IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and through the Personal Representative, DELL LIEBREICH Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 00-5682-C1 Section 11 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI; and DAVID HOUGHTON, Defendants. _________________________________/ PLAINTIFF'S AND COUNSEL'S CLOSING ARGUMENT TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL AND "OMNIBUS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS" Come now the ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, DELL LIEBREICH, individually, and their counsel, and respond to the Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and the Motion to Disqualify Counsel for the Estate filed by the Defendants. This court spent 35 days in hearing on these motions brought by the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC's (COSFSO). Michael Garko, and admitted perjurers, Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks, were its only witnesses to support the motions. The Estate and its counsel defended based on evidence of extortion by COSFSO against Minton pursuant to the policy of the Church of Scientology: "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." Plaintiff's Ex. 109-C, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960." The Estate called 12 witnesses: Peter Alexander, Teresa Summers, Jesse Prince, Brian Haney, Bill Franks, Robert Young, Frank Oliver, Hana Whitfield, Nancy Many, Ken Dandar, John Merrett, and Dan Leipold. Not one supported the alleged recantations of the defendants' witnesses: Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks. Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., (COSFSO), named the Estate's jury/trial consultant, Michael Garko, Ph.D., as a defendant in the Clearwater contract case, which required Garko to retain an attorney. Then just before it decides to call him as a witness, COSFSO sends his attorney a letter admitting COSFSO never had any evidence to sue him and dropping him from the Clearwater case. Defendant's Ex. 189. Two days later, Sandy Weinberg, counsel for COSFSO meets with Garko and his attorney in secret to prepare him for testifying for COSFSO. At this time, the COSFSO signs a release for valuable consideration exchanged between the parties and promised not to sue him. Defendant's Ex 190. The next day, June 11, 2002, COSFSO called Garko as COSFSO's witness. After he testified, Garko resigned as the Estate's consultant. Contrary to the amazing statement of the defendants in their Closing Argument that Garko confirms Minton's and Brooks' recantations, the record is clear that Dr. Garko emphatically denied them all. 64 10 And I said, "Well, when I was with you at your 11 depositions, you know, I never heard anybody, in my 12 presence, encourage you to lie, so I don't know anything 13 about these things." Michael Garko, June 11, 2002, talking about his conversation with Bob Minton after the first hearing of "recantation" of April 9, 2002. 100 9 Q And would you agree that the only reason he gave 10 us when he said "I don't trust you anymore" to me is because 11 of these attacks on the Internet? 12 A That was -- that was the thrust of his concern. 13 Q Did he ever say, "You made me lie under oath, Ken 14 Dandar"? 15 A He never said that in my presence. Garko discussing February 2002 New Hampshire visit with Minton, a visit which Minton requested, contrary to Minton's court testimony. Pages 23-25. 116 2 Q Okay. Now, did I ever tell Bob Minton to lie 3 about anything? 4 A Not in my presence. 5 Q Did I ever tell Bob Minton to fudge somehow so he 6 didn't have to answer the question truthfully? 7 A Not in my presence. 8 Q Have you ever known me to tell anybody to lie 9 under oath? 10 A No. And I wouldn't work for you if you did. Garko, June 11, 2002. I. INTRODUCTION. The Defendants' entire foundation for this proceeding was the direct examination of Robert S. Minton. Minton, weakly supported and sometimes contradicted by his mistress, Stacy Brooks, failed to carry the day for his handlers, the Church of Scientology. His motive for testifying falsely was solely his desire to meet the Scientology demands of making the Lisa McPherson case "go away" before Scientology would consider "disengagement" of its continuous "noisy investigation" of Minton, his family, his friends, and his business associates. The "noisy investigation" is part of the Church of Scientology's written policies on practicing extortion to force its enemies to "sue for peace." Thus, Minton seeks personal benefit from his testimony on direct. However, when questioned on the identical subject matter on cross-examination, Minton suddenly clammed up and began steadfastly invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to erect a wall of incontrovertibility around his testimony on direct, completely thwarting the purpose of cross-examination, robbing Plaintiff of the chance to impeach Minton's testimony on direct, and making a mockery of the adversarial process. Since Minton pled the Fifth Amendment and has refused to identify the name of the financial institution originating the two UBS checks in question, all of his testimony must be stricken. Minton is Scientology's agent and witness and is in the position of a claimant, i.e., seeking affirmative relief for Scientology, by bringing his claim as agent for Scientology against Plaintiff's counsel alleging subornation of perjury. Minton cannot use the Fifth Amendment as both a sword and a shield. Consequently, all of his testimony must be stricken. City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Delisi v. Bankers Insurance Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla 4th DCA 1983). Disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a sanction or remedy of last resort. ... disqualification "strikes at the heart of one of the most important associational freedoms that a person may have--the right to choose one's own lawyer ." Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (Farmer, J., concurring). Accordingly, disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a harsh and drastic sanction and an extraordinary remedy that should be resorted to sparingly. Lee v. Gadasa Corp., 714 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So.2d 641, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pascucci v. Pascucci, 679 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It is because disqualification is such an extraordinary sanction that a trial court must exercise its discretion to disqualify counsel only as a last resort to prevent further conduct in defiance of the court's order or authority. In Re Gustafson, 650 F.2d at 1022. Even then, the court's power should be exercised with great caution, and the court should consider the use of lesser sanctions before invoking disqualification. Carnival Corporation v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489, 495-496 (Fla 1st DCA 1999). In Henriquez v. Temple, 668 So.2d 638 (Fla 3rd DCA 1996), the court upheld disqualification when the attorney "deliberately and surreptitiously obtained documents which, after an in camerainspection, the trial court had previously ordered were not to be produced. This conduct clearly involved "a situation rife with the possibility of discredit to the bar and the administration of justice," see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d 630, 634 (Fla.1991), and fully supported the order of disqualification. Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Fin. Corp., 811 F.Supp. 651 (M.D.Fla.1992), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir.1995); State Farm; Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Indeed, even more serious sanctions, including contempt and bar discipline, would have been justified on this record. At 638-639. The correctness of an order involving the disqualification of counsel must be determined by testing it against the standards imposed by the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 429 So.2d 348, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)... To require disqualification, prejudice which would or might result must be more than de minimus. This narrow construction derives from the policy of the rule and the committee comment thereto, which notes that the rule was not designed to permit a lawyer to call opposing counsel as a witness and thereby disqualify him as counsel. Cazares at 350. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the likelihood that this prejudice will or might result. Ray v. Stuckey, 491 So.2d 1211, 1213-1214 (Fla 1st DCA 1986). The defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof to establish fraud on the court or any violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Even if the allegations were true, which they are not, no prejudice has been shown since nothing is material to the plaintiff's claims or the defenses raised. Ray v. Stuckey. The allegations against the Estate and its counsel are the result of extortion and pursuant to an illegal and unethical agreement between admitted perjurers, Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks, and the Church of Scientology. The evidence conclusively shows that the defendant church and its counsel have engaged in extortion to attempt to achieve its obvious purpose: dismissal of this case to save it from liability for monetary damages, bad publicity in the failure of its tech, and responsibility for the death of its member. So far, the evidence reveals that Samuel Rosen and MoniqueYingling are directly involved in the extortion of Minton, and through Minton, the extortion of the Estate and its counsel. The notes of the first two meetings with confirmatory testimony by church counsel, Monique Yingling, establishes without reasonable doubt that Minton and Brooks were indeed threatened and made to falsely accuse Dell Liebreich and her counsel of engaging in criminal activity so that this case would "go away." "SJ - outstanding litigation would have to go? Do we mean BM would have to bring about dismissal of McPherson case.? MR - yes that is what we want." Yingling notes of March 28, 2002. Michael Rinder, MR, confirming to Minton's lawyer, Steve Jonas, SJ, that Scientology demands McPherson case be dismissed before Scientology would entertain "disengagement" with Minton and his family. The Motion for Terminating Sanctions and the Motion to Disqualify include allegations that the attempted inclusion of David Miscavige in paragraph 34 of the Fifth Amended Complaint was filed without any basis in law or fact, with the sole intent to use the suit as a broad attack against Scientology. This court has since ruled that there was enough evidence for counsel in good faith to allege Miscavige's involvement in the death of Lisa McPherson. The timing of these motions, concerning Miscavige and attacking Scientology just before the scheduled June 2002 trial date, makes it clear that the motions were filed with one purpose: to derail or delay the trial to create a substantial financial hardship on the Estate and its counsel. This is the same goal which this court and the Second District Court of Appeal have recognized as being the real aim of Scientology's discovery. Scientology never presented any rebuttal to the Estate's expert testimony on the policies of Scientology, not one expert. If ¶ 34 was thought by defendants to be a sham, then why wait till April 2002 to file the motion when the first allegation of the culpability of Miscavige is found in the First Amended Complaint filed December 1997, and in the final Fifth Amended Complaint served in December 1999? The answer is simple: this motion was planned far in advance and timed to delay the trial. Due to the overlapping of issues, the Plaintiff incorporates herein its previous response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I. Minton and Brooks allege that they have decided to recant their perjury because they wanted to "set the record straight" as demanded by Scientology, so that they can settle with Scientology. See Brooks May 3, 2002 hearing testimony at 218-222. They say that Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen demanded they "set the record straight" commencing at the first meetings on March 28-29,2002. Yet, in all three sets of these meeting records of church counsel and Minton counsel, there is not one mention of setting the record straight. Obviously knowing that the notes do not support the perjured testimony of Minton and Brooks, defense counsel tried to get Mrs. Yingling to testify that this discussion took place. 4 Q What I was going to ask you is at any time during 5 the first meeting, the meetings in New York on the 28th and 6 the 29th, did you or Mr. Rinder or Mr. Rosen tell Mr. Minton 7 that he had to come clean or set the record straight or 8 anything like that? ... 16 A I don't recall that those phrases were 17 specifically used at that -- at that meeting on the 28th or 18 at the 29th. 19 However, I do believe that in subsequent 20 discussions that we had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, that 21 those expressions were used. Yingling at 23, June 11, 2002. This concession shows both Minton and Brooks lying in this court about when this demand was made, it was made only in Clearwater and only when Minton and Brooks did not have their counsel present. Per the Yingling typed notes of the first meeting, the first demand of Scientology was for Minton to make two cases of which he has no control "go away." What is very telling is that after filing their first "recantation affidavits," Minton and Brooks went to Yingling and Rinder of the church and had them help them with their second "recantation affidavits." See page 275-276 of Yingling. This supports the testimony of Jesse Prince, Minton, and Brooks that Scientology hand delivered to them stacks of transcripts highlighted or otherwise marked that Scientology wanted Minton and Brooks to address in their recantations. While Yingling has copious notes of the meetings in New York, when Minton and Brooks met with her in Clearwater to confess they are perjurers, Yingling conveniently has no notes! Why is it that when the most important events in this case occur, notes are missing? All counsel notes of these New York meetings and Jonas' letter to Dandar conclusively show that the first precondition was for Minton to make the Florida case and the Wollersheim case "go away." Jonas' letter to Dandar states that the McPherson case must be "dismissed." Plaintiff's Ex. 61. Notice that there is never any mention by Jonas of setting the record straight or perjury. Brooks, in protecting Scientology, even lied to this court when she denied that Rosen demanded the McPherson case be dismissed. Brooks May 3, 2002, at 221:8-10. Yet the Yingling notes and the Jonas letter to Dandar confirm dismissal is a precondition. II. PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. A. The Defendants' allegations of perjury and subornation of perjury. Although Scientology stated to this court as well as Judge Baird that there are only three items of alleged perjury: 2,4, and 5 below, the basis of the motions has evolved over the course of the hearing. Defendants allege that the Estate's personal representative and counsel have committed perjury and suborned perjury of witnesses as follows: 1. False allegations that the church leadership murdered Lisa McPherson. 2. Concealment of agreement to donate bulk of recovery to LMT. (2, 17,22-23). 3. Filing a false Jesse Prince August 99 affidavit, which alleges that leadership let her die because of PR FLAP. (8). 4. Concealing a secret meeting with Minton to add Miscavige. (11). 5. Lying about receipt of a UBS check dated May, 2000. (19). 6. Lying that Minton money is a loan to counsel rather than to estate . (24). 7. Lying that Minton has no control over this litigation. (27). 8. Concealing that Minton was told of mediation settlement offer (31). 9. Lying about the reason for Prince's withdrawal. (34). 10. Lying that Lisa wanted to quit Scientology. (36). 11. Lying about the disposition of Lisa's 1995 diary. (38). 12. Lying about the presence of Cockroach bites on the body of Lisa McPherson. (40). 13. Procuring the destruction or removal of LMT records. (40-44). B. Response to allegations of perjury. 1. Church leadership murdered Lisa McPherson. The Fifth Amended Complaint does not allege premeditated murder. 17 Manslaughter can be by intentional act or by 18 culpable negligence. Which we all know what that 19 is. If you don't, read the jury instructions and 20 you'll find it. 21 I think, as I read the complaint, that that is 22 the path that the plaintiff has alleged. And I 23 think Mr. Dandar confirmed that yesterday. The Court, May 3, 2002, at page 6 COSFSO is being sued for intentional medical neglect resulting in death. That is how simple this case is. The proof of intent is not based on any other evidence except that of the medical experts. The Estate's Scientology experts answer the question::"Why would this happen?" However, the answer to this question is not an essential element to the wrongful death cause of action. More proof of Miscavige's micro-management is his uninvited, unauthorized, and amazingly brazen appearance to this court's chambers on August 16, 2002, inviting the court to a tour of COSFSO's new Super Power Building in Clearwater and to answer any question which the court may have. While this court acted appropriately through the court's judicial assistant in immediately informing Miscavige that his offer could not be accepted per the judicial canons, this action by Miscavige as well as his letter to the State Attorney, Bernie McCabe, offering money to obtain dismissal of the criminal charges over the death of Lisa McPherson, clearly demonstrates his hands- on management of COSFSO. It must be assumed Miscavige's lawyers would have advised him not to contact this court as he did. Nevertheless, he proceeded to do so. This is an example of Scientology's "BY-PASS," where Miscavige by-passes his entire staff, legion of attorneys, and COSFSO corporate offices to take personal control of the situation at hand. (Plaintiff's Ex. 179, Danger Condition and By-Pass.) 17 20 THE COURT: I have to stop just for a second. 21 I kind of have to wonder why it is that all this 22 matters. You didn't get service over Mr. Miscavige. 23 He's not, therefore, a defendant in this case. And 24 so whether or not Mr. Miscavige directed something 25 to be done or whether he didn't direct something to 18 1 be done, or whether, if he did it, he did it through 2 RTC or through the Sea Org or whether he didn't, 3 what difference does it make? You don't have 4 Mr. Miscavige. 5 MR. DANDAR: I agree with you 100 percent. But 6 they made it part of their motion to dismiss the 7 case. 8 THE COURT: What? 9 MR. DANDAR: That I alleged that David 10 Miscavige was involved in what happened with Lisa 11 McPherson. He's not a party. That is why I don't 12 know why we're doing all this. 13 THE COURT: Well, I do, because in your 14 pleadings -- in your pleadings, paragraph whatever 15 it is, you allege that he ordered end cycle, he 16 ordered her dead. That is why it is here. 17 Quite frankly, what -- it wouldn't matter to me 18 if he ordered it or Alain Kartuzinski. That is the 19 issue, is it ordered as far as damages are 20 concerned. 21 I mean, quite frankly, the Church presumably 22 would be responsible for their agents and any 23 damages that were attributable to their agents. I 24 have not heard anybody say that Mr. Kartuzinski, 25 Ms. Johnson or Mr. Houghton were not agents of the 19 1 Church of Scientology. 2 So I mean, the person you sued and the person 3 who you have jurisdiction over is COSFSO. Now, if 4 COSFSO doesn't have any money, in case you get a 5 judgment, and that is why you are trying to bring 6 the Sea Org into it, save it for another day. During Shaw testimony, June 13, 2002. Like any other Scientology litigation, COSFSO, in following Scientology policy, turns a mustard seed into a California redwood. The allegations are indeed against the Church leadership, which this court has already stated enough evidence existed for counsel to allege this in good faith. 148 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you, your Honor. 12 A Technically, the senior CS FSO, Alain Kartuzinski, 13 would have been in charge of her. But he would have been 14 reporting up line. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q To who? 17 A To senior CS International, Ray Mithoff, probably 18 to the executive director of the FSO, Debbie Naughton, and 19 could be to the Department of Special Affairs. Hana Whitfield, July 16, 2002. Other Scientology experts have testified that David Miscavige is a micro-manager and would be involved with decision-making over Lisa McPherson. 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 . Robert Vaughn Young, at 158: 3 - that this person, who was PTS 4 III, in the introspection rundown, that this would 5 have been reported to the top; to Mr. Miscavige? 6 THE WITNESS: Without a doubt. 154 18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- in my opinion -- 19 I -- I know David -- up to '81. I know he's a 20 real earnest kind of guy. He's -- he's a real 21 micromanager type of guy. So he was probably 22 watching this all of the time. 191 3 A He would have been all over this like white on 4 rice. Bill Franks, June 13, 2002, at page 150: Even a public member, Peter Alexander, testified that Miscavige is not disinterested in other areas outside of the RTC, no matter how insignificant. Alexander, former Vice President of Universal Studios and a former "celebrity" in Scientology, who was involved with the design of the new Super Power building in Clearwater, testified that Miscavige even involved himself in architectural matters at COSFSO, such as the Super Power Building. Alexander at 85, June 7, 2002. MLO staff nurse, Judy Goldsberry Weber, testified that Miscavige would hold meetings at COSFSO questioning staff on daily operations and once brought people through the MLO on a tour. 7 Q. Where did you meet David Miscavage (sic)? 8 A. I had two occasions on which he came to the MLO 9 office, was showing people around. I have met him 10 on a dozen occasions. 11 I actually met him in what we call the Green 12 Room in the back of the auditorium. There was some 13 questions he wanted answered from an MLO hat and I 14 went back and had an interview on a one-on-one with 15 him. 16 Q. When was the time that he was showing people the 17 MLO office at COSFSO in Clearwater? 