? 21 A It was a case I wouldn't respond because I always 22 deferred to Stacy on the technical matters. 23 Q So that is what you meant when you gave that 24 answer? 25 A Yes. And it says it further down the page, that
270 1 Stacy is the one to speak on that. 2 Q Now, you don't -- you don't have personal 3 knowledge of the introspection rundown, do you? When you 4 were in the Church, you never -- 5 THE COURT: Let him answer the question. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 7 THE COURT: You asked him a question, then 8 apparently he didn't answer it fast enough for you 9 and you went right on. 10 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 11 A When you say personal knowledge -- 12 THE COURT: Personal knowledge means have you 13 ever been there, have you ever participated and do 14 you know anything about it? 15 THE WITNESS: I have never personally 16 participated in one, no. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q Now, Mr. Dandar asked you a number of questions 19 about -- about your contact with him in the spring, summer 20 and fall of 1997 in this case. 21 My question to you is do you remember that there 22 were two visits that Mr. Dandar had with you in Seattle in 23 1997? 24 A I believe there were two. Yes. 25 Q Okay. And he asked you about your --
271 1 THE COURT: Do you mean to introduce 206 -- I 2 mean, you got 206 in. 207 and 208? 3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. I want to offer 207 and 4 208. 5 THE COURT: Any objection to 207 and 208? 6 MR. DANDAR: No objection. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Madam Clerk, I need these 8 files before I leave. I want to ask you to give me 9 everything filed today. And if they are not filed, 10 you have part of them filed and not filed, so 11 whatever it is you are doing, get that done for me. 12 And we've got five minutes. 13 THE CLERK: I'm filing them right now. 14 THE COURT: Well, I have a whole bunch of them 15 up here right now. If you can't file them, don't 16 file them. Give them back to me. And I'll give 17 them to you tomorrow. Okay? 18 THE CLERK: Okay. 19 THE COURT: Forget the originals, give me my 20 copies, and give it to me back. Take my books and 21 give them back to me, everything introduced today. 22 Continue. 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Now, he asked you about participation in the first 25 amended complaint. Do you remember those questions?
272 1 A Yes. 2 Q And is it your testimony that you assisted 3 Mr. Dandar with regard to the first amended complaint in 4 this case? 5 A That is a little bit too over-generalized. I 6 advised him with regard to policy and structure and 7 suggested things to him, but I didn't write it. 8 Q Well, did you see a draft of the first amended -- 9 or -- draft -- a draft or drafts of the first amended 10 complaint before it was filed in December of 1997? 11 A To tell you the truth, I don't recall if I did. 12 Q Well, did Mr. Dandar call you up and -- and review 13 with you or in his meetings with you review with you 14 paragraphs in a proposed first amended complaint? 15 A No. We had a number of meetings. We mainly 16 exchanged E-Mail. 17 Q Well, but in these two meetings that you had with 18 Mr. Dandar in 1997, did -- did he go over with you proposed 19 amended complaints or language with regard to proposed 20 amended complaints? 21 A No. This was carried on basically via E-Mail and 22 perhaps a phone call or two. 23 THE COURT: Do you know, I think maybe he 24 doesn't know what -- you looked at a document from 25 Mr. Dandar and he asked you whether or not you
273 1 participated in assisting him in drafting some of 2 these paragraphs -- not drafting them but giving him 3 information. 4 And I thought your testimony was yes, you had 5 had to help him with these -- with the lingo and you 6 had to help him with understanding and what have 7 you. 8 Now he's asking you the same thing. I mean, is 9 your testimony different from what it was this 10 morning? 11 THE WITNESS: No, I think I mainly 12 misunderstood his questions because I -- it was the 13 same. 14 I had provided him with information, such as 15 the paragraph I saw which I said, well, obviously 16 this is based on information I provided, but I 17 didn't write it. So my testimony does stand from 18 earlier. I just didn't understand the question. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Well, was part of your assignment or consulting 22 work to assist Mr. Dandar in the preparation and ultimately 23 the filing of an amended complaint in 1997? 24 A He said he was going to do that. But I didn't 25 really know what he was going to use the information for. I
274 1 was basically trying to educate him, but we were talking 2 about the complaint. I did not know I was actually working 3 on a first amended complaint, to tell you the truth. 4 Q Well -- 5 A I never worked on amended complaints before. 6 Q Do you still have up there Defense Exhibit 73, 7 which was that May 1997 letter? 8 A Which? 9 Q Mr. Dandar showed that to you, the May 2, 1997 10 letter Mr. Dandar sent to you and Stacy. 11 A It should be up here. 12 No, I think you took it back. 13 THE COURT: He did. I gave it to her. Lord 14 only knows where it is. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Here it is, right here. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q I'm going to hand this to you again. 18 A No, it is not here. 19 Q Here. Now, this is a letter that was sent by 20 Mr. Dandar to you and Stacy on May 2, 1997. Is that right? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And is this the first correspondence that you and 23 your wife got from Mr. Dandar? 24 A If you mean hard copy, yes. 25 Q That is what I mean.