18 A. It was right after we opened. We had the area 19 renovated. It had been just two offices and we 20 renovated and put in the dentist office. And so 21 that would be the -- December of '94 is when we did 22 the renovations. Weber deposition at 146, March 27, 2000. Brian Haney, a former Ohio staff member and COSFSO public, testified as to his opinion on the involvement of Miscavige in the death of Lisa McPherson. 11 Q And that didn't make perfect sense to you, did it, 12 that -- that David Miscavige, as the complaint said, ordered 13 Lisa McPherson to die? That didn't make perfect sense to 14 you, did it? 15 A It only made sense to me in the context that 16 Teresa Summers, at that time, relayed to me an incident 17 where another person was actually ordered to drop their 18 body, which means die, in Scientology. And I was very 19 shocked by that. Haney at 183, June 19, 2002. Teresa Summers did testify about the matter of Kartuzinski processing an ill man at FLAG to drop his body, i.e., die. 34 1 Okay, so I believe there was a messenger who had 2 been being kept at the Ft. Harrison. And he was being 3 watched. And he couldn't take care of himself, and he was 4 being fed. 5 And it was explained to me that he was ill, had 6 some kind of -- I think they said muscle -- she said 7 muscle-wasting disease. And they needed to move him. 8 However, her policy -- you are really not supposed 9 to keep people around who are sick like this. You are not 10 there to take care of the ill. Basically, they are down 11 stats. And that is not what Flag is all about. They are 12 there to take the able people and make them more able. 13 So even the fact they were caring for him, they 14 weren't supposed to be doing that, but they needed to move 15 him because he was on -- whatever floor he was on needed 16 renovations. 35 23 A Okay. So, Mmm, so the solution was -- the way it 24 was explained to me by Mr. Englehart was Alain Kartuzinski 25 was going in and audit him 36 1 Q Alain Kartuzinski? 2 A Right. 3 THE COURT: Who told you this? 4 A The commanding officer, who was my immediate 5 senior. 6 THE COURT: Who was? 7 THE WITNESS: Laurie Englehart. ... 19 A Mmm, oh, so Alain was going to go in and audit him 20 to help him drop his body. And then he did. I mean, it 21 took about three days, I think, but three days later she 22 came back and said, okay, so it has been done and he's done. 23 And that was it, that is the last I heard. 24 Q So the renovations could go forward? 25 A Right, so the renovations could move forward. Summers, June 10, 2002. 2. Concealment of agreement to donate bulk of recovery to LMT. Prior to this hearing, Minton always testified under oath correctly that there was no agreement between him and the ESTATE to donate any portion of the money which may be received by the ESTATE in this case. In every one of his depositions, beginning with the first one in 1998, he denied any agreement to receive any money from this case, except what he loaned to counsel. At this hearing, he falsely testified that his December 2000 affidavit, stating there was no agreement, was false, yet it supports his prior deposition testimony of May 2000, as pointed out by the court at page 673 of Minton's hearing testimony. 65 14 A Well, he says, I've already had that idea but I haven't 15 discussed it with Dell Liebreich yet. 16 Q Has he since told you that he discussed it with 17 Ms. Liebreich? 18 A Yes. 19 Q What did he say? 20 A He said she agreed to do just that. 21 Q When did he tell you this? 22 A I think the 5th of December. 23 Q What cult awareness group was agreed on? 24 A No specific groups were discussed. The only one that 66 1 was discussed was one that Mr. Lottick is involved in... Minton first deposition of 1-19-98. 13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with 14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any 17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson? 18 A. No. Minton deposition of May 24, 2000 at 239. 158 18 Q Do you know of anyone else investing in the case? 19 MR. MERRETT: Objection. Assumes facts not 20 in evidence, argumentative. 21 THE COURT: Overruled. 22 MR. MERRETT: Do you know of anybody 23 investing? 24 A I don't know of anyone investing in the case, 25 including me. Minton deposition of 9-18-01. 269 10 Q. Exhibit 34, Mr. Minton, this is a posting 11 by Mr. Bunker, who is employed at the LMT, right? 12 A. He was at that time, that's correct. 13 Q. Right. And the time is April 6th, 2001? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. This posting? I want to direct your 16 attention to one portion of this posting. It's the 17 next to the last page of the document, and if you 18 look -- can I see the copy you're holding just to 19 make sure we are at the same place? Yeah. If you 20 look at the last paragraph on the page, starting 21 four lines up from the bottom of the page: 22 Additionally, Scientology is aware that the family 23 of Lisa McPherson has agreed to donate the bulk of 24 any funds they receive from this litigation to the 25 Lisa McPherson Trust, which Bob recently set up in 270 1 Clearwater. 2 Do you see that? 3 A. I do. 4 Q. And is that statement accurate? 5 A. It's not. 6 Q. Huh? 7 A. It's not. 8 Q. What is incorrect about it? 9 A. It's just completely incorrect. 10 Q. Is there anything that's right about it? 11 A. No. ... 18 Q. Did the family of Lisa McPherson agree to 19 donate the bulk of any funds? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do they agree to donate anything? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Had they ever agreed to do so? 24 A. No. Minton deposition of 10-11-01. On page 44 of COSFSO'S closing, it states that Minton admitted in his May 24, 2000, deposition that the Estate does have an agreement to donate a bulk of the proceeds to the LMT. COSFSO refers to pages 391-392 of the deposition. However, as is common with the defendants, and hopefully not with the Estate, the defendants do not "tell the rest of the story" of clarifying testimony. Here it is. At 219 of his May 2000 deposition, Minton is speaking of the one and only agreement, i.e., repayment of the money he loaned to Dandar as explained in Minton's 1998 deposition. 219 2 Q. Is the agreement that you just described 3 with Mr. Dandar in writing? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Is it memorialized in any fashion? 6 A. In the depositions that I've done before. 7 Q. It's memorialized in writing no other 8 place except where your words have been 9 transcribed? 10 A. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q. Why not? 12 A. It's not necessary. 13 Q. Is there any writing with any of Lisa 14 McPherson's relatives -- 15 A. No. 16 Q. -- with respect to this agreement? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Was there ever? 19 A. No. 223 1 Q. Have you talked to Dell Liebreich about 2 what would happen to the hoped for proceeds in this 3 case? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you had any discussion with her about 6 money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust? 7 A. No. 8 Q. It's never happened? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family 11 about money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust 12 arising out of the hoped for proceeds of this case? 13 A. No. No. 14 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family 15 about potential proceeds in this case going to a, 16 quote, anticult, end quote, organization? 17 A. No. 239 10 Q. Have you had any written communications 11 with any other family member I haven't mentioned? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with 14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any 17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson? 18 A. No. 18 Q. Now, January 31st, 2000, you appeared on a 19 talk show, 1270 AM, WXYT Detroit -- 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. -- where you said, and I quote: The 22 family who I have been supporting in the civil 23 lawsuit have agreed that when and if they prevail 24 against the Church of Scientology in this lawsuit, 25 they will donate a very substantial amount of the 392 1 proceeds of that lawsuit to this organization 2 called the Lisa McPherson Trust. 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Do you remember saying that? 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. So how much have you agreed with them that 7 they will donate to the Lisa McPherson Trust if 8 they prevail in this lawsuit? 9 A. I haven't had any direct discussions with 10 them about it. 11 Q. Where did you get this information, that 12 they were going to donate a substantial amount of 13 the proceeds of the lawsuit to the Lisa McPherson 14 Trust? 15 A. Mr. Dandar. 16 Q. When did he tell you that? 17 A. I don't remember. 18 Q. What did he tell you? 19 A. Just what it said. 20 Q. What did you understand the substantial 21 amount of the proceeds to be? 22 A. A substantial amount of money. 23 Q. What year did he tell you that? 24 A. '98 or '99. 25 Q. Well, actually, the Lisa McPherson Trust 393 1 didn't exist until November '99. 2 A. The Lisa McPherson Trust has nothing to do 3 with it. 4 Q. What do you mean? 5 A. Oh, that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that part, 6 yes. So that would have been '99. 7 Q. What do you mean the trust has nothing to 8 do with it? Was there a prior agreement -- 9 A. No. 10 Q. -- that money would be donated to 11 A. No. There was a discussion at one stage 12 that they would, and this was with Mr. Dandar over 13 lunch, which I think I testified to in January 14 '93 -- January '97 -- whenever the 15 MR. BOULT: That's outside the scope. 16 A. '98. Sorry. Okay. 17 MR. DANDAR: Objection; outside the 18 scope. 19 A. -- that they would support the anticult 20 community with a significant amount of money from 21 this lawsuit. 22 Q. All right. When did Mr. Dandar tell you 23 that the family is going to make a substantial 24 amount -- provide a substantial amount of the 25 proceeds to the Lisa McPherson Trust? 394 1 A. Sometime -- I don't remember whether it 2 was before or after it was formed. 3 Q. It may have been before? 4 A. It could have been. I mean, you know, 5 that sort of time frame. That would be roughly 6 summer through late fall. 7 Q. Was it around September of 1999 when he 8 told you that? 9 A. Excuse me? 10 Q. Was it around September of 1999 that 11 Mr. Dandar told you that a substantial amount of 12 the proceeds of this lawsuit would be donated to 13 the Lisa McPherson Trust? 14 A. That falls within the time range that I 15 think, you know, between summer and fall of '99, 16 late fall. 17 Q. Was it before or after you gave Mr. Dandar 18 the $250,000 payment? 19 A. Do you know when that was? 20 Q. Well, apparently it was on or about 21 September 2nd, 1999. 22 A. I don't recall that that particular thing 23 had anything to do with it, you know, time-wise. 24 Q. Was it before or after that? 25 A. I don't remember. 395 1 Q. What was the context when Mr. Dandar told 2 you that you were going to get this money back from 3 the family? 4 MR. MERRETT: I'll object; argumentative, 5 assumes facts not in evidence. 6 A. I've already testified to that prior, in 7 a prior deposition. 8 Q. No. I'm talking about the communication 9 you had with him about the Lisa McPherson Trust 10 since the prior deposition of the trust didn't 11 exist, right? 12 A. No, but you asked when I was going to get 13 the money back. 14 Q. Okay. So what was the context of the 15 communication you had with Mr. Dandar when you 16 talked to him about the family providing a 17 substantial amount of the proceeds in this case to 18 the Lisa McPherson Trust? 19 A. There was no particular context. It was 20 just, you know, the family was very supportive of 21 the idea of setting up this organization, you know, 22 something like that. I don't remember any 23 particular context. 24 Q. What did the family think this 25 organization was? 396 1 A. A Scientology watchdog group. 2 Q. Did they -- did you give them the 3 impression it was a nonprofit organization? 4 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object for 5 scope and relevance. 6 MR. BOULT: Overruled. 7 A. You know, I didn't give them any direct 8 impression. Whatever impression they got, 9 Mr. Dandar gave it to them. It was intended to be 10 nonprofit until such time as we determined that 11 there was too much transparency in a nonprofit and 12 the Church of Scientology would be snooping around 13 all the time, like you're doing here in this 14 deposition. 15 Q. Did you have a discussion with the family 16 about that? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So everybody understood it would be 19 nonprofit early on? 20 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object as 21 being -- I apologize. 22 Q. Let me give you the question again. 23 Generally, when y'all were talking about starting 24 this organization, it was understood it was going 25 to be nonprofit, correct? 397 1 MR. MERRETT: And I'll object as being 2 beyond the scope. It's going into the 3 internal affairs of the trust. 4 MR. DANDAR: Join in the objection. 5 MR. BOULT: Overruled. 6 A. We all talked as though it were going to 7 be nonprofit, that's pretty much accurate except -- 8 except I did say that, you know, we have to examine 9 the transparency issue with a nonprofit. 10 Q. Okay. Did you have any -- you had some 11 communications with Dell Liebreich and she was 12 supportive of -- 13 A. No, not on that subject. 14 MR. MERRETT: Let him finish the question. 15 Q. Well, let me finish the question. You 16 had some communications with Dell Liebreich and she 17 was supportive of the idea of setting up this 18 organization, right? 19 A. I didn't have any communications with Dell 20 Liebreich. 21 Q. Who did you have communications with in 22 the family you told me were supportive of setting 23 up -- 24 A. Mr. Dandar. He told me the family was 25 very supportive of the idea of setting up this 398 1 organization. 2 Q. Okay. Who in the family would that be? 3 A. I don't know who he talked with but I 4 assume Dell Liebreich. 5 Q. And you later worked out with Mr. Dandar 6 that this was going to be a for profit company, 7 correct? 8 A. Mr. Dandar had nothing to do with the 9 decision that it was going to be a for profit 10 corporation. In this testimony, Minton states there is no agreement for the bulk of anything. Then he is confronted with unsworn media interview. While he states that his interview statements are correct, he finally admits he has no agreement with the family or the Estate, and that all he knows is that the family thought it was a good "idea." Id.,at 395:19-23; 397:25. Even Minton admits that the idea was to support the "anti-cult community," not the LMT or Minton. 393:19-21. What Minton did was take the family's idea and turn it into his plan, which is exactly what his confidante, Brain Haney, testified to at this hearing. Haney at 88-91, June 19, 2002. The idea never turned into an agreement with Minton or the LMT. Minton talks of the same luncheon meeting he had with Dandar in 1997. All of this conforms to his deposition testimony of January 1998 and the beneficiaries testimony of December 1999, i.e., the family's idea to set up a foundation in the memory of Lisa McPherson, not with Minton or the LMT. It was an idea of the family and a noble one at that. Now after making his deal with Scientology, he claims he lied in all of his depositions with his own counsel present and that the ESTATE'S counsel suborned his perjury. No one supports Minton's new lie on this subject, not even Brooks. Her affidavit is insufficient under Section 92.525(4)(c), Florida Statutes, since it merely states "upon information and belief." Section 92.525(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1993) states that "[t]he requirement that a document be verified means that the document must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the document are true, or words of that import or effect." Further, section 92.525(2) authorizes verification solely on information and belief only where "permitted by law." See State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Padilla, 629 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (verification on information or belief permissible under section 322.2615(2), Florida Statutes (1991), where statute authorized affidavit stating "officer's grounds for belief" that person arrested had violated section 316.193), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 980 (Fla.1994). The term document includes pleadings. 92.525(4)(b) (1993). Muss v. Lennar Florida Partners I, L.P., 673 So.2d 84 (Fla 3th DCA 1996). However, in Brooks' hearing testimony, she cleared up this uncertainty and said she lied about there not being an agreement for the Estate to give the bulk of any recovery to the LMT. Brooks at 283-284, May 6, 2002. This means she perjured herself and never told her own attorney. Minton's own attorney, John Merrett, admits that Minton's Internet postings to give the bulk to the LMT or Minton were false, only intended to rile up Scientology. 25 9 A So far as I was able to discern, the statements 10 that he made in connection -- directly in connection with 11 the litigation in deposition and in testimony were truthful. 12 The public statements and Internet statements 13 were, to a substantial degree, calculated at needling 14 Scientology, sometimes, I had the impression, creating 15 disturbance or distraction for Scientology's Office of 16 Special Affairs and those folks. 17 BY MR. DANDAR: 18 Q So radio, newspapers, speeches out in public, 19 Internet postings, he said and did things to rile up 20 Scientology? 21 A Correct. 22 THE COURT: Some of which were not exactly 23 true? 24 THE WITNESS: According to my understanding at 25 the time, yes. May 23, 2002, John Merrett. John Merrett destroys both Minton's and Brooks' testimony on the allegation of an agreement to give any portion of a settlement/judgment proceeds to Minton or the LMT. THE COURT: 73 22 . . . Like I said -- I have said, there is no 21 agreement. But that is what we're calling the 22 secret agreement. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. 24 THE COURT: Now, what I recall is that 25 Ms. Brooks said she testified falsely about it in 74 1 her deposition. So I'm going to assume that she 2 said in her deposition it didn't exist because she 3 now says it did exist. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, by application of 5 reason, she would have had to have said it didn't 6 exist because my understanding was that it didn't 7 exist. 8 THE COURT: So it didn't exist. So your 9 understanding was it didn't exist? 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. John Merrett, May 23, 2002. Contrary to Minton's and Brooks' testimony, John Merrett testified that he prepared affidavits for Minton and Brooks to sign denying such an agreement existed. (Merrett, page 31-36, May 23, 2002.) Either Minton and Brooks lied to their own attorney or they are lying now. The latter is the truth. Other witnesses also confirmed that Minton is lying. Brian Haney, once a trial consultant to the Plaintiff, once a member of the LMT, once a confidant of Minton, testified: 6 Q At that dinner did you hear Dell Liebreich tell 7 Bob Minton that she wanted to give him or his 8 organization -- which the trust was already formed at that 9 time -- any bulk or substantial amount of the money if 10 recovered in this case? 11 A No. What happened was I suggested to you that Bob 12 Minton do something like that. But she didn't say anything 13 like that at all. 14 Q When did you suggest that to me? 15 A Right there at the dinner. 16 Q Was that in front of Bob Minton? 17 A No. 18 Q That was just a private conversation between you 19 and I? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So you predicted Bob Minton would do what? 22 A Would claim that money belonged to him. That in 23 return for funding the wrongful death case, that he or the 24 trust would be entitled to that money. 25 Q Why did you predict that? I mean, what made you 90 1 even think that? 2 A I had some experience with Mr. Minton and his 3 behavior by that time. 4 Q In what way? 5 A He's what I called assumptive and presumptive. He 6 would -- you know, he would take over a situation and 7 commandeer it and think that it was his right to just be in 8 charge or take over things that I don't think were within 9 his -- you know, his domain. 10 Q Did you ever hear, later on, Bob Minton claim that 11 he had some agreement with me or the estate to get the bulk 12 or substantial amount of any recovery in this case? 13 A I read a thing on the Internet where he said it in 14 a radio program, that -- that -- first he said that the 15 money was supposed to go to an anti-cult organization. 16 And then at some point later he said it was 17 supposed to go to the LMT. And that is when I called you 18 and I said, "See," so, yes -- "it happened." 19 Q And what -- did I respond to when you called and 20 said, "See, it happened"? 21 MR. WEINBERG: Now Mr. Dandar is asking for 22 Mr. Haney to apparently parrot self-serving 23 statements that Mr. Dandar made which is hearsay. 24 THE COURT: Sustained. 25 MR. DANDAR: All right. 91 1 BY MR. DANDAR: 2 Q Did you ever talk to Bob Minton about that -- 3 A Yes. 4 Q -- Internet posting? 5 A Yes. About that situation, yes. 6 Q What did he say? 7 MR. WEINBERG: Could we date this conversation, 8 please? 9 MR. DANDAR: We will. 10 A He kind of -- he -- 11 THE COURT: Well, do it now. 12 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 13 BY MR. DANDAR: 14 Q When did you talk to Bob Minton about his 15 postings? 16 THE COURT: Approximately, if you can give us 17 an approximate year, month. 18 THE WITNESS: End of January of 2000. 19 THE COURT: This would have been after he had 20 been on the radio proclaiming that he had the deal? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q What did he say? 24 A He kind of laughed and he said, "I guess I got a 25 little carried away, huh?" Then he had a big smile. 92 1 Q What impression were you left with after that 2 conversation? 3 A That he had done what I thought he would do. 4 Just, you know, take it over. Because he just figured no 5 one would oppose him. He figured he had the power to get 6 what he wanted because you were dependent upon him to 7 finance the case. Most of the other people were dependent 8 upon him for their livelihood. The same way he got them to 9 picket. It is all the same thing. 10 Q Did he ever tell you that rather than just being 11 carried away, did he ever tell you that he actually had an 12 agreement with the estate or with me for the estate to give 13 him any recovery out of the wrongful death case? 14 A No. And, in fact, I called you and asked you, and 15 I called Dell and asked her after that, you know. 16 And you both confirmed it wasn't true. I just 17 wanted to make sure that there wasn't something going on I 18 didn't know about. Brian Haney hearing testimony of June 19-2002. Teresa Summers, a former executive of the LMT, also confirmed that there was no agreement. 4 Q Okay. Did you ever hear anyone at the Lisa 5 McPherson Trust talk about there being some type of 6 agreement between the estate and the trust or Minton to pay 7 the bulk of the proceeds from the settlement or judgment in 8 the Lisa McPherson case to Mr. Minton or the LMT? 9 A Well, I spoke with Stacy about that because I -- 10 the allegations were being made, I believe in depositions, 11 that that was the case. And, Mmm, and I did ask Stacy. 12 And she said, "No, you know, certainly that is not 13 true. It is just what the Church is trying to drum up to 14 create problems." 15 Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton talk about that? 16 A I'm sure I did. And he said the same thing, you 17 know, you know, "There is no agreement. It's -- you know, 18 it's just them drumming up stuff." Summers hearing testimony of June 6, 2002, at 99. COSFSO's own witness, Michael Garko, Ph.D., Plaintiff's jury/trial consultant, who met in secret with Minton and Brooks following the April 9, 2002 hearing, who also secretly met with Mr Weinberg the day before he testified, and who later resigned as the Estate's trial consultant after testifying in this court, also denied such an agreement existed. 2 Q Dr. Garko, are you aware of any agreement between 3 me or the estate and Mr. Minton or LMT or Stacy Brooks or 4 anybody where the bulk of the proceeds, if that ever comes 5 about in this case, would ever be given to them? 6 A I'm not aware of any such agreement. 7 Q How about just a little bit? 8 A No. Garko at page 100 on June 11, 2002. The only agreement concerning the settlement/judgment proceeds is one which exists among the aunts and uncle of Lisa McPherson. No third party, such as Minton, Brooks, or the LMT, is part of this family goal, which is to set up a non profit foundation to help those abused by cults, such as Scientology. This is what Lisa's mother, Fannie McPherson, wanted. 187 10 Q. Now have you or your family agreed to donate 11 the bulk of any recovery to cult awareness 12 groups? 13 A. We've discussed it, yes. 14 Q. Who -- 15 A. Fannie wanted us to if there was anything. 16 Q. Who has discussed it? 17 A. My family. 18 Q. Well, who in your family? 19 A. Ann and Fan -- Lee and Sam. 20 Q. Is there a written agreement as to that? 21 A. No written agreement. 22 Q. Well, how much -- how much have you-all 23 decided to donate to cult awareness groups? 24 A. It is a substantial amount. 25 Q. Well, how much? 188 1 A. We have no set amount. 2 Q. Have you reached some understanding with 3 your beneficiaries? 4 A. We have agreed that that is what Fannie 5 would have wanted, and that is what we want 6 to do. 7 Q. How do you know that that is what Fannie 8 would have wanted? 9 A. Because she stated that she wanted -- 10 Q. Stated to whom? 11 A. To us. 12 Q. When? 13 A. Before she died. 14 Q. When did you and the other -- and your other 15 siblings reach this agreement? 16 A. When did we reach the agreement? 17 Q. Yeah. To -- 18 A. I don't remember when it was. 19 Q. -- distribute a substantial portion of any 20 recovery to a cult awareness group. 21 A. Oh, a few months ago or whatever. I don't 22 remember the date. We have nothing written. Dell Liebreich deposition, May 24, 1999. This court correctly held that there is nothing illegal about the Estate wanting to give any portion of any recovery to any person or group. There is no reason for anyone to lie about this. Unless of course, one is like Minton, who makes things up to rile up Scientology. Only a group, such as Scientology, who does not want victims of cult abuse helped, would make such an honorable goal appear unseemly. Many times throughout the testimony of Minton, this court stated to Minton that there is no evidence of an agreement. Minton and Brooks stand alone in this lie. 3. Allegation that Jesse Prince August 99 affidavit is false. First, notice that Scientology does not attack the statements of fact in Prince's affidavit. It only attacks his opinion. How can an expert have a false opinion? Weinberg attacks Prince by calling him a janitor, yet the evidence shows Prince was the auditor of David Miscavige and the Case Supervisor for the few but celebrated Hollywood members of Scientology. Prince's opinion is that Miscavige and two other executives knew of Lisa's medical condition and did nothing about it because of concern of a PR Flap. The opinion is based on Prince's experience in RTC and his knowledge of Scientology policy. This is also confirmed by Bill Franks, Robert Young, and Hana Whitfield. Why does Prince conclude management did nothing in the face of an extremis medical condition? 339 9 So instead of taking this girl to the hospital 10 where she should have belonged, where their own policy says 11 to do, and get her medical treatment, when it was obvious, 12 by the reports that I have seen that she was ill, instead of 13 doing that, no, we're going to keep doing Scientology 14 because that is what it means by Keeping Scientology Working 15 and, you know, what happens happens. Some of them don't 16 make it. Too bad. 17 But the biggest fear for Scientology was to let 18 this girl go, in the state of mind where she was refusing to 19 cooperate with them, caused them more problems than her 20 actual death. 353 20 A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these 21 issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black 22 writing, called staff writing; the only -- this is the way I 23 opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated 24 this way is because she was a threat to Scientology. 25 And Scientology has a principle called the 354 1 greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The 2 dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron 3 Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it 4 was. 5 In Scientology, the overriding principle is to 6 protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to 7 go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what 8 Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them, 9 possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement 10 because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not 11 anything anyone wanted to deal with. Prince July 8, 2002. Why is a PR FLAP at the Ft. Harrison Hotel so important? 10 Q Now, have you been inside the Ft. Harrison Hotel? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is the Ft. Harrison Hotel, within your experience, 13 20 years, someplace that a member who is psychotic would 14 stay? 15 A No. 16 Q Now, you already talked about the Flag having an 17 order? 18 A Right. That is right. 19 Q But are there other reasons why a psychotic 20 wouldn't be inside the hotel? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Why? 23 A Because the Flag -- Ft. Harrison is for public. 24 Usually the wealthiest Scientology public are there getting 25 their services. And they are running around and milling 32 1 about, and you just wouldn't risk -- you would not risk 2 having someone who is crazy get in touch with -- with, you 3 know, these people. You just wouldn't do that. 4 Q People like John Travolta and Tom Cruise stay 5 there? 6 A I have seen John Travolta there. Tom Cruise may 7 not have stayed there. I don't know personally. 8 Q John Travolta? 9 A Yes, John Travolta. I saw Ann Archer there. But 10 not just wealthy stars. Very wealthy people from all over 11 the world. The wealthiest people from Scientology come 12 there. 13 Q The Super Power project in Clearwater for the 14 Church of Scientology, have you heard of that? 15 A Sure. 16 Q Is that that big building they are building on Ft. 17 Harrison? 18 A Right. 19 Q Right across from the hotel? 20 A Yes. Summers, June 10, 2002, former Commanding Office at FLAG. Jesse Prince concurs and offers this further explanation. 359 1 this person has just attested to being almost 2 superhuman. This person has been in the community 3 here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations, 4 on behalf of the COSFSO Service Organization, setting 5 up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT 6 committee whose responsibility is to interface 7 Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a 8 low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person. 340 8 Q At RTC, who were the meetings with that you had? 9 A Flaps and handling? They would entail myself, 10 Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yaeger, David Miscavige, Lymon Sperlock, 11 Norman Starkey (phonetic), in some instances the executive 12 director in the national if it had to do with stats. But 13 those were the people that ultimately had to know what was 14 going on. 15 Now, why is COSFSO Service Organization so 16 important? Because the COSFSO Service Organization, when I 17 left here in 1982, made an income of over 2 million a week. 18 So you have an organization here that makes $8 million in a 19 month. This is -- it is the highest income-producing 20 organization within Scientology. 21 It's a major concern that everything is perfect at 22 the COSFSO Service Organization. There is not going to be an 23 instance where no one knows what is going on. So in the 24 staff meetings you talk about flaps and handling. 25 Well, Lisa is a flap. It's reported up the lines 341 1 OSA is there from the very beginning because she is a legal 2 threat because it is a flap. And they are busy reporting, 3 you know, on the legal side of it and what is going on and 4 the repercussions. 5 They are also coordinating and in liaison with the 6 technical area that has the technical program that they are 7 trying to get her through, which in their minds is going to 8 cure her. 9 Everyone knows -- I believe there is also 10 testimony on the -- during the time period that Lisa was 11 going through this trouble, Mr. Miscavige was there. We 12 would often go to the COSFSO Service Organization, to inspect 13 it, to make sure it is running properly, to make sure this 14 technology is being applied 100 percent standard. Prince at 340, July 8, 2002. This allegation of perjury incorporates the first allegation above plus the remaining allegations that Lisa died because her death would be less of a PR FLAP than taking her back to the Morton Plant Hospital. Jesse Prince is the only Estate witness who worked closely with Miscavige at RTC. Prince testified that there was a delay in doing anything for Lisa because to take her back in her deteriorated physical condition to the Morton Plant Hospital would be a huge PR FLAP. Hana Whitfield concurs that a PR Flap would be a matter of great concern. 154 16 Q And are you familiar with the term "PR flap" in 17 Scientology? 18 A Yes. Public relations flap. 19 Q Would Lisa McPherson, in November of 1995, be 20 considered a PR flap? 21 A I would think so. 22 MR. MOXON: Objection to the form. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 A I would think so, definitely. 129 9 THE COURT: I mean, short something Mr. Prince 10 said, which some orders came down from Mr. Miscavige 11 that said murder her, let her die. Frankly, there 12 is no evidence of that. 13 THE WITNESS: There is no evidence of that. 14 THE COURT: There just is not. 15 THE WITNESS: No, and I won't expect there to 16 be that kind of evidence in a preclear folder. And 17 that is the kind of -- Mmm, I wouldn't -- I won't 18 necessarily go that far. I don't personally know 19 Mr. Miscavige. But I do know Mr. Hubbard's -- some 20 of the policies he wrote that went a little 21 overboard. 22 And -- and I know of one instance -- and this 23 goes back a bit into the '70s, I think -- when a 24 Scientologist was dying of cervical cancer in Los 25 Angeles. Her name was Sally Chaleff, C-H-A-L-E-F-F. 130 1 And she had had no medical care so the cervical 2 cancer wasn't caught in time. And -- Mmm -- she was 3 doing very badly. And when visited, she said, 4 "Well, I'm -- I'm just here to die now. That is 5 what I have been told. I'm just here to die." 6 Now, that is the only time I know or have heard 7 that statement. 8 THE COURT: In Scientology? 9 THE WITNESS: In Scientology. I have never 10 seen anything like that in print or in a policy 11 letter. 133 3 In a case such as Lisa's -- in the case of 4 auditing, Mr. Hubbard's belief as reflected in his 5 bulletins, his technical bulletins, was that if I'm 6 suffering with arthritis or whatever and I go and 7 get auditing, I'll get better because the auditing 8 addresses, in my mind, my own impurities, 9 negativities and so forth. But I have created -- it 10 allows me to look at those, remove those and 11 therefore I get better. 12 So everything that happens to one is one's own 13 fault. 14 In the case of Lisa, if she got into the 15 condition that she was of such unsound mind that she 16 couldn't even get an auditing session, it was her 17 own fault. That would be the predominating belief. 18 That was her own fault that she was in that 19 condition. 20 When I got into trouble with Scientology when I 21 was leaving and I left on my own, I was declared a 22 suppressive person; it was my own fault, it was my 23 overts, my misdeeds. It is always the person's 24 fault. 25 So in the case of Lisa, again my surmise, when 134 1 she didn't rapidly get through 00 and 000, she was 2 doing herself in, which is a common expression in 3 Scientology, auditors use it, case supervisors use 4 it; "Oh, this person is just doing himself in, it's 5 his own fault that he's going through all these 6 problems." 7 So even though the lower-level workers -- the 8 watchers who weren't necessarily that trained and 9 aware that heavily of it's always your fault, they 10 were there, they were honestly trying to look after 11 Lisa. That is my belief. They were in there 12 pitching. But higher up the ranks, middle, top 13 management, the opinion may have come about that 14 there is nothing more we can do, there is nothing we 15 can do for this girl. 138 9 THE COURT: -- they would have believed this 10 process would have worked. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, unless it got to a point, 12 your Honor, where Lisa just wasn't getting better, 13 she was deteriorating day by day slowly. And in 14 that case, they would have seen the decline and they 15 may have changed their mind on the fact the 16 introspection rundown is going to work, keep at it. 139 9 I'm just wondering whether 8 or not it is not there, Mr. Kartuzinski lost it, it 9 got lost in the shuffle, what could we have expected 10 to see on this sheet that would be so bad that 11 somebody in the alternative said, "Oh, this is too 12 bad, we're just going to take it out and shred it"? 13 Can you think of anything? 14 THE WITNESS: The only thing I can think of is 15 Mr. Kartuzinski may have ordered she be allowed to 16 die. 17 THE COURT: But you have no evidence of that? 18 THE WITNESS: No, absolutely nothing. And that 19 is just stuff I have heard. But I have no evidence 20 of it at all. 21 THE COURT: You never -- in your time in 22 Scientology, you don't know of any case supervisor 23 ever ordering that. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, no. 25 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, I would expect 140 1 he would be more -- less than a janitor, if he had, 2 that should not be something he would order, should 3 he? 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 THE COURT: He had to check that with somebody, 6 I would hope. 7 THE WITNESS: He would be in police custody, 8 I'm sure. I don't know, your Honor. I don't know 9 why those reports are not there. My only surmise on 10 it was that Lisa was worsening day by day, and the 11 watch reports that were allowed to remain in her 12 preclear folder were those that, even though they 13 were damaging about how Lisa was doing and not 14 responding and so on, at least some had to be there 15 to show what happened to her, so those were left. 16 But other reports were removed because they showed 17 that -- that the senior superiors were aware of her 18 decline and weren't doing anything adequate to get 19 her to medical health or medical care or what have 20 you. Whitfield, July 16, 2002. Hana Whitfield was Registered Nurse, a Class 9 Auditor, worked as Captain of the ship under Hubbard, and she was Commander Right Arm in the SEA ORG. Her rank was only two ranks down from Hubbard. At 172-173. She never took money from Minton and was never associated with the LMT. 19 A So, you know, from the limited time that I was 20 there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know 21 that, you know, there wasn't much about the COSFSO Service 22 Organization that I didn't know about and also had 23 responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran 24 smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly 25 the -- ultimately was Mr. Miscavige. 343 3 A And I am saying here today -- and the reason I 4 came to that conclusion -- is by their own written policies 5 that they have written here, you start to see violations. 6 And the reason why is because there was a problem. There 7 was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them. 8 When I did the introspection rundown on the other 9 girl, she was cooperating. She wasn't trying to leave. She 10 was going along with it. She never mentioned that she 11 wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big 12 difference. 13 So now you have a person that wants to leave, has 14 publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to 15 their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no. 16 Q How did you -- 17 A Again, there is reference where a person wants to 18 leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her. 19 She's locked in a room. She's terrified. Instead of taking 20 her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get 21 treatment because of her state of mind and because of the 22 way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue 23 the process, and either it works or it doesn't. 344 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q So I'm assuming I'm accurate in my recollection of 18 what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her 19 deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the 20 estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out 21 of but she would go back into, five days -- the last five 22 days of her life. And in reading -- in what you know and 23 reading what you just told us you read, why is it your 24 opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than 25 take her to the hospital? 345 1 A Because she was not settled with her relationship 2 with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous 3 problems for them. If they would have taken her -- you 4 know, even during the period of time when she was going in 5 and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now, 6 she starts getting treatment, she's getting better, you 7 know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors, 8 "No, I don't want to see them anymore, I have to get away 9 from this." 10 Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is 11 you -- you put together an affidavit that is dated August of 12 1999. Do you recall that? 13 A Yes, I do. 14 Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige 15 and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in 16 RTC. Do you remember that? 17 A Yes. I do. 18 Q And in that affidavit you have come to the 19 conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around 20 and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson? 21 A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better, 22 she gets better. 23 Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit? 24 A Not at all. This affidavit came about because -- 25 from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months 346 1 studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I 2 came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based 3 on the experience I have within that organization. 4 And the thing that -- that became alarming to me 5 to even point me in this direction is the amount of 6 information that is missing, the amount of things that -- 7 that isn't there that would clearly show like what her state 8 of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is 9 missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is 10 hidden. Why is something hidden? 11 In my mind, similar to what happened in 12 Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be 13 harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the 14 survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind 15 of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives. Prince July 8, 2002. Under subpoena, another expert, Bill Franks, who never was associated with Minton or the LMT, also testified that there would have been a delay, i.e., do nothing, due to Lisa being a PR FLAP, resulting in Lisa falling in between the cracks. That is also intentional medical neglect. 2 Then you have the technology over here, and you 3 have this conflict. And there are all of these 4 different issues, like, is she paid; is she not 5 paid; is this going to be a PR flap; is it not going 6 to be a PR flap? And Lisa McPherson's well-being 7 fell through the cracks, because of this -- this 8 internal tension. 9 It's a mystery to me why -- I mean, their own 10 policy says, "Offload her. We can't deal with 11 this. Franks at 140, June 13, 2002. 189 19 A Mmm, that a condition of danger had been probably 20 applied -- had been applied here. They were bypassing. All 21 of the decisions had to be made up at Int, wherever Int is. 22 And the people locally who were down in the trenches 23 watching Lisa were probably very upset. But they had no 24 power to make a decision. 25 Why? Because the element of this being a PR flap 290 1 became senior -- a -- of senior concern to any other 2 concerns. Unfortunately, including her health. ... 