275 1 And do you see in the third paragraph of the 2 letter he says, "I'm also enclosing a copy of the proposed 3 amended complaint. I intend to sue David Miscavige as 4 managing agent. Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge 5 of those in isolation and their condition?" 6 Do you see that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, do you remember getting a copy of a proposed 9 amended complaint as early as May of 1997? 10 A I remember seeing the original, but I don't 11 remember seeing the amended. But I'm not contesting that it 12 didn't arrive. 13 Q And do you know, after May 2nd of 1997, prior to 14 when a proposed -- when the first amended complaint was 15 filed, which is in December of 1997, if you and your wife 16 got other copies of proposed amended complaints? 17 A No. And -- 18 Q No, you didn't? Or, no, you don't remember? 19 A No, we didn't. And I would like to point out, if 20 the amended complaint was filed in December and this was 21 May, we're talking six, seven months. 22 And if he did include an amended complaint, it was 23 probably just as badly garbled as the original so the 24 purpose of our meeting was for me to educate him. And 25 obviously it took a while.
276 1 Q Now, do you remember that in your deposition in -- 2 in December of 1999 that I took -- do you remember that I 3 took your depo? 4 A How could I forget it? 5 Q Okay. And do you remember that the reason that 6 the depo was taken in December of '99 is that Mr. Dandar had 7 made a request that you be -- because of your health, that 8 you be able to give your trial testimony? Do you 9 remember -- 10 A I don't know exactly how he represented it to you 11 but -- you are asking me what he told you. 12 Q Well, I mean, is that your understanding -- 13 THE COURT: That really isn't important. He 14 took a deposition. What is it you want to know from 15 it or about it? 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Okay, do you remember that you were asked a lot of 18 questions about what, if any, participation you had in an 19 amended complaint, in a proposed amended complaint, in 20 discussions concerning David Miscavige, whether you had ever 21 received any correspondence concerning David Miscavige, 22 whether you had any discussions regarding David. Do you 23 remember being asked those questions? 24 A Probably so, if it went -- it went on for days, 25 it's a bit of a blur.
277 1 Q Well, do you remember denying -- do you remember 2 denying that you had -- had any participation in the amended 3 complaint, that you had any conversations concerning David 4 Miscavige, that you had received any correspondence, that 5 you had anything -- 6 THE COURT: That is an awfully long -- first of 7 all, that is a very unusual way to go about dealing 8 with a deposition. 9 But if you are going to do it that way, at the 10 very least break it up into bits. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. What I would like to do 12 is we have -- we have a video clip of these 13 questions and answers, you know, which is -- I mean, 14 the other way to do is actually put the 15 transcript -- 16 THE COURT: You'll have to put the transcript 17 in because I'm not going to let you play a part -- 18 MR. WEINBERG: No, I'm going to put the 19 transcript in. But we have a video clip of -- I 20 don't know, it takes what, a minute, two minutes -- 21 a couple of minutes, which are these questions and 22 answers. 23 THE COURT: Well, I have to hear his answer. 24 If he said yes, he said that, then you don't need to 25 even play it.