191 12 Q Per your understanding of Scientology, can you 13 explain why, however, Lisa McPherson would not have been 14 taken back to the Morton Plant Hospital? 15 A Well, I saw the pictures of the body. I mean, the 16 ER doctor had released Lisa to Mrs. Webber. Mrs. Webber was 17 taken off the case. 18 To me, that says the condition of danger had been 19 applied. They didn't want -- and the fact that an OSA 20 representative was there means that -- can you hear me 21 means that this was a PR flap or a potential PR flap. And 22 that took precedence. 23 Q Yes. But why not just take her to Morton Plant 24 Hospital? 25 A Well, I'm assuming -- I mean, look at Lisa 192 1 McPherson. She looked terrible. She certainly looked a lot 2 worse than when they took her the 18th of November. 3 Q Well -- 4 A My -- my -- my opinion on this is that as she 5 deteriorated -- in other words, there was no doubt -- we 6 know there was people writing up, hey, this is getting 7 worse, not better. But, Mmm, in a condition of danger, I 8 mean, who is going to go to Int and stick their neck out 9 saying "We better do something"? There is nobody here in 10 Clearwater who can be responsible for taking her to the 11 hospital. And this is a PR flap, foremost. 12 Lisa's individual situation is of less importance 13 now. The PR flap is the primary thing we have to prevent. 203 21 MR. DANDAR: Well, let her die is deciding not 22 to intervene, let her go, not do anything in 23 somebody who obviously needs medical help right 24 away. 25 THE COURT: Okay. You add that caveat to it. 204 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, that I -- that I can see 2 happening. I see that, let's see what happens while 3 we decide what we're going to do about this PR flap. 4 BY MR. DANDAR: 5 Q And so decide not to do anything while we decide 6 what to do? 7 A Right. 8 THE COURT: That you can see happening, as 9 opposed to the other scenario being a decision is 10 made, let her lay there in the bed and die and then 11 we'll deal with it? 12 THE WITNESS: Right. 13 THE COURT: You do not think that would have 14 happened? 15 THE WITNESS: I do not. Bill Franks, June 13, 2002. Robert Vaughn Young also filed an affidavit dated October 1999 in support of the Estate's Motion to add David Miscavige. In this affidavit, he states he reviewed the August 1999 affidavit of Jesse Prince concerning Miscavige's role and power in Scientology. He also concludes that Lisa McPherson died to prevent what Scientology perceived as a "PR Flap." This affidavit was signed by Mr. Young almost two years after his wife left him for Robert Minton. Therefore he certainly is not testifying for Minton's agenda. Mr. Young re-confirmed this testimony and opinion at the hearing. While not preventing a death in order to diminish a PR Flap may seem incredible to those outside Scientology, only a person with inside information and experience on the thinking of the Scientology organization, hierarchy and staff can fully explain it. It is not conjecture, it is based on settled policy written by LRH where no deviation is permitted. The basic concept, as explained by every former Scientologist, is the "greatest good for the greatest number," combined with an ever- pressing demand to keep stats up. As Nancy Many explained, there is a certain "moral dilemma" when this code of Scientology confronts the real world, such as telling the truth. Others can readily understand the application of this code/policy to explain why Scientology would either not permit or otherwise take no intervening action for someone to be taken to a hospital if it would show: the failure of the "tech" of Scientology, at its "mecca" of perfect application of the "tech," COSFSO, in the first Scientology city, Clearwater, Lisa McPherson is a public member, Lisa had attested to "Clear," Lisa took her clothes off in public, and Lisa had received services at COSFSO from the Senior Case Supervisor, Kartuzinsk This is indeed a huge PR FLAP for all of Scientology. Lisa's mental condition had become revealed to the world outside Scientology and this fact caused a crucial shift in dynamics as to how the problem could be handled internally. The Estate also called Nancy Many, who spent 10 years as a SEA ORG member, recruited by Bill Franks, and thereafter 10 years as a public, all the while working as a volunteer for Department 20. This department was first called the Guardian's Office, then the Office of Special Affairs. She testified that after she was questioned by her senior at OSA/INT on her intercepted e- mail to a declared former Scientologist, she received 10 days of unusual screaming auditing in January 1996. She then had a psychotic break and called OSA/INT. 13 A It was not like any kind of auditing I had ever 14 had before. It was invasive. It was -- I mean, there were 15 times when the auditor was standing, screaming at me. And 16 it went on for day after day after day, for hours and hours 17 at a time. 18 And emotionally I was just getting worse. And I 19 knew after day one, after day one, I knew that this was not 20 meant to help me and that it wasn't helping me. But 21 because in Scientology, if I didn't go back in, they would 22 have put me back on that list. I would have lost my job, 23 my association with them Nancy Many at 74 Not getting any help, Nancy Many was finally taken to a hospital in restraints. OSA arrived at the hospital, she was released, and there was an informal "Baby Watch" in her home for two days. It was not an Introspection Rundown. She continued to get worse, while taking Chloral Hydrate prescribed by Dr. Megan Shields, MD.., a Scientologist, and Cal Mag , Vitamin B and other herbs, some of the same medications given to Lisa. Nancy Many worsened the longer she took these items. So did Lisa. Although Many called OSA for help, none came, except someone to have her sign releases of legal liability for Scientology. She expected a Scientology program, but none was offered. Mrs. Many felt abandoned by Scientology, the same abandonment the evidence shows Lisa suffered as she either "fell through the cracks" or lay in a coma while Miscavige and INT management concerned themselves with her PR Flap. This is intentional medical neglect. In this case, we have two sworn statements of Kartuzinski and one of Janice Johnson given in the criminal investigation denying that Lisa was involved in any religious service. Then during civil discovery depositions, they say she was in the Introspection Rundown, yet the required program Kartuzinski claims to have written for this rundown is missing without explanation. Kartuzinski deposition at 117-118. See also Hana Whitfield, page 114, July 16, 2202. Not only is there no required program, which Kartuzinski insists he wrote, but there is also no required routing form. Missing records and the complete failure to follow policy does not occur at COSFSO. In reference to Lisa McPherson's missing records and reports, the corporate representative, Ben Shaw, only had this to say: 7 16 Q Are you aware of any paper being removed from Lisa 17 McPherson's PC folders? 18 A Well, I have to answer like this because I was not 19 aware of basically anything about this case until December 20 of 1996. I was -- I came to Clearwater then and I 21 essentially started to assume my functions. So everything I 22 learned has been throughout the process of investigating 23 this case, because this is, as you probably know, one of the 24 main things I have been doing for quite a period of time. 25 I do know from the deposition of Lacey Spencer, 8 1 who was the assistant for Alain, that there was a period of 2 time when she was getting -- collecting reports from those 3 people who were helping care for Lisa, that she kept them in 4 a separate file, and she testified that there were some of 5 them that she shredded, not knowing that anyone wanted to 6 keep them. I don't know what dates there were. I believe 7 there were some from the beginning part of her stay at Ft. 8 Harrison. But, again, she wasn't specific and couldn't 9 recall specifically. 10 Aside from that, I don't know of anything. Shaw, June 13, 2002. 114 3 A Additionally, there were no -- excuse me -- there 4 were no entries on Lisa's folder summary that an 5 introspection rundown had been done in November or December, 6 or attempted. 7 And there was also no entries on her folder error 8 summary that such had been done or attempted. 9 Q And that is required? 10 A Absolutely. If they're done or attempted, yes, 11 that is required. So that is why I presumed they were in 12 another folder which you hadn't been given. 22 Q Are you familiar with routing forms? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Was a routing form required for a rundown? 25 A When a preclear stops a rundown, yes. 115 1 Q What does that routing form do -- what is the 2 function of the routing form for a rundown? 3 A The routing form routes the person through a 4 number of people to ensure that the service is paid for, 5 that the person has ethics clearance, that everything is in 6 order. So -- and then to the guidance center to get 7 auditing. So there are points on the routing form to check 8 off by each of these people. 9 Q And do you recall seeing a routing form for the 10 introspection rundown or anything happening at the hotel in 11 November, December of '95? 12 A No, there wasn't anything. 13 THE COURT: Should there have been? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, there should have been, your 15 Honor. If such had been attempted. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Okay. Was there any evidence at all that there 18 was an attempt at an introspection rundown in November and 19 December of '95? 20 A Not that I could find in her preclear folders or 21 in any other notes that I saw. Hana Whitfield, July 16, 2002. Just as Nancy Many was "baby watched" after having a psychotic episode with no Introspection Rundown, so too Lisa may have been "baby watched" without this rundown. This would account for the absence of the program and Weinberg writing to the police stating no religious service was involved, Lisa was just a hotel guest. 4. Concealing a secret meeting with Minton to add Miscavige. COSFSO alleges on 30-31 of its Closing that Miscavige should not have been added since there was an agreement not to add him. However, the court ruled he was not covered by that agreement in his individual capacity. Therefore, there is absolute litigation privilege since counsel and the Estate acted only pursuant to court order. Palmer v. Shelby Plaza Motel, Inc. 443 So.2d 285 (Fla 2nd DCA 1983). Was there a secret meeting to discuss whether or not to add on Miscavige as a defendant in the death case? Minton was never at any such meeting, whether it occurred in July or August 1999, as he testified at the hearing on April 19,2002, or whether it occurred in late fall of 1999, as he testified in the latter part of May 2002. No one supports this allegation except Minton and Brooks. Both state that Dandar, Garko, and Prince were at this meeting. But Dandar, Haney, Garko, and Prince testified that the meeting never took place. Dr. Garko, (after secretly meeting with lead counsel for COSFSO the day before he testified), is adamant that no meeting took place as described by Minton and Brooks. Brian Haney, then a consultant to the Estate, also testified that Minton was not at any meeting to discuss adding on Miscavige. Haney at 180-183, June 19, 2002. Haney had attended 4-5 meetings in the new offices of Plaintiff's counsel. Minton, Brooks, and the Defendants also misrepresent the purpose of Minton's trip to Florida in October 1999: picketing, not some "secret meeting." This picketing is when Minton was set up by Mr. Howd of OSA, and "bull-baited" into striking Howd. Minton was arrested and the Estate's counsel was called by Minton to bail him out, since Minton had no attorney in Pinellas County. It should be noted that Minton first testified that this "secret meeting" took place in July or August of 1999, before he was briefed that Dandar's office at that time had no elevator! Arguendo, even if a meeting with Minton took place in October 1999, which Dandar, Haney, Garko, and Prince deny, there certainly was no need to keep it secret. Counsel moved into those offices on November 1, 1999. This was the office with an elevator, so Minton's testimony before Judge Baird of being in this office in July or August 1999 is simply not true. On page 29 of its Closing, COSFSO refers to Prince's July 9, 2002 testimony at 575-576, where Prince relays his speaking to Minton and Brooks about adding Miscavige. However, COSFSO fails to point out the rest of the testimony from 576:17 to 579:16. 576 5 THE WITNESS: You know, later, when we 6 discussed it, when, you know, Stacy -- we went to 7 the office. And Stacy says, "Well, I think, we're 8 going to do this," and he's, like, "Yeah, okay. So 9 what?" Because Mr. Minton always -- you know, he 10 was concerned about what he was doing. Mr. Minton 11 wasn't concerned with what Mr. Dandar was doing 12 or -- or what Mr. Prince was doing or Mr. Brooks 13 (sic). He had his own agenda. When he came down 14 to -- here in Florida, he would be more concerned 15 about what he was doing. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q Well, was there a meeting with Mr. Minton? 18 A No. 19 Q Well, what are you talking about when you said 20 Minton -- Mr. Minton didn't care? 21 A I recall Stacy Brooks and myself having a 22 conversation with Mr. Minton, mentioning the fact that we 23 were doing this. 24 Q Oh, okay. Was I there, or Dr. Garko? 25 A No. 577 1 Q All right. 2 A No. And he's like, "Okay. Where do you guys want 3 to eat," type of thing. You know, he just didn't care. 4 "Okay." You know, that's -- "Ken --" "Whatever." 5 Q Did Mr. Minton ever tell you he had an agenda? 6 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, could we 7 date that meeting? 8 MR. DANDAR: Yeah. Let's date the meeting. 9 MR. WEINBERG: And where it was? 10 MR. DANDAR: Yeah. 11 THE WITNESS: When Stacy and I discussed it, I 12 think it was probably -- some -- maybe a week or 13 sometime prior to the fifth amended complaint 14 actually being filed -- 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Well -- 17 A -- we discussed it. 18 Q -- there were several times that the fifth amended 19 complaint -- 20 MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor -- 21 A Well, okay. To answer the question, no, I don't 22 know when it was. I just know -- 23 THE COURT: No. I think -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: My objection was Mr. Dandar 25 prompting him. 578 1 THE COURT: No, he wasn't prompting him. 2 There were several fifth amended complaints. I 3 would like to know. 4 Was it the fifth amended complaint where 5 Mashburn (sic) and -- Rathbun all those other 6 people were added or was it the fifth amended 7 complaint that's now the complaint? 8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor -- I don't -- 9 THE COURT: Or do you know? 10 THE WITNESS: I don't have a clear recollection 11 of which -- 12 THE COURT: Was this a discussion where it was 13 decided to add Mr. Miscavige as, I guess, chairman 14 of the board of RTC -- I don't know how -- I've 15 never seen that complaint -- or was it before the 16 discussion to add Mr. Miscavige as head of the Sea 17 Org? 18 THE WITNESS: I think it was after the 19 discussion to add -- after it had been resolved that 20 Mr. Miscavige could be added as head of the Sea Org. 21 You know -- 22 THE COURT: After it was resolved by whom? By 23 Judge Moody? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. By Judge Moody. 25 THE COURT: Then you had a discussion with 579 1 Mr. Minton about this? 2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe he, Stacy and I 3 were in the car, traveling, and we talked about it. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 BY MR. DANDAR: 6 Q So it was after the hearing we had, you said took 7 forever, with Judge Moody? 8 A I know that it became a serious possibility after 9 we exhausted, in front of Judge Moody, every way of whether 10 or not it would be correct or appropriate or even allowed to 11 do it; coming in as head of the Sea Org, when Judge Moody 12 said that it could -- that he could be added as head of the 13 Sea Org, not as COB because of that agreement. 14 Q Right. 15 A Which, you know, I didn't even know about until 16 after the fact. Prince, July 9, 2002. There is no need to keep any meeting secret. Dr. Garko mentions one unexpected encounter with Minton and Brooks where adding Miscavige was discussed after the fact, where Brooks lied in front of Minton and said that she was not in favor of it. 17 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q Did Ms. Brooks say anything that you can recall 19 during the meeting? 20 A Yes. And this is why I remembered this particular 21 interaction. 22 Because as soon as I had finished articulating my 23 position, Ms. Brooks piped up without hesitation and said, 24 "And why did you add him, Ken?" And I remember sort of 25 sitting back and thinking, if I may, "What the hell is she 18 1 doing?" Because it was Ms. Brooks's idea to add David 2 Miscavige. And I was puzzled as to why she said that. And 3 I -- I often thought of it after this interaction. I 4 thought -- I was just bewildered by that and I couldn't 5 understand it. 6 Q Do you recall what if anything Mr. Minton said or 7 did during this meeting? 8 A He didn't say too much, in his very typical 9 fashion. He was quiet, somewhat aloof, and just sort of sat 10 there. He was sitting to my right at the end of the table, 11 just listening, and didn't say much. Garko, June 11, 2002. This statement by Brooks to Dandar in front of Garko demonstrates that this encounter took place after the fact, i.e., after the motion to add was granted, and that Minton was never at any meeting where it was discussed in advance, since Brooks was a proponent of adding Miscavige before he was added. By the way, Minton also lied before Judge Baird when he said that Garko was in favor of adding on David Miscavige. "And all four of those were strongly in favor of adding David Miscavige." April 9, 2002 at page 18:9-10. This allegation of perjury is a red herring. The Estate's counsel can meet with anyone to discuss anything, whether it is Minton or his mechanic! The key issue is whether Minton or the mechanic makes the decision and interferes without the client's consent. Even though Minton was never at any decision-making meeting, he concedes that Dell Liebreich was the only one who made the decisions in the case. 20 At the end of that meeting, I 21 went up to Mr. Dandar and I said to Mr. Dandar, 22 "Look, whatever we decide to do, I will support you 23 fully on it." But it was, you know, his decision 24 THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. 25 THE WITNESS: -- and Dell Liebreich's decision. Minton at 278, May 21, 2002. Minton and Brooks stand alone on this lie. 5. Lying about receipt of a UBS check dated May, 2000. Minton and the defendants argue that Dandar had to know that this UBS check was Minton's money. Brooks, his mistress, testified she never knew that the Clambake money of $300,000 and the $500,000 anonymous donation was Minton's money, and we all know she is much closer to Minton than anyone else. Minton also told this same story to his attorney, Merrett and Merrett also believed him. Minton testified at his May 2000 deposition that he loaned $1,050,000 to Dandar. 212 11 Q. Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since 12 January 13th, 1998? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Tell me all the amounts that you have 15 given him. 16 A. I don't know all the amounts. The total 17 amounts to a little over a million dollars, 18 $1,050,000. 19 Q. Did you make these checks to him yourself? 20 A. Did I what? 21 Q. Did you make the checks to him yourself? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Each check was drawn on one of your 24 personal accounts? 25 A. I believe it was, yes. 213 1 Q. Did you instruct anyone else to write the 2 checks or -- 3 A. No. 4 Q. -- did you physically write them? 5 A. I think I physically wrote them all. 6 There may have been a wire transfer in there or 7 two. I don't remember. Minton May 2000 deposition. This testimony is inconclusive. Given Minton's statements to Dandar, Prince, and Brooks that this UBS check was from "friends in Europe," this testimony is truthful. Minton now states at this hearing that he concealed in this deposition and two subsequent ones that he gave Dandar a UBS check in May 2000 for $500,000. Per Minton, the concealment was not his idea, but Dandar's idea to keep this sum hidden from Scientology and Dandar's employees and consultants. Even without other testimony which contradicts this, since Minton volunteered to tell Scientology about giving over a million dollars, which Dandar's employees and consultants did not know, then why not include an additional $500,000? If Dandar wanted Minton to lie, why even mention anything close to one million? Per court order, up to January 2000, Dandar provided Scientology with copies of either deposit statements or checks from Minton totaling $750,000 . Minton's accusations make no sense. The UBS check is not from Minton. There is no independent proof it is Minton's money since he pled the Fifth Amendment. His testimony must be stricken. City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Minton's own pattern of conduct and his inability to tell the truth during this hearing leads to the conclusion that he is not telling the truth now on the source of this check and that he did tell the Estate's counsel the truth in May 2000 that this check was from anonymous sources in Europe. Dandar, May 30,2002, at 31:16-17. Furthermore, Minton told Jesse Prince that this check was from his friends in Europe. 367 2 And he came and he said, 3 "Come here, you guys come out here," because he had a fear 4 that the building that we were in was electronically bugged. 5 And we got in Stacy's car and we went into the 6 city parking lot, which is directly across the street from 7 the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see. 8 And he said, "Look, I'm going to tell you guys, 9 you can't tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he 10 doesn't know where it came from. It came from Europe. You 11 know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I 12 hope this takes you to trial." 13 That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he 14 didn't want the office to know, you know, Ken didn't want 15 everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this 16 $500,000 came. And -- and, you know, everything with the 17 case would be okay, basically, was the one instance. 368 2 Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from? 3 A Europe. People from Europe. 4 Q Did he say to you it was his money? 5 A No. He said he had arranged from some people from 6 Europe who made this money available. 446 5 Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton, 6 for instance, let's go to that night, the Adam's Mark Hotel, 7 where he's talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he 8 told you in the parking lot about it? 9 A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were 10 saying, you know, "Ken is really going to get it. He told 11 me to lie about this check." 12 I said, "Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you --" 13 he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all 14 responsibility is gone. "Hee-hee. Guess what?" 15 "Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot. 16 Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving 17 this check to Ken, Ken didn't know where it was coming from, 18 told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you 19 gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken's fault?" 20 Q What did they say? 21 A They just looked at me like, "Oh, yeah, we forgot 22 about that part." Mmm, they were telling me things like, 23 "We really got him now." 24 I said, "But don't you remember what we did? 25 Don't you remember this is what really happened as opposed 447 1 to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what 2 actually happened?" 3 Q What was their response? 4 A "Hmmm." You know, just "Hmmm." Like, "He's not 5 cooperating." 6 Q So -- 7 A So I told him, you know, "Now, you know we were up 8 in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So 9 now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this 10 is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?" 11 THE COURT: What did he say? 12 THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was 13 crazy. And they looked at each other and they 14 changed the subject. We started talking about -- 15 Mmm -- what else did we start talking about? 16 They brought up something else that -- the 17 meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want -- 18 "they" being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they 19 want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at 20 some meeting that happened where we all said, "Yeah, 21 add Miscavige and don't talk to anybody about it." 22 I am like, "Are you crazy? That didn't happen 23 either." Prince, July 8, 2002. Minton also told the same story to his own attorney, John Merrett, about the source of the anonymous donations to the LMT. There was certainly no motive for Minton to lie then to Brooks, Prince and Merrett. This is more proof that Minton is lying now for Scientology. Scientology obtained a copy of this UBS check before Minton could get a copy! Prince at 386-387, July 8, 2002. See also Dandar's testimony elicited by Rosen before Baird confirming this and no correction by Rosen! April 19, 2002 at 268l. Scientology must therefore not only know the source of the UBS check, but must have known that Minton would refuse to testify to show proof that this money is his. Therefore, including this allegation in its motion is frivolous and in bad faith. Based on the three Second District Court decisions, money to the Estate or its counsel is immaterial. It can therefore not be a matter of perjury. Argyros v. State, 718 So.2d 222 (Fla 2nd DCA 1998). Again Dr. Garko does not support Minton's story in court. 22 Q During -- during this time that you were there in 23 New Hampshire, did you overhear any discussions or 24 conversations between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton about money, 25 about getting more money and where the money might be coming 36 1 from? And if so, can you tell us what you remember was 2 being said and what your reaction was to it? 3 A I do remember conversations about money and 4 funding. 5 Mr. Dandar -- despite Mr. Minton's assertion that 6 he's no longer going to fund this case, Mr. Dandar still 7 wanted to know if there were other ways to fund the case, 8 and if there were other people that could fund the case. 9 And they were talking about -- talking about that. No 10 specific names were mentioned, no particular individual that 11 I could say, Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith or something like that. 12 It was generally perhaps people from Europe might be able to 13 fund the case -- Garko, June 11, 2002. Only during this hearing did Minton finally admit that the $300,000 from Clambake to the LMT and the anonymous $500,000 to the LMT from Europe were really monies from Minton. Minton at 443-446. Dandar was also successful in getting Minton to admit that contrary to his testimony in his recantation deposition of April 8, 2002, where he recanted nothing at all, the source of the $100,000 Armstrong loan repayment to Minton and the $100,000 Armstrong donation to the LMT is also Minton money. Until these lies were revealed at this hearing, Minton and Scientology were perfectly willing to let the lies slide through, since those lies had nothing to do with this case, except to show using the UBS checks is part of Minton's scheme. Minton was completely unable to provide a plausible explanation for any justifiable reason for this transaction or for lying about it. This lie caused material harm to the Estate, as the existence of the Armstrong UBS check in question showed that Minton had repeatedly used this method of "repaying loans" to himself and thereby avoiding payment of income tax. In short, it is indeed peculiar that Minton would choose to "set the record straight" and immediately thereafter get caught in lie after lie after lie after lie. 926 6 THE COURT: Yeah. So this would be a fine time 7 for him to go get it and bring it back, show it to 8 your lawyer so we can all find it, so we can get 9 this straightened out. 10 And I would appreciate it, Mr. Howie, if we're 11 going to have any more lies, and this three that he 12 hasn't recanted, that I know of -- three that I know 13 of -- that if there are more that perhaps he needs 14 to spend enough time to go through his deposition -- 15 I mean, his credibility is indeed at issue. 16 This is a man who says to me, "I lied. I committed 17 perjury," and then all of a sudden, when Ms. Brooks 18 is asked a question, well, he remembers some more 19 lies. And now we've got another lie that apparently 20 he didn't tell you about, I'm sure, in the recanting 21 affidavit because he didn't tell the church about 22 it, about something I would assume would be fairly 23 critical, but it just dawned on him last night when 24 he was looking at transcripts. 25 So what I want to see are the transcripts. 927 1 Maybe you can point it out to me so I can go to it 2 and so I can see what it was that refreshed his 3 memory. 4 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. If I have the 5 permission of the court -- 6 THE WITNESS: I'll go get them. 7 MR. HOWIE: -- to discuss Mr. Minton's 8 testimony to that extent only. 9 THE COURT: To the extent of whatever this is 10 he's talking about -- 11 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: -- you may. 13 MR. DANDAR: And any other things that he 14 discovered. I mean, I don't want -- 15 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. 16 Are there more lies that you discovered last 17 night? 18 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Then you may discuss this 20 new lie. 21 MR. HOWIE: Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Do I need to get the state attorney 23 here? I mean, I thought I could refer this to the 24 state attorney when this was all done. But as far 25 as I'm concerned, there are at least two lies that I 928 1 uncovered, and those are prosecutable, quite 2 frankly. This one, he brought to our attention 3 first. 4 So I just thought I'd wait and deliver all 5 this, because we've got allegations of lies on one 6 side; on the other side we've got allegations of 7 people committing extortion and bribery, and all 8 that has got to be figured out with the state 9 attorney. I don't prosecute crimes, I don't defend 10 crimes. That's a matter for the state attorney. So 11 I thought we'd just wait till this was all over and 12 we could send all this out. 13 Of course, I told Mr. McCabe this was coming. 14 But you know, maybe I need somebody here to advise 15 this man of his rights. 16 Are you -- are you fully equipped to do that? 17 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. Minton, May 23, 2002. Minton had absolutely no explanation, not even an implausible one, for why he did this. This can only result in a negative inference with this blatant refusal to answer the question. It is completely implausible that Minton would perform this astonishing sleight-of-hand with UBS checks and have no idea why he did it. 7 Q When did you write a check to Gerry Armstrong so 8 he could pay you back? 9 A I never wrote him a check. 10 Q All right. How did he get the money? 11 A He got a check from UBS. 12 Q And what's the source of that UBS check? 13 A Me. 14 Q What's the name of the financial institution that 15 sent the UBS money? 16 A I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment on that 17 question. 18 Q And you're telling this court that you don't know 19 why you did it that way; why you made this false pretense of 20 showing that Gerry Armstrong was using his money to pay back 21 your loan. 22 A I'm not sure why. Minton,1251, May 28, 2002. The inference is obvious, and was promptly drawn by this Court. Minton played this shell game not because of any demands by Dandar, but in an attempt to conceal his own tax evasion, tax evasion discovered and used for purposes of blackmail and extortion by Scientology. 1252 23 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this question. 24 When you bring in money from the foreign countries, 25 don't you have to pay taxes on it? 1253 1 THE WITNESS: It would -- 2 THE COURT: If you made money? 3 THE WITNESS: -- depend on the nature of it. 4 THE COURT: If you made money in a foreign land 5 and you bring that money into the United States of 6 America, isn't that something that you report and 7 pay taxes on? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct. 9 BY MR. DANDAR: 10 Q Did you pay tax on the money that Gerry Armstrong 11 paid you back a hundred thousand dollars on the loan? 12 A I would have to look at my tax returns for the 13 year. 14 Q What year was this? 15 A 2001. 16 Q What month? 17 A I don't remember which month it was. 18 Q Was it before or after your September, 2001 19 deposition? 20 A I think it was before. 21 THE COURT: Isn't there a little box on the 22 income tax return that has a person disclose whether 23 any of the money reported in income came from a 24 foreign source? 25 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether there is. 1254 1 THE COURT: Well, I know there is, 'cause I 2 know I check it "no" every year, 'cause I don't have 3 any. So perhaps if we don't know the answer to 4 these things -- 5 I mean, what did I say as to his income tax 6 return; that -- oh, he claimed the Fifth Amendment 7 on that, didn't he? 8 MR. HOWIE: I believe, your Honor -- 9 THE COURT: Because I would demand that, based 10 on his answer -- right now I would demand it. He 11 may claim the Fifth Amendment after my demand, but I 12 think it's important. So his Fifth Amendment will 13 stand. But at this point in time, it's not just one 14 of those things that I think is -- is personal, that 15 I don't need. I think we need the income tax 16 returns. 17 I'm going to find that I need the income tax 18 return to resolve some of these issues. However, he 19 can claim the Fifth Amendment, refuse to turn it 20 over. 21 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: But I'm demanding it at this time, 23 saying that I need it for my purposes. 24 And he is claiming the Fifth, is that correct? 25 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I'd request permission 1255 1 to discuss that matter with my client -- 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. HOWIE: -- during a recess. Minton, May 28, 2202. 6. Is Minton money a loan to counsel or the estate? What does it matter to Scientology if the Money loaned from Minton directly or through his European friends and given to Dandar is a loan to counsel or the Estate? Before there was ever an issue of Minton's money, Scientology elicited from Minton the following admissions concerning his giving of money to Dandar. At his first deposition, January 13, 1998, with two of Minton's attorneys present, Steven Jonas and Kathy Shipe, Minton admitted this money was a loan to Dandar, with repayment left up to the success of the case. 46 20 Q My question is: Was this $100,000 a loan to 21 Mr. Dandar? 22 A It was. 23 Q Or a gift to Mr. Dandar? 24 A It requires a little bit of thought because it could be 47 1 either depending on what happens in the case. 2 Q Can you explain that? 3 A What I have said and what he has said is that if 4 they -- "they" being the estate of Lisa McPherson 5 are successful in getting money back over and above 6 their legal expenses in this case and they had $100,000 7 left to pay me, I would get paid back my $100,000. If 8 they do not succeed in this case, they're under no 9 obligation to pay me back. In his second deposition on May 24, 2000, Minton is asked the same question and he gives the same answer. 217 11 Q. What is the agreement with Mr. Dandar with 12 respect to the over one million dollars that you've 13 given him? 14 A. The agreement is basically that if and 15 when the Estate of Lisa McPherson prevails against 16 the Church of Scientology and collects money, that 17 the estate will pay back out of the proceeds of 18 that, if the proceeds are sufficient to cover all 19 the expenses, the principal amount that I have 20 advanced to the estate to Mr. Dandar. That's it. 24 Q. Advanced to the estate for Mr. Dandar? 25 A. No, to Mr. Dandar for -- to prosecute the 218 1 case of the estate. Although Scientology attempts to thwart the clear language of the three appellate opinions by asking how the money could be spent, before making his deal with Scientology, upon questioning by Mr. Rosen, Minton answered that there were no conditions. 314 1 Q. Was he limited by your agreement with him 2 to use the funds that you loaned only for expenses 3 in the wrongful death case? 4 A. There weren't any conditions about it. It 5 was -- the conditions were that it was to support 6 that case. 7 Q. Okay. Well, let me give you an example. 8 Let's assume that Mr. Dandar's carpeting in his 9 office is getting a little ratty, so he decides to 10 replace it. Was there anything in your discussion 11 with him which would prohibit him from using any of 12 the funds that you loaned to replace his carpet? 13 A. Like I said, I didn't put any restrictions 14 on what Mr. Dandar did with the money. 15 Q. So he could use it to replace his carpet 16 if he wanted to? 17 A. You know, he could walk away from the 18 thing and steal the money, basically, if he wanted. 19 Q. But you wouldn't have been happy with 20 that, right? 21 A. You know, I think I was able to make a 22 good enough judgment about Mr. Dandar to think that 23 that's not something he would be doing. 24 Q. Okay. But by the same token, if he wanted 25 to replace the carpet in his office or he wanted to 315 1 buy a new pencil sharpener, you know, it didn't 2 have to be related to the case, right, that would 3 be okay? 4 MR. MERRETT: I'm sorry, could you tell me 5 how this modifies his statement that there 6 were no conditions? 7 MR. ROSEN: Because now I'm talking about 8 his understanding of -- what his understanding 9 was of the terms of the loan. When he spoke 10 about conditions, I think he was referring to 11 things that were articulated, that came out of 12 his mouth. 13 A. Yeah. Look, Mr. Dandar has never 14 explained to me how he spent a penny in this case. 15 Q. And you haven't asked him, right? 16 A. And I haven't asked him. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. So, you know, Mr. Dandar can literally do 19 whatever he wants with this money. 317 8 Q. Was it your understanding -- let me take 9 it first in terms of what was in your mind and then 10 we'll get to the discussion with Mr. Dandar. Was 11 it your understanding that Mr. Dandar could use 12 some of the money to pay himself attorney's fees 13 for the wrongful death case? 14 A. If he wanted to do that, yeah, he could. 15 I mean there wasn't any restriction to it. 16 Q. Okay. And that would have been okay with 17 you? 18 A. Yeah. 318 ...14 Q. Okay. So if he had signed on with the 15 family to work for no fee, you know, unless he 16 recovered, and then got a percentage of the 17 recovery, would it have been consistent with your 18 intention when you loaned him the money if he took 19 some of that money and paid himself a legal fee? 20 A. There weren't any conditions. Minton was telling the truth in the above depositions. This line of questioning by Mr. Rosen clearly demonstrates an intent to tortiously interfere with the relationship between Minton and Dandar. Minton conceded at this hearing that Rinder implied that Dandar had spent Minton money on cars, property, and estates. Rosen questioned Minton and Dandar before Judge Baird on this matter, clearly to cement into Minton's mind that the money was improperly spent. Rosen knew he had no evidence of this, but that did not stop him from maligning Dandar and putting a wedge between Minton and Dandar. Minton disclosed how extensive Scientology lied to him during the secret meetings to distance him from Dandar: 1525 20 A They told me that you had purchased a vacation 21 home in North Carolina, and that you had purchased two 22 homes, one for your mother and one for you, and that there 23 was -- some of these properties -- I think that's near 24 Odessa or somewhere in that vicinity north of Tampa, I 25 believe -- and that some of these things you put into other 1526 1 family members' names and then transferred them from one 2 family member to another and 1528 16 Q Did he tell you that your money was used to buy 17 all this property? 18 A He implied that. He didn't say it. Minton, May 29,2002. 7. Lying that Minton has no control over this litigation. This court has already noted several times that there is no evidence that Minton had any control over the death litigation. The fact that this case was not dismissed at Minton's demand is proof positive. This court made the following comments regarding the obvious lack of control by Minton over the Estate. 276 13 THE COURT: Well, you know, if -- without 14 referring him to an exhibit, gee, he wrote the 15 affidavit. He ought to know what he was talking 16 about. I mean, I know for a fact that he didn't 17 want Miscavige added, and it was added. So that 18 wasn't really, apparently, according to his wishes. 19 I know for a fact that he wanted the case dismissed 20 or settled and that didn't happen. 21 So I know two things that he wanted that he 22 didn't get. So what I'm trying to find out is what 23 did he want that he did get? 291 24 THE COURT: And that was one of the things that 25 you got -- that Mr. Dandar would do things to 292 1 satisfy your wishes and get more money from you? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: And he didn't do that, though. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, I'll explain later what 5 happened with respect to -- 6 THE COURT: Well, you might explain, but you 7 might be good enough to answer my question. 8 He didn't do that, did he? 9 THE WITNESS: No, he didn't, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Oh. 11 THE WITNESS: He promised to do it and he tried 12 to do it. 13 THE COURT: That was another thing you wanted 14 that he didn't do? 309 17 A You know, actually, at this moment I can't recall 18 anything else. 19 THE COURT: You did want the case dismissed. 20 Toward the end of this -- this -- situation, you 21 called Mr. Dandar and asked him -- 22 THE WITNESS: Back in -- 23 THE COURT: -- to get the case dismissed. 24 THE WITNESS: -- March 29th or so, yes. 25 THE COURT: Okay. That didn't happen. 310 1 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, let me just -- 2 THE COURT: Well, maybe you could answer me and 3 then maybe you could explain it. 4 Did that happen? 5 THE WITNESS: No, it didn't, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Right. 7 You wanted the case settled. 8 THE WITNESS: When did -- when did I say that? 9 THE COURT: I don't know. If you didn't say -- 10 then that's not accurate. I thought that you had 11 called and -- part of the testimony was you had 12 called and said, "You've got to get this case 13 settled. You've got to get this case dismissed," or 14 something like that. If you didn't say that, 15 then -- 16 THE WITNESS: I don't think I -- I don't think 17 I said settled. 18 THE COURT: Okay. So it was dismissed. You 19 wanted the whole thing dismissed. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Dandar refused? 22 THE WITNESS: If -- if I may explain, your 23 Honor. 24 THE COURT: Well, you may. But the answer to 25 that is -- 311 1 THE WITNESS: But he did -- he did refuse 312 22 THE COURT: And this was to get her to dismiss 23 the case. 24 THE WITNESS: Well, it -- that was the ultimate 25 aim. But the -- the -- the key part of that was to 313 1 explain to her what was going on in this case and 2 what Mr. Dandar had gotten us to do in this case. 3 And we thought if she knew what was really going on 4 in this case, she wouldn't condone it. 5 THE COURT: And would dismiss the case? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 THE COURT: I mean, that was, as you said, the 8 ultimate -- that is what you ultimately wanted to 9 happen. 10 THE WITNESS: That's right. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: So -- 13 THE COURT: And so when you made this request 14 and -- 15 THE WITNESS: Ms. Brooks called -- 16 THE COURT: Ms. Brooks called Ms. Liebreich, 17 Ms. Liebreich apparently called Mr. Dandar, and that 18 meeting didn't take place. 19 THE WITNESS: That's correct, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: So this was another effort, I take 21 it, long before your meeting with Scientology, where 22 you want the case dismissed. 23 THE WITNESS: That's right. 