278 1 MR. WEINBERG: I think he said he didn't 2 remember. 3 THE COURT: I said, I stopped you, said you 4 didn't ask a witness about this. "Isn't it true you 5 didn't say anything about this, anything about 6 that." You just can't do that. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q Do you remember being asked questions concerning 9 your participation, if any, in -- in a proposed amended 10 complaint? Do you remember questions about that? 11 A Not really. I'm sorry, I don't. 12 Q So you don't remember any -- what your responses 13 to that were, is that right? 14 A That is true. I would have to see the transcript. 15 All I can say in my defense, sir, I was about one month into 16 my diagnosis and it was a tough time, so I don't remember 17 what went down for those few days. 18 Q Well, do you remember being asked questions about 19 whether you had received -- or had any conversations 20 concerning adding David Miscavige to the complaint? 21 A In the context of the deposition, no, I don't 22 remember that. 23 Q And do you remember being asked any questions 24 about whether you had received any correspondence concerning 25 any amended complaints in this case or proposed amended
279 1 complaints? 2 A No, sir. I mean, I would have to see a 3 transcript, if you could. 4 THE COURT: Of course if he said in his 5 deposition that he didn't remember getting any 6 correspondence, we know now he was inaccurate, so 7 you can't very well impeach him, try to pretend that 8 letter doesn't exist, it is introduced into 9 evidence. 10 MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, his testimony is 11 180 degrees from Mr. Dandar's of his participation, 12 proposed participation in the amended complaint, 13 180 degrees. 14 And I would like to offer that. I'm going to 15 offer his deposition and offer that particular part, 16 A, to impeach him but, B, to impeach Mr. Dandar. 17 THE COURT: From his testimony today? 18 MR. WEINBERG: No, from his testimony back 19 in -- well, his testimony today -- 20 THE COURT: You cannot use his testimony from 21 his deposition to impeach Mr. Dandar's testimony. 22 You could use his testimony from today, and you can 23 impeach his testimony with his deposition. You 24 cannot impeach Mr. Dandar's testimony with his 25 deposition.
280 1 MR. WEINBERG: We'll offer it to impeach his 2 testimony today, because it is 180 degrees from what 3 he said today, as well. 4 THE COURT: Go ahead and play it, although, as 5 I said, it is rather unique because you know that 6 testimony you are trying to play to impeach him is 7 inaccurate based on evidence that has been 8 introduced in this hearing. 9 MR. DANDAR: So we object. 10 THE COURT: Well, we're going to let it be 11 played. 12 Let me see that letter. 13 Please don't leave here with any evidence from 14 this case. Okay? Defendant's Exhibit Number 73 is 15 a document that you introduced? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 17 THE COURT: That says, in fact, "I'm enclosing 18 a copy of the amended complaint." 19 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 20 THE COURT: I don't care what it said in his 21 deposition. 22 MR. WEINBERG: But that is not the part of the 23 deposition that I'm using to impeach him with. 24 THE COURT: Oh, I thought you just asked him a 25 question as to whether or not he had anything to do
281 1 with the amended complaint, and he indicated he did, 2 and you said you were going to play the deposition 3 to show that his testimony today was 180 degrees 4 different -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, he went on -- 6 THE COURT: -- than what it was in the 7 deposition. 8 MR. WEINBERG: He went on and on in the 9 deposition about how he had nothing to do with the 10 amended complaint. 11 THE COURT: He was obviously wrong because of 12 evidence you introduced in your own case which says, 13 "I am enclosing a copy of the amended complaint." 14 MR. WEINBERG: That would be one example of how 15 he's wrong. But he said to Mr. Dandar and -- and 16 Mr. Dandar indicated that there were lots of 17 discussions about an amended complaint. And I had 18 those -- I asked those questions to Mr. Young, and 19 for whatever reason -- 20 THE COURT: All right. Play them, would you? 21 It is five until five and I plan to get out of here 22 at 5 o'clock. You said you had two minutes. Play 23 them. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 25 MR. DANDAR: What is the date and page number?