24 THE COURT: And it didn't happen, did it? 25 THE WITNESS: It did not happen, your Honor. Minton, May 21, 2002, Vol. 3 Minton claims that he wanted to accuse Miscavige of murder in this case and directed Dandar to do this with the first check in October 1997. Yet Minton admits he had no knowledge that the Estate and COSFSO entered into a confidential agreement in December 1997, not to add additional parties, which included officers of RTC. Then in October 1999, Judge Moody denied the Estate's request to set aside this 1997 agreement, but informed the Estate that it was free to breach the agreement if it so desired to add Miscavige, RTC, CSI, and others. The Estate chose not to breach the agreement and Judge Moody held there was no breach. This again demonstrated that Minton had no control over the litigation. Not one person supports Minton's lie that Minton had any control over the litigation. Others have testified that Minton admitted he had no control: Frank Oliver, Brian Haney, Peter Alexander, and Michael Garko. 83 17 Q Did Bob Minton exert any control whatsoever over 18 the Lisa McPherson case? 19 A No. Nothing that I observed. 20 THE COURT: Did he appear to be a person who 21 was funding -- helping to fund the litigation but 22 had no other real interest? 23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. And that was the only 24 thing he ever talked about. Like on the Internet he 25 just would always talk about, I have to give more 84 1 money, or, Dandar wants more money, that kind of 2 thing. 3 And he would often talk about, "Well, if I'm 4 spending this much, then Scientology is spending ten 5 times that" or whatever. That was his point of 6 pride, so to speak. 7 But other than that, he didn't have an 8 interest. Even when I tried to tell him stuff, he 9 just didn't have any interest. Brian Haney, June 19, 2002. 137 14 A Okay. Well, while we were at dinner, Patricia 15 asked Bob about the case. And she said, "How's the case 16 going?" And Bob said, "I don't really know." And she said, 17 "What you mean, you don't --" 18 THE COURT: Your objection's overruled. That 19 would be appropriate, as far as impeachment. 20 A And so he says -- well, she says -- you know, she 21 was actually like saying, "Well, that's not fair." I mean, 22 I don't remember her exact words, but, "That's not right. 23 You're paying for this thing and you don't get to know about 24 it?" 25 And he says, "Well, I can't know." He said, 138 1 "There's this obscure Florida law --" I remember the -- 2 that's how he described it. "There's an obscure Florida 3 law, and it's called directing the case. So I can't have 4 anything to say about it." 5 Now that sounded incredible to me. Now, I don't 6 know all these laws in Florida. 7 So I said, "You mean you're paying for this and 8 you don't even get briefed about it?" He says, "No. I 9 can't." 10 But it didn't seem to bother him, so I thought, 11 "Well, okay." I just dropped it. Peter Alexander, June 7, 2002. 96 15 Q In the two-plus years that you've been working on 16 this case for me, who was in control of this case? 17 A The client. 18 Q Well, what about Bob Minton? Does he have 19 anything to do with running the case? 20 A Do you mean day-to-day operations of the case? 21 Q Day-to-day decision-making? 22 A No. No. 23 Q How would you describe Mr. Minton's association 24 with the day-to-day operation of the case, strategizing, 25 decision-making, et cetera? 97 1 A I can only speak from my experience and what I 2 observed of Mr. Minton's behavior. I would describe it as 3 hands-off, laissez-faire, aloof. 4 Q Would you agree or disagree that to try to talk to 5 Bob Minton over the two-plus years about the case was like 6 pulling teeth? 7 A I would agree with that. Michael Garko, June 11, 2002, witness called by COSFSO. 316 22 Q And did you -- did you know Mr. Minton to have any 23 level of interest in the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case? 24 A The only level of interest that I knew he had was 25 that he was -- he was providing funding to cover the costs 317 1 of the litigation. 2 Q Did you ever know Mr. Minton to direct the 3 litigation at all? 4 A No. I don't know Mr. Minton to have directed 5 litigation. He seemed pretty aloof about the case. Frank Oliver, June 15, 2002. After the court concluded that Miscavige as Captain of the SEA ORG was not included in the 1997 Agreement and permitted Miscavige to be added as an individual defendant, the Estate chose not to pursue Miscavige after he evaded service of process. Minton stands alone on this lie. COSFSO therefore has not met its burden of proof on this issue. In fact, COSFSO has proved the opposite! 8. Concealing that Minton was told of mediation settlement offer. There is no evidence that Dandar told Minton of an offer made at mediation, except the false testimony of Minton. In order to rebut this allegation, Dandar would have to breach in court the confidentiality requirement on mediation discussions. However, Dr. Garko, who attended the mediations, also denied that an offer of $600,000 was ever made at any mediation. 2 Q Okay. Mr. Minton says in his affidavit on 3 Paragraph 10 that $600,000 was offered by the Church of 4 Scientology. 5 Do you recall there ever being an offer of 6 $600,000? 7 A No. Not to my recollection. Garko at 126. 9. Lying about the reason for Prince's withdrawal. Only Jesse Prince can tell the court the reason for his withdrawal as the Estate's expert witness on Scientology. Minton and Brooks expressed their and Scientology's version, i.e., that Prince resigned because of Minton's orders, but Prince swore under oath that he withdrew out of concern for his fianc‚ and her children, all of whom were subject to the early morning police raid of their home orchestrated by Scientology. Since Scientology was not successful in obtaining a conviction of Prince to discredit him in this case, Prince had a genuine concern that Scientology would continue their efforts. This is a prime example of Scientology's "Fair Game" at work. With this court's sanctioning of Scientology for this improper tampering with a witness, Prince has returned as an expert, somewhat confident that Scientology will not be foolish to thwart this court's inherent power to administer further sanctions. 10. Lying that Lisa wanted to quit Scientology. The Estate is not quite sure how Dandar or Liebreich could possibly lie about Lisa wanting to quit Scientology, since this evidence is presented through third party testimony. Lisa's friend from High School, Kelly Davis, who Lisa had not talked to in four years, testified that a week before Lisa had her car accident, Lisa telephoned her and stated she was leaving Clearwater, returning to Dallas, quitting her job, and quitting Scientology. 181 12 On the other hand, I also think -- and I was 13 going to mention it earlier and it slipped my 14 mind -- there is another thought that I had. And 15 that is that if Lisa was trying to get away and was 16 trying to get home, it puts a different aspect on 17 her being kept in isolation. She could have been 18 kept until she -- her situation -- her mental 19 situation was resolved and she no longer wanted to 20 leave Scientology, she agreed to stay. 21 I'm saying that because I have experienced in 22 the past, when I was in the Sea Org, that happening. 23 Sea Org members who wanted to leave the ship were 24 held on the ship until they received auditing or 25 security checks or ethics conditions and, in an 182 1 attempt to resolve their intention to leave, to 2 depart. 105 13 A She didn't say it in so many words, "I want to 14 leave Scientology," but she said it in words that were 15 sufficient to get the intent across. She wasn't happy. 16 She -- she thought that might be the right thing to do, but 17 I have to go back to the folders to see exactly what it was 18 she said. Whitfield, July 16, 2002. 283 21 THE WITNESS: Says right here, "It is a high 22 crime to publicly depart Scientology." And this 23 comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, 24 RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and 25 Scientologists. 184 18 THE WITNESS: It says, "It is a high crime to 19 publicly depart Scientology." 20 I think Lisa had done that, because she had 21 told her mother and she had told a friend that she 22 was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in 23 the notes that I made here, that she intended to 24 leave. She wasn't happy with -- Prince, July 8, 2002. Fannie McPherson's hospice worker, Sandra Anderson, also confirmed that Lisa told her mother in November 1995 that Lisa wanted out of Scientology. 52 5 Q. Tell me your recollection of what you talked 6 about, the significant things that you talked about 7 with Fannie. 8 A. Lisa. 9 Q. What about Lisa? 10 A. That Lisa was going to -- was going to come 11 home. 12 Q. To visit her? 13 A. No. Lisa -- she said Lisa wanted out of the 14 Church of Scientology and she was coming home. She had 15 received a call from her in November and she never made 16 it. 53 6 Q. And you remember -- what did she tell you in 7 that conversation? 8 A. She just said that Lisa was going to come 9 home; that she wanted to get her life back; she wanted 10 out of Scientology, and that she never made it home. Sandra Anderson deposition of May 11. Lying about the disposition of Lisa's 1995 diary. Although the Estate did have possession of other diaries and turned over copies to Defendants, neither the Estate nor its counsel ever had possession of Lisa's 1995 diary. Dandar even wrote a letter to the Clearwater police asking for the diary. As it turns out, this diary was returned to Fannie while Fannie was alive and before counsel was retained. It has not been found since. COSFSO presented no witnesses on this matter. COSFSO has failed to meet its burden on this issue. 12. Lying about the presence of Cockroach bites on the body of Lisa McPherson. Joan Wood was the first person to publicly state that certain marks on Lisa's body at autopsy were cockroach bites. This was before this suit was filed. Even Associate Medical Examiner, Robert Davis, opined in his deposition that these marks are consistent with insect bites. The Estate's forensic pathologists opine that they are insect bites. The Estate retained over a majority of the 8 nationally board certified forensic entomologists, all of whom opined that the marks were indeed cockroach feeding sites. COSFSO did not retain one board certified entomologist. 13 Q. Now, in the marks of Lisa McPherson -- on 14 Lisa McPherson's body that you have stated are 15 consistent with cockroach bites or feeding sites, 16 if they're not cockroach bites or feeding sites, do 17 you have an opinion as to what else they could 18 possibly be? 19 A. No. Lee Goff, Ph.D. March 9,2002,Vol2, at 249. How could the Estate or its counsel lie about this? COSFSO has not met its burden. This is another example of its bad faith accusations. 13. Procuring the destruction or removal of LMT records. No one suggests that the Estate or its counsel had anything to do with the obstruction of discovery or the destruction of records, if any, of the LMT. Again, COSFSO has alleged a serious accusation in bad faith without any evidentiary support. III. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" RESULT FROM EXTORTION. A. The Law of Extortion. Florida Statutes, 836.05, entitled "Threats; extortion," provides: Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (Emphasis added). A threat is "malicious" for purpose of an extortion offense if it is made intentionally and without any lawful justification. Alonso v. State, 447 So.2d 1029 (Fla 4th DCA 1984). Coercion and duress, such as threatening to turn one over to the Internal Revenue Service, constitutes criminal extortion under 863.05. Berger v. Berger, 466 So.2d 1149 (Fla 4th DCA 1985). In Berger, the husband demanded that the wife sign his settlement and custody agreement or he would turn her over to the IRS. The wife had her own attorney. That was held to be extortion, since his legal right to insist on his proposed agreement and his legal right to turn her over to the IRS was motivated by his desire for pecuniary gain. Likewise, Rosen's and Rinder's threats to Minton are extortion since they are conveyed for Scientology's pecuniary advantage not to pay death damages and to have Minton pay Scientology. Neither actual intent to do harm nor ability to carry out the threat is essential to prove that extortion occurred. In establishing extortion, it is sufficient that the threat of injury was against a person other than the person actually threatened, such as Minton's wife and their daughters. Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla 2nd DCA 1994). Appellee argues that the statute applied only to threats involving individuals, and should not be so construed as to include within its proscription threats directed primarily against a corporation. With this contention we are unable to agree. The nature of the entity against whom the threat is primarily directed is of importance only in determining whether such a relationship exists between the entity and the person to whom the threat is communicated as would be calculated to coerce the victim to meet the demands of the extortioner in order to prevent the threat from being carried out. It therefore is of no consequence whether the threat is primarily directed against the victim himself, his loved ones, his friends or a corporation with which he is actively identified and in which he owns an interest. State v. McInnes, 153 So.2d 854, 858 (Fla 4th DCA 1963). B. The Motive for Extortion. The Scientology intelligence operation writings of Mr. Hubbard encourage the use of extortion, whether it is uncovering real crimes of its enemies or manufacturing evidence, the goal is to present that investigation so that the enemy sues for peace. Jesse Prince, former Deputy Inspector General International in RTC, three positions down from Miscavige, testified as to these intelligence operations against the enemies of Scientology and the applicable policies which promote it. 25 Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third 201 1 paragraph on Exhibit 113 states, "Even if you don't have 2 enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason 3 is, it is only those people that have crimes that will 4 attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being 5 found out when attacked back." 6 Is this considered a scripture of the Church of 7 Scientology? 8 A During -- during my tenure in Scientology, this 9 document was not considered to be any type of scripture. 10 This was a training material to train a person in 11 intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology. 12 Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking 13 about -- answering the question about if this relates to the 14 noisy investigation when this document, in the third 15 paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word 16 "loudly." 17 A Yeah. 18 Q And what is a noisy investigation? 19 A A noisy investigation -- I believe we covered that 20 the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted 21 the document in the church. 22 But it's basically to go around and arouse the 23 neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that 24 Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations 25 about the person that may or may not be true. And according 202 1 to Scientology's Manual of Justice, which is a further 2 document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go 3 through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy 4 investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of 5 it. Prince, July 8, 2002. The following are some of the church policies or instruction material in evidence issued by the Church of Scientology to destroy its enemies. "Battle Tactics" We ourselves fight on a basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. [the enemy] Just go all the way in and obliterate him . One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes every enemy territory. He raids and harasses. All on a thought plane -- press, public opinion, governments, etc. Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well then legal gets an easy in. Ex. 157, "HCO Policy letter of 16 February 1969" Dept. of Govt Affairs In the face of dangers from Govts or courts there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) Find out if we want to play the offered game or not, (2) If not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks, (3) Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail, (4) don't try to get any money out of it, (5) Make every attack by us also sell Scientology, and (6) Win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best. The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order. Ex. 109-C, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960" The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. Ex. 169, "Ability" The Scientologist, p157. How to do a NOISY Investigation ...how to go about dealing with attackers of Scientology. Soon as one of these threats starts you get a Scientologist or Scientologists to investigate noisily. You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors, anyone, and 'phone 'em up and say, "I am investigating Mr/Mrs ....... for criminal activities as he/she has been trying to prevent Man's freedom and is restricting my religious freedom and that of my friends and children, etc..... You say now and then, "I have already got some astounding facts, " etc., etc. (Use a generality) .... It doesn't matter if you don't get much info. Just be NOISY. Ex. 109J, "HCO Executive Letter of 5 September 1960. Investigation When things go wrong and we don't know why already by intelligence, we resort to Investigation. When we need somebody haunted we investigate. When we investigate we do so noisily always. And usually mere investigation damps out the trouble even when we discover no really pertinent facts. Remember that by investigation alone we can curb pushes and crush wildcat people and unethical "Dianetics and Scientology" organizations. It 's almost funny. We sometimes learn nothing useful and yet because people heard we re investigating their consciences sent them into headlong flight or sudden collapse. There's power in the question alone! Investigation by Outside Sources Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. it's very effective . Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta source or a squirrel organizaion. Procedure on Entheta Press In the case of a bad magazine article which is signed, use the following procedure: 1. Tell them by letter to retract at once in the next issue. 2. Hire a private detective of a national-type firm to investigate the writer, not the magazine, and get any criminal or Communist background the man has. (Because all subversive activities foolishly use criminals they "have something on" and men who have been paid to attack, attack us, you'll have data incoming from the detective agency if they do their work well. 3. Have your lawyers or solicitors write the magazine threatening suit. (Hardly ever permit a real suit -- they're more of a nuisance to you than they're worth.) 4. Use the date you got from the detective at long last to write the author of the article a very tantalizing letter. don't give him your data on him. Just tell him we know something very interesting about him and wouldn't he like to come in and talk about it. (If he comes, ask him to sign a confession of collusion and slander -- people at that level often will, just to commit suicide -- and publish it in a paid ad in a paper if you get it.) chances are he won't arrive. but he'll sure shudder into silence. 5. Give any new data you have from the detective to your attorneys for their use against the magazine. Investigating A Squirrel A person or an organization using Dianetics or Scientology wrongly or without rights, or a wildcat magazine, is best shut down or shut up by hiring a private detective. Tell the detective "We don't care if they know you're investigating them for us. In fact, the louder the better." Detectives cost dozens of dollars or pounds. They save thousands. When you get their data, give it to your attorneys for any action they want. Or post it. Ex.. 122, Manuel of Justice, a Scientology publication. So it is therefore within the province of this church, which does have a criminal history, to do whatever is necessary to protect Scientology, even if it means breaking the law. 151 17 THE COURT: Show me where you're reading from. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I see it. It's the third 19 paragraph. 20 THE COURT: Okay. "If attacked on some 21 vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any 22 organization, always find or manufacture enough 23 threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." 24 What is this? 25 THE WITNESS: This is a policy letter, your 152 1 Honor. This is a church policy letter that is a 2 policy letter for the department of government 3 affairs, which is a department or a section or a 4 unit within the Scientology organization, that 5 basically talks about -- you know, things having to 6 do with tax matters, legal activities, whatever, for 7 an organization. 8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace" 9 mean? 10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means 11 basically that a person just wants to end 12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and 13 all walk away as happy as possible. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Like a disengagement? 16 A Yes. Prince, June 18, 2002. This is not simply testimony, it is the unrebutted policy letters of Scientology! This court suggested to the defendants to bring in their expert to rebut. The defendants failed or refused to do so. Jesse Prince described one chilling experience where he halted an operation that would have certainly resulted in the death of a targeted enemy. 205 13 Madam Court Reporter, read back that question 14 before I interrupted him. 15 THE REPORTER: The pending question is, "In 16 your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you 17 go about finding or manufacturing threats against 18 the critics?" 19 The witness began to answer, "Well, there's 20 several ways that I've -- I've seen it done --" 21 A Yes. 22 As far as out-and-out manufacturing information -- 23 And again, I want to clarify that. During the 24 time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in 25 Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls 206 1 technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training 2 of things. 3 Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about 4 this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from 5 me until that point. So I -- I actually had a very short 6 amount of time there. But as what I've seen as far as 7 manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person -- 8 Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to 9 Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John 10 Nelson used to be a person that was the CO -- the commanding 11 officer of Sea Org -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. 13 A -- International. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How's he 15 know this? 16 THE WITNESS: Because I was there. 17 MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong? 18 THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the 19 parties. 20 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. 21 BY MR. DANDAR: 22 Q Were you in charge of the parties? 23 A Yes. The party was working in one of my 24 divisions. 25 At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a 207 1 private investigator to investigate a fellow named John 2 Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in 3 Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO. 4 THE COURT: At what? 5 THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the 6 Commodores Messenger Organization. 7 BY MR. DANDAR: 8 Q And that was an elite organization? 9 A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, 10 which eventually became Church of Scientology International. 11 CSI. 12 Q All right. 13 A And he had started his own splinter organization 14 with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was 15 perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. 16 So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick 17 Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room 18 next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that 19 they would know when he was coming and going; and when he 20 left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was 21 to call the police when he came, to say he was a -- a heroin 22 dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package. 23 I found out about that because the private 24 investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back 25 to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, "Look, 208 1 this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets 2 convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence." 3 I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither 4 did the private investigator. He was coming back. 5 I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki 6 Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation 7 and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away -- not 8 to do that particular operation. 9 This was an instance of manufacturing information 10 that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had 11 personal knowledge of. I've heard other things about that. 12 And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. -- 13 Q Well, what year was this? 14 A That this occurred? 15 Q Yes. 16 A This happened in 1985. 211 11 Q All right. So what happened -- what was the 12 operation against Mr. Mayo? 13 A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson. 14 And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a 15 business place, office complex. They were on the first 16 floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his 17 office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, 18 a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray 19 Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int ... 22 A -- was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a 23 deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as 24 well as Nancy Mainy. 25 And the purpose of these deep cover operatives 212 1 were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced 2 Abilities Center to provide information about financial 3 accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole 4 the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the 5 Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent 6 in there to not only glean information but to disrupt 7 activities, covertly disrupt activities. 219 2 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you 3 identify that? 4 A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along 5 with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual 6 of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude 7 of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind 8 of gives the thought process, the -- the basis of it. It 9 comes from Klausewitz. 10 Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is 11 directed against the enemies of Scientology? 12 A Correct. 13 Q And then the third -- actually, the fourth 14 paragraph from the bottom it states -- states, quote, One 15 cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. 16 This policy letter goes to -- applies to former 17 Scientologists as well as someone who's an -- an enemy, who 18 has never been a Scientologist? 19 A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a -- 20 as an enemy. 220 10 Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph 11 states, "Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It 12 eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence 13 and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close 14 quote. What is PRO? 15 A Public relations officer. 16 Q And intelligence is what? 17 A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or 18 department or division of Scientology organizations. 19 Intelligence having to do with the prediction. 20 Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, 21 intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to 22 predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states 23 that in the issue. So intelligence would predict or would 24 start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data 25 collection, covert data collection, amass as much 221 1 information about the situation as possible, then proceed 2 accordingly. 3 Q That's the -- does that include the use of the 4 private investigators? 5 A Yes 222 3 A 116 is a document in the same vein of the 4 documents we've been studying before. It's the public 5 investigation section. And this basically has to do with -- 6 "investigates attacking individual members and see the 7 results of the investigation, get adequate legal and 8 publicity." 9 So this again is similar to what we've gone over 10 here before. 11 Q So it's in a series of the other exhibits on how 12 to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology? 13 A Correct. 14 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 117, entitled 15 Attacks on Scientology. What is that? 16 A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It 17 talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. "An attack 18 on Scientology --" well, you know, the basic principle is, 19 never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the 20 attacker. That kind of thing. 21 Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late '60s. 22 Were they still in effect when you were in your management 23 position at RTC? 24 A Very much so. And they're still in effect today. 223 4 Q And how do you know they're still in effect today? 5 A Because of that time track that was submitted into 6 this courtroom of specific things that have -- that have 7 occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over 8 specifically what has happened to me because of my 9 involvement in this case and other cases. 230 9 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 119. Can you 10 identify this, please? 11 A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 12 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those 13 activities within the Scientology organization. 14 Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the 15 caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? 16 A Because I think that it, again, just like these 17 other issues that we've seen, goes along in the same vein, 18 in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, 19 including what it says it'll do here: Create the greatest 20 possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a 21 government or whoever to protect Scientology. 237 16 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the 17 reason why we have this document in here is because 18 it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing 19 pattern of conduct, where if there's a perceived 20 enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a 21 specific program to remove him from any position. 22 That's the first thing it says in this document, you 23 know, to remove this person from his job so that 24 he's not a threat to Scientology. 25 And -- and it goes on where, you know, they had 238 1 some college -- the person pretend to be a college 2 student and write a letter - 243 18 Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on 19 this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court's 20 attention? 21 A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the 22 Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, "When we 23 need somebody haunted, we investigate." 24 This talks about not only people inside of 25 Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of 244 1 Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; 2 people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They 3 don't have to be a Scientologist. And it -- and it -- this 4 is -- this document itself explains the basis of 5 intelligence, investigation, how it's used, how you handle 6 bad press. And it -- it's just kind of like a little 7 handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to 8 have that function within Scientology. Prince, July 8, 2002. Frank Oliver, who quit as an OSA member in 1992, also confirmed this policy of finding or manufacturing evidence to make the enemy sue for peace when he testified about seeing illegally obtained credit information, bank records, airline reservations, and phone records of those Scientology was targeting. He also was involved in investigations concerning the Cult Awareness Network, CAN, which was infiltrated by Scientology and eventually bankrupted. Scientology now runs CAN after purchasing its name from the Bankruptcy Court. Oliver, beginning at 290, July 15, 2002. Contrary to Scientology's statements in this court that the past criminal conduct of the Guardian's Office, Department 20 n/k/a OSA, was the action of a few misguided and unauthorized zealots, such as Mrs. Hubbard, the courts have recognized that those criminal actions were authorized by Mr. Hubbard as well. Plaintiff's allegations that the Hubbards controlled the Guardian's Office of the Church is corroborated by the findings in (US.v Heldt ) United States v. Hubbard, et al, 668 F.2d 1238 (C.A.D.C.1981). (Exhibit B to plaintiff's opposition to defendant Lisa's motion for protective order filed October 15, 1981. The indictment there covers the same general time span as this case.) The Court of Appeals found the Hubbards to be the first and second highest officials in the Scientology organization. Id. at 1243. McLean v. Church of Scientology of California, 538 F.Supp. 545, 548 (M.D. FLA 1982). After a small group were convicted in the Snow White Operation of Department 20, such as Mrs. Hubbard, that did not stop criminal activity of this church. The Florida Bar v. Vannier, 498 So.2d 896, 897(Fla. 1986). "The Church, or its agents, were involved in numerous civil and criminal cases throughout the United States during and following this period of time. In the seizure of documents from the Church's Los Angeles headquarters, it was revealed that Vannier was an undercover agent for the Church." Vannier was the attorney for Gabe Cazares, Mayor of Clearwater, embattled in litigation with Scientology. Even in this case, this defendant, COSFSO, engaged in improper activity by tampering with the Plaintiff's expert witness, Jesse Prince, by sending in an undercover private investigator into his home. Employing the written commands of Mr. Hubbard of conducting a "noisy investigation," finding the crimes of Mr. Minton, or manufacturing evidence so that Minton begs for peace most likely resulted in huge bonuses for those involved. 194 18 Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked 19 about your position with the Religious Technology Center; 20 you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing 21 investigations involving litigation and other critics of 22 Scientology. And I'm showing you today Plaintiff's Exhibit 23 113, entitled Intelligence Actions. Can you identify that 24 document? 25 A Yes. 195 1 Q And what is it? 2 A This is a document -- a document written by L. Ron 3 Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about 4 predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating 5 individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals. 6 And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives 7 to be enemies or suppressive persons. 8 Q Against whom? They're enemies of whom? 9 A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These 10 are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of 11 Scientology. Prince, July 8, 2002. Scientology's motive to extort Minton is apparent. The Lisa McPherson case is Scientology's worst PR FLAP. The story had gained national press exposure. It occurred at the "mecca of technical perfection" in the first "Scientology City." The Estate had seemingly unlimited funding and more than sufficient evidence of culpability not only of the "tech" but also the leadership of Scientology. As Minton told Nancy Many, former OSA volunteer, on March 12, 2002, Scientology would stop at nothing to stop the Lisa case from going to trial in June 2002. 156 18 A Been to Sandown, New Hampshire, to his place in 19 Sandown, New Hampshire; that the trial date was set for 20 early June; and they, meaning the Scientologists, were going 21 nuts and would stop at nothing to prevent that trial from 22 happening. 23 And he said that it was -- that he was in 24 negotiations with the Church, settlement negotiations, and 25 that that also was going well, but the sticking point had 157 1 been that no more money was to go to Ken Dandar. 2 BY MR. DANDAR: 3 Q From the Church -- the Church was saying this to 4 him? 5 A The Church was saying this to him, that we could 6 settle but no more money to Ken. Nancy Many, Jul 12, 2002. But Scientology had been pressuring Minton as early as 1997 to stop funding this case. What was different in 2002 that enabled it to succeed? Extortion, and in particular, extortion that threatened Minton's wife and daughters. Minton admitted at this hearing that Rinder was the "triggerman" and Moxon was aiming the gun. Minton at 1850 on May 30, 2002, volume 14, and page 1894, May 30, 2002, volume 15. Minton admitted to Prince in 2002 that Scientology had obtained a copy of the May 2000 UBS check, even though Minton could not obtain a copy. 384 17 Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when 18 Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by 19 Scientology of a UBS check? 20 A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made 21 reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the 22 last one that I did, the April 2002. 23 He called me just in grief, crying. He's like, 24 "It's over. They got me. You know, I'm going to jail." 25 He's just 385 1 THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You 2 want your last affidavit? I think it was in there. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week 4 prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th. 5 So we're talking like maybe March 21st or something 6 like that. You know, the week prior to going to New 7 York. 8 BY MR. DANDAR: 9 Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit. 10 A Okay. ... 16 A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks 17 and -- 18 BY MR. DANDAR: 19 Q Well, let's back up. 20 Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, "It is 21 all over." What else? 22 A He said that, Mmm, "I'm going to jail. I have 23 been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after Therese 24 and the kids." 25 And he was just completely despondent about that. 386 1 Q And this was before the New York City meetings? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Okay. 4 A Yeah. So then -- 5 Q But he didn't go into detail as to why he thought 6 he was going to jail? 7 A No, he wouldn't tell me then. I wanted to know, 8 what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new 9 thing has happened? He wouldn't tell me. 10 Q Okay. 11 A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional 12 information. She didn't know what the heck had happened. 13 But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there 14 that day. 15 Q To New Hampshire? 16 A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an 17 idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I 18 had no idea that this was a significant incident. 19 But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten 20 a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that 21 he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this 22 $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to 23 prosecute him on it. 24 Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy 25 of this UBS check? 387 1 A No. He said he didn't know how they got a copy 2 because he can't get a copy of it. He said, "I tried. I 3 can't get a copy of it." 4 Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him. 5 And he was just beside himself. 388 13 MR. DANDAR: He's reading from Paragraph 9 on 14 Page 3. 15 BY MR. DANDAR: 16 Q Am I right? 17 A Yes. But, you know -- yes, that was on Page 3, 18 Number 9, during the time period, what I'm talking about 19 here. 20 And before I wrote this affidavit on the 21 attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first 22 page that -- that Scientology had gathered enough 23 information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted, 24 convicted and jailed. 25 MR. DANDAR: He's looking at his handwritten 389 1 attachment. 2 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first 5 paragraph. 6 THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question? ... 17 I don't mention the check specifically, but 18 what I mention is, is the information that 19 Scientology had gotten, information that said they 20 were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail. 21 You know -- 22 BY MR. DANDAR: 23 Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation -- 24 the first conversation where he's crying? 25 A Yes. They discovered information about him that 390 1 threatened his wife and children's future. You know, again, 2 he's suicidal. And then -- ... 391 1 And then he's telling me, you know, they have 2 got this check. And, you know, and he says -- 3 basically, it's come down to me or Ken Dandar, 4 somebody has to die here. 5 And I'm like, you know, this was such a 6 complete turnaround. These are people I worked with 7 now for years. We have all been on one accord, 8 doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now 9 Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar. Prince, July 8, 2002. Ken Dandar also testified, as confirmed by Minton, that during the Good Friday telephone calls between the two on March 29, 2002, Minton confirmed these threats not only involved him going to jail, but the threats also involved his wife Therese and their two daughters. That call was confirmed by Dandar in writing to Minton on March 30, 2002: March 30, 2002 Bob: Your call yesterday was disturbing to me on a professional and personal level. I do not know what extortion Scientology, through Rinder, Rosen and Yingling are perpetrating against you, but it appears to be one that has pushed you over the edge. It was extremely incendiary for Stacy to say that the "blood" of your wife, daughters, and you will be on our hands! It is beyond me how you could ask Dell and me to dismiss the case and just walk away. With all due respect to you, this lawsuit against Scientology is not about you. It is about the death of Lisa McPherson, a homicide. Contrary to what Scientology has attempted to make the courts and world at large believe, you do not, never have or ever will control this lawsuit against Scientology in any way, shape or form. Following your call to me, I called Dell. I advised her of our telephone conversation. She in no uncertain terms told me that will never walk away from the case. Her directive to me was at it always has been. That is, do not relent in the effort to carry out the wishes of Fannie. Fannie instructed Dell and me to tell the world what Scientology did to her daughter and to make Scientology be accountable for causing Lisa's death. When I went to visit with Fannie in Texas, Dell, in front of me, promised Fannie, whom she dearly loved, that she would carry the case to the end. I made the same promise. That is a promise that neither Dell nor I will ever break under any circumstances. I am a lawyer with ethical obligations to my client, Dell. I take those obligations very seriously. I have only one client in this wrongful death lawsuit against Scientology and that is Dell and not you or Stacy Brooks. As you well know, Dell has been and always will be in charge of the litigation. Your personal loans to me were unconditional. I was free to spend that money as I saw fit. You repeatedly stated under oath in your depositions that you trusted me, which I hope you still do, to spend the money as I sought fit. You confirmed in your original and only letter that the loans to me were without any strings and would only need to be repaid if and only if the Estate of Lisa McPherson determined that it has been reasonably compensated, after payment of fees and costs. Now that you know that Dell will never walk away from the case, you must also know that she prays for you and your wife and daughters every day as she does for wife, my daughter and me. If I knew in the beginning that there were problems with your finances, I would have never accepted your loans. Had you remained silent in the background, Scientology would never have known about you and your desire to fund the case to