282 1 MR. WEINBERG: Do we have the transcripts? I'm 2 sorry, he gave me the multiple copies. I need to 3 separate these. 4 ________________________________________ 5 (WHEREUPON, the videotape was played.) 6 Q Tell me about the next conversations that you 7 remember that you had with Mr. Dandar? 8 A Well, he first -- he came -- he flew up to see us 9 and met with us. 10 Q He flew to Seattle? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Was anybody with him? 13 A No. 14 Q Did he send anything before he came? 15 A No. 16 Q Did he send you a copy of the complaint? 17 A No. 18 Q Did he send you a copy of any proposed amendments 19 to the complaint? 20 A No. 21 Q Excuse me? 22 A No. 23 Q Did he send you any records that -- from the case? 24 A No. 25 Q Did he give you any discovery from the case?
283 1 A No. 2 Q When he came to Seattle, did he show you a copy of 3 the complaint? 4 A No. 5 Q Did he review with you any documents from the 6 case? 7 A No. 8 Q Did he review with you any proposed amendments to 9 the complaint? 10 A No. 11 _____________________________________ 12 Q Do you remember receiving -- ever receiving any 13 written correspondence or communication from Ken Dandar, 14 ever? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What was that? 17 A It was a cover letter with some documents that he 18 sent me to look at. 19 Q And when was that? 20 A Oh, maybe a month or so after the Seattle meeting 21 or when he decided to take us on. 22 Q Are you sure it wasn't a month or so before the 23 Seattle meeting? 24 A I'm sure. 25 Q All right. Did you ever see a copy -- back three
284 1 years or so ago when you first got involved, did you ever 2 see a copy of a proposed amended complaint? Did you ever 3 see one? 4 A No. 5 Q Did you ever see a copy of a proposed amendment 6 that would add David Miscavige as a party defendant to the 7 case? 8 A No. 9 Q As far as you know, did -- I'm talking about back 10 when you and Stacy were in Washington and whenever that was 11 back in that time period we're talking about, as far as you 12 know did Stacy? 13 A As far as I know, no. 14 Q What was the nature of the documents that -- that 15 you got? 16 A They were exhibits that had been filed in the 17 case. They had Bates stamps in the corner. Mmm, they were 18 dealing with -- Mmm -- her stay at the Ft. Harrison, you 19 know, records. 20 Q They were discovery, in other words? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And in addition to discovery that had Bates stamps 23 on it, were there any other category of documents that you 24 got? 25 A No.
285 1 Q You never got a copy of the complaint itself? 2 A I -- I -- I believe he sent me a copy of the 3 amended complaint with a stamp after it had been filed that 4 said, here, this has been filed. 5 Q But that was an amended complaint that didn't have 6 David Miscavige as a defendant, correct? 7 A I don't recall it. Your question to me was did I 8 see a proposed one. 9 Q Right. 10 A He just said here, you might want to -- I'm 11 sending you this. Okay? 12 Q Well, did you work on a proposed amended 13 complaint? Was that part of your assignment? 14 A No, I did not. 15 ___________________________________ 16 Q Did you review and revise submissions? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you work on any amendments to the complaint? 19 A No. 20 (WHEREUPON, this concludes the playing of the 21 videotape.) 22 _____________________________________ 23 MR. WEINBERG: One second, your Honor. 24 THE COURT: How close do you think you are to 25 finishing?
286 1 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, that is what I was sort of 2 doing downstairs before I got up here, and I was 3 trying to collect my thoughts and -- I hadn't really 4 done that. I'm not sure. I think I'm pretty close 5 but -- 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. WEINBERG: But I had some notes. That is 8 what I was trying to figure out. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q You had talked about -- you had -- Mr. Dandar had 11 shown you part of a document which you said you had gotten 12 from the IRS as it related to the submission by the Church 13 of Scientology for tax-exempt status. Do you remember that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q But -- 16 THE COURT: Mr. Young, are you planning on 17 being here tomorrow? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 19 THE COURT: Then we're going to quit for the 20 night and finish it in the morning. 21 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 24 MR. WEINBERG: I'll get organized. 25 THE COURT: What is that?
287 1 MR. WEINBERG: I said I'll get organized, and I 2 don't think it will be that long. 3 (WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 5:10 p.m.) 4 _____________________________________ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
288 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 17th day of June, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index