defray the costs of the litigation. You chose to start the LMT against my professional and personal advice and of Dell. You appointed me as an "advisor" whose advice you never followed. Dell agreed to serve on the board to try to provide advisory input, but she too was ignored. I still do not know what problems you face now that are so great that you would insist that Dell heed the demands of SCN and walk away from the Lisa case. That has placed great stress on Dell and I because that will never be considered. Dell and her family will never make a deal with the devil. You should not be so foolish to do so either. The devil will never honor its deal. Does this make Dell and I heartless? I would hope that you do not see it that way. We are extremely concerned for you, your wife, and your daughters. I am insistent that you and Steve are smart enough to figure out a solution that does not cause harm to you and your family. You need to get your life in order, Bob. I know I have no business in saying that, but that comes from the heart and it is not the first time I said it. No matter what happens, I will forever say that there is no one in the world like Bob Minton. You are the most genuine, honest, modest, and sincere person I have ever met. I will always be here or anywhere in the world to help you. You can ask me for anything, except for those things that do not require me to compromise my ethics as a lawyer and my values as a person. Dismissing the case because Scientology is attempting to extort and blackmail you is a request I cannot nor will ever honor. From what I know so far, it is my opinion that Scientology and its counsel are blackmailing and extorting you. I am outraged, but then I have no respect for anyone who works for Scientology. Steve told me yesterday after I talked with you that he does not believe that the demand is a total walk away. It is more like demanding the Estate take less than it expects. It is totally unethical for Rosen, Yingling and Rinder to meet with you and make any demands on the Estate. You have no power or authority to negotiate with anyone, never mind Scientology, for the Estate. Scientology certainly cannot be afraid to negotiate with Dell and me. Therefore, I believe Scientology and its unethical representatives are not acting in good faith. They are simply again trying to interfere and undermine the litigation against them and our relationship. The court has set our third mediation for April 19, something Rosen conveniently forgot to mention to Steve. The case has never been as strong as it is now! You always told me that the Nigerian thing is a bunch of lies and all your transactions have been proper. That is why you need to be strong and fight for your rights. If you need me, I will fight there with you. However, I will never put myself in any situation, which presents a conflict of interest. Scientology has never succeeded in intimidating me and they never will. I have said quite a bit now, but I need you to know exactly where Dell and I stand. We hope this does not mean that you will never talk to us again. We hope that your attorneys can figure out a way to resolve the issues favorably. When you first got into this, after you made a settlement with them in FACTNet, you certainly knew what evil Scientology is capable of spawning. Yet you plowed right in as one of the bravest men in the world. You need to find that strength now. Pray for God's wisdom. Dell and I will continue to pray for you and your family. Prayer does work! Ken This confirms the subsequent Prince testimony above. It also shows that Minton going to jail has nothing to do with the two contempt hearings in Florida, since his wife and daughters had no involvement in that. The first letter from Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, of April 1, 2002, did not respond to the above e-mail. The second letter from Jonas of April 11, 2002, introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Ex. 12, also does not rebut the extortion in this e-mail of March 30, 2002. I received your letter of April 10, 2002, and have the following comments. We did speak on March 29, 2002 and I did tell you that Scientology had made certain demands (I did not mentioned threats) towards Mr. Minton. One of them was their request that Mr. Minton bring about the dismissal of the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case. I did not offer to go into detail about the discussions between Mr. Minton and Scientology and, in fact, told you that through me Mr. Minton had entered into a confidentiality agreement that would prevent either Mr. Minton or me from going into detail about those discussions. We did not discuss your signing or being bound by such an agreement. ... Steven A. Jonas This Jonas letter in addition to the Yingling notes confirms, contrary to Minton's and Brooks' hearing testimony, that Scientology demanded that the McPherson case be dismissed. Scientology did not rebut this testimony of extortion, not at all. C. The Evidence of Extortion. "Wrongful death No Money or other support, withdrawal of JP and SB affidavits, commit to be Ws, effort to try to exert influence over- Dandar and Leibrick to resolve matter. SJ say can't commit to making case go away [page 6] SR - hope this is not harbinger of things to come because extremely disappointed - SB& JP already arc not W's - Dandar has told Ct would not be W's" "MR - until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have disengagement. MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how" "SR believes BM can he very persuasive with Dandar" Yingling notes of March 28, 2002. "...until wrongful death case goes away - we can not have disengagement" Disengagement? Need more be said? Minton was absolutely intent to have disengagement. The policy letters of extortion via "noisy investigations" and digging up crimes of Minton had worked. In the above meeting excerpt, Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas, "SJ," is summing up Scientology demands, which include demanding that the wrongful death case be dismissed, that Minton stop funding the case, and that Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks withdraw their affidavits and not be witnesses. However, the more profound evidence of extortion is found in the language of "effort to try to exert influence over Dandar and Liebreich" followed by Sandy Rosen's comments that he hopes it is not a "harbinger of things to come" because he, Rosen, would be "extremely disappointed." There is no uncertainty that Scientology, through Rinder, is demanding the McPherson case "go away." "MR knows BM can do it - can discuss later how." This is the introduction to Minton of future discussions of making the case "go away," since Jonas already stated that he was not sure Minton could procure the dismissal. This is also an admission that Minton had no control. Rinder did not approach that subject then because Rinder did not want to discuss his plans in front of Minton's attorney, Steve Jonas. We do know that later in Florida, Rinder instructs Minton how to do it while Minton is without counsel. The identification of the source of the UBS checks by identifying the account numbers and financial institution originating the funds to the UBS is the key to the extortion of Robert Minton. That is why Minton pled the Fifth Amendment at this hearing. 23 Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you 24 hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar 25 making a lie about the $500,000 check? 433 1 A No. I got up and left immediately. 2 Q All right. And when is the next time you were 3 talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks? 4 A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just 5 couldn't even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw 6 that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn't 7 know what to do. 8 And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind 9 something criminal was going on here, I need to do something 10 to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming. 11 And I -- 12 THE COURT: When you say to help your friends, 13 you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and 14 Stacy Brooks? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. 16 BY MR. DANDAR: 17 Q So you went, on your own, to Denis's office? 18 A Yes. 19 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I should not put words 20 in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant 21 Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other 22 friend? 23 THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to 24 Mr. deVlaming's office and I explained to him that I 25 had been privileged to know that this was going to 434 1 happen, that this was going to be created and done 2 against you, and I explained the whole thing to him. Prince July 8, 2002. Minton had called Dandar in early March 2002 asking about any court action here which may be causing his and the "Fat Man's" Swiss bank concerns and the Swiss prosecutors to show renewed interest in Minton. The inference is that this is the time Scientology made progress in getting the UBS check. Scientology noticed Minton's wife for deposition. (See Appendix D.) This all made Minton very nervous and threatened. The inference is Minton's wife did not know of the Swiss bank accounts. The noose was tightening around Minton's neck. Checkmate! 313 15 But what is interesting about all of this -- and I 16 still don't know the answer to this -- is that he was 17 extremely concerned that I hurry up and deposit that check. 18 I don't know -- I took it to mean that, you know, something 19 was going on wherever this check came from, because we had a 20 couple of phone calls about that. 21 Q You and Mr. Minton had a couple phone calls about 22 it? 23 A About something going on in Switzerland, and he 24 was really, really, really concerned about -- 25 Q Did he say what he was concerned about? 314 1 A Well, it was after this check came, I deposited 2 the check, he calls me up and asks me, "Did the court in 3 Florida send something out to the Swiss banks, like a letter 4 interrogatory, a subpoena for documents?" 5 I said, "Not as far as I know." 6 I asked him, "Why are you asking me this 7 question?" 8 He said, "Because something is happening in the 9 Swiss banks. And there is a new prosecutor in Switzerland, 10 there is a new judge. They had a hearing about me." 11 And he suspected Scientology was behind all that 12 because they were behind the false accusations in Nigeria -- 13 at least he told me they were false. But he was extremely 14 concerned. And that is when he said I need to hurry up and 15 deposit the check, because somehow his friends and he were 16 somehow implicated in whatever was going on in the Swiss 17 bank. Dandar June 4, 2002 As far as the evidence discloses, the extortion begins when Rinder tells Minton he has the UBS check of May 2000, when Minton can't get a copy of this check. It continues in the meetings of March 28 & 29, 2002 in Rosen's office in New York. "SR - now preparing RICO case which will encompass all damages above." Page 5 of Yingling notes, where SR stands for Sandy Rosen. There, solely for the pecuniary advantage of Scientology, Rinder and Rosen threaten Minton with RICO and the Armstrong suit, where damages are in excess of 200 million dollars. Rinder and Rosen give Minton the demand to make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away" before Scientology will even consider "disengagement." Note, this is the word of Rinder or Rosen. It is not settlement of a case. Neither Minton, Rosen, nor Rinder had any right to settle or dismiss the McPherson case. It is disengagement of the threats, the harassment, the threats to put Minton's wife in jail. (See Minton's Harassment Time Line, Plaintiffs Ex. 4.) "I'm going to jail. I have been told I'm going to jail. They're coming after Therese and the kids." Prince, supra. This is extortion. 25 Q Isn't it true in that conversation that Bob 1 Minton said if the case was not dismissed immediately the, 2 quote, blood and death of his daughters, his wife, and 3 himself would be on my hands? 4 A I think he said "the blood." 5 Q Did he say "blood and death" or just "blood"? 6 A I think just "blood." 7 Q Okay. 8 A But, you know. 9 Q Do you know what Mr. Minton meant when he used 10 the word "blood"? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What? 13 A It was a fairly dramatic way of saying -- and I 14 think he also said that you and he were both going to go 15 down -- 16 THE COURT: Before you get into the rest of 17 it, tell him -- he asked you what it meant. So -- 18 THE WITNESS: Well, okay. It was a fairly 19 dramatic way of -- I mean, he wasn't -- it was just a 20 dramatic way of saying that they were going to both be 21 destroyed. Brooks, at page 1399, This is not a discussion of "we are going to sue you if you do not pay our damages." This is the coercion and duress of "disengagement." Mr. Rinder, head of OSA INT, had no right to demand that Minton make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away." Mr. Rosen had no legal justification to threaten Minton with RICO, claiming the magnitude of their damages is their prosecution costs of Scientology critics and defense costs of claims, such as Lopez. Therefore their threats are "malicious" under 836.05 and their actions are extortion. Alonso v. State, supra. The threats are well preserved in the typed Yingling notes of the New York meetings. For example, on page 13, Rosen states that Minton's deposition in the breach case is not just about whether he encouraged the breach, but it is about all of Minton's "financial information." This is a prime example of how Scientology discovery is a fishing expedition on intelligence gathering on collateral matters. It is per policy of Scientology, it is extortion, and it is all sanctionable. Threats made to Minton, who, upon demand of Rinder and Rosen, in turn threatens the Estate and its counsel remains a threat under the Extortion statute from the Church of Scientology. 22 Q Now, Mr. Rosen, in addition to saying he spent 23 $40,000 on research and other things, he also said to 24 Mr. Minton that the RICO suit will be filed when the 25 wrongful death case is won. Right? 1 A Mmm, that -- that is what is reflected in -- in 2 the notes. I don't have a specific recollection of -- of 3 that having been said. 4 Q At that point in time -- this is probably a silly 5 question -- do you recall Minton or Mr. Jonas saying 6 anything in response to that? 7 A No. The only thing -- the only time that 8 Mr. Jonas said something about RICO was when -- as I 9 explained before, when Mr. Minton asked for a total of all 10 of the damage and -- and Mr. Jonas dismissed that question 11 and said that he -- he believed that one of the reasons for 12 the exercise of setting forth what damage the Church 13 believed Mr. Minton had caused was as a measure of magnitude 14 for a RICO case. Pages 217-218 of Scientology attorney Yingling, June 12-2002 testimony. In direct contravention of Minton's testimony at this hearing, on page 563 of this hearing on May 7, 2002, Stacy Brooks confirms Yingling's and Jonas' notes that not only was a RICO suit threatened by Rosen against Minton, but that a draft of the RICO suit was in Rosen's hands on March 28,2002. 2 Q....And you were telling me about 3 Mr. Rosen's activities at this meeting. And apparently was 4 there a large stack of paper represented to be a 5 racketeering lawsuit shown to Mr. Minton or yourself at that 6 time? 7 A Not that I recall. 8 Q Just discussion about the issue? 9 A Uh-huh. 10 THE COURT: "Uh-huh," was that a yes? 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes. 12 THE COURT: Okay. I say that and I'll tell you 13 why. Uh-huh and uh-uh are very hard to know whether 14 it is a yes or no on one of those records. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 BY MR. LIROT: 18 Q Did the LMT hire a gentleman by the name of 19 Patrick Yost? 20 A Excuse me just a second. He may have held 21 something up and said this was a draft. I -- that may have 22 happened. I'm not sure. Scientology and Minton deny that Minton was shown a copy of a RICO suit. Prince testified that Minton did show him a copy of the $110 million RICO suit in April 2002. While Scientology may claim it has a right to pursue a civil RICO suit, threatening to do so for its own pecuniary advantage/gain, i.e., to get Minton to obtain dismissal of the McPherson case or there would be no "disengagement" from Scientology harassment or litigation, is indeed extortion under Florida law. There can be no doubt that the wife signed the property settlement agreement without having an actual gun at her head. Equally without question is the fact that she did have independent legal advice and that both her lawyer and a friend cautioned her not to sign it. Nonetheless, she did so. All this being so, at first blush, it would appear she not only signed the agreement voluntarily and with full disclosure, but indeed insisted on signing it. However, the coercion and duress aspect inescapably arises because the husband admittedly insisted that she sign it or he would turn her and her partners in to the Internal Revenue Service. Apparently, the wife had been failing to report substantial cash receipts from the operation of her beauty salon business. Her unrebutted testimony is that fear of the I.R.S. is the only reason that she signed it. (Emphasis added). We certainly agree that the husband had a legal right to actually turn her in to the I.R.S. and that a claim of coercion cannot be predicated on a threat to do an act which the person has a lawful right to do. However as we have already discussed above, the husband does not have the right to threaten to do it for his own pecuniary advantage. See Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Berger at 1150. The obviousness of the plan to make the McPherson case and the Wollersheim case "go away" is in the fact that the recantation affidavits also include the Wollersheim case. Dan Leipold, Wollersheim's current attorney, testified that both Brooks and Minton called him on April 8, 2002, to withdraw her declaration and Prince's declaration in hopes of getting the Wollersheim case dismissed. 14 A I filed the declaration originally, I believe, 15 sometime in mid-1997, and I received a telephone call from 16 Ms. Brooks on April 8th, I believe, 2002, in which she told 17 me that she and Robert Minton were attempting to settle 18 legal actions against them or settle with the Church of 19 Scientology, and she wished me to withdraw that declaration 20 from the -- from the court. And then later that day, Bob 21 Minton - 23 A -- he asked me to dismiss that action on behalf of 24 my client. Leipold at 27. Consider the following: 1. Scientology's tax attorney expert, Yingling, present at every meeting 2. The evidence from Minton and Brooks that Minton never expressed to others his fear of tax evasion; 3. Other witnesses' testimony that Minton did emphatically express those fears, 4. No notes of the Clearwater meetings; and 5. Minton's counsel not present This leads to the conclusion that coercion was placed on Minton by Scientology about his tax evasion. 189 13 A We had just come from looking at the sound stage 14 where we were building the set. He didn't seem to be very 15 interested in it. He seemed to be agitated and upset and 16 unhappy. So he ordered a drink. 17 And I said, "What's up?" 18 He said: "These Scientologists are driving me 19 crazy. They're following me everywhere. They're harassing 20 my daughters." He said, "And I'm very, very upset." And 21 he said, "They're all over me for this Nigerian thing." He 22 made some business deal in Nigeria. 23 And I said, "Well, so? What's up with that?" 24 You know, "They're not going to get anything on you." 25 And then Patricia was there for some of that 190 1 conversation. She left. And when she left and he was 2 talking about that Nigeria money, he broke down into tears, 3 and he said that he had tax problems with respect to that 4 money and that that was what was worrying him. And so -- 5 Q Did he say what kind of tax problems he had with 6 that Nigerian money? 7 A Yes, said he hadn't paid taxes on that money. 8 Q And he was in tears? 9 A Yes. Peter Alexander, June 7, 2002. 9 Q Well, so why was it coming from Operation 10 Clambake? 11 A Mmm, see, that was the tax evasion part. It was 12 as a donation. Right? And I guess if it comes in as a 13 donation to a company, then rather than Bob bringing his own 14 money in -- you know, I don't know all of the details of 15 this, but this was my understanding -- that then he didn't 16 have to pay taxes because it was a donation to a company. Teresa Summers, at 75, June 10, 2002. Minton's refusal, based on the Fifth Amendment, to produce his tax returns or proof of the identity of the source of the originating bank of those funds, creates the reasonable inference under Florida law that the identity of the source of the funds would be viewed negatively toward Minton. Pleading the Fifth Amendment and retaining a money laundering/tax expert formerly with the U.S. Treasury Department, Patrick Jost, who admitted in deposition that he was retained for this particular expertise, also discloses the most vulnerable area of Mr. Minton to be subject to duress and coercion: his money and the failure to pay taxes. Minton's former business partner, Jeff Schmidt, was subjected to Scientology's business practice of "Fair Game" via extortion, otherwise known as a "noisy investigation." 119 6 Q Did you observe any noisy investigation of Bob 7 Minton? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What -- give us some examples. 10 A Well, the most vivid one that comes to mind is an 11 operation that was done on his best friend, Jeff Schmidt, 12 who he had apparently started a company with. Scientology 13 found out about Jeff Schmidt through its investigation of 14 Bob Minton. ... 17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was there and I 18 spoke with Jeff Schmidt and Robert Minton. We were 19 in the financial district in London. And he made it 20 very clear to me what Scientology had done. And he 21 was in the process of packing up his office to move 22 out of the country. 120 7 Q And Jeff Schmidt was Bob Minton's business 8 partner? 9 A Correct. 10 Q And what happened to him? 11 A He eventually disassociated himself from Bob 12 Minton from fear of losing his business practice. He 13 basically couldn't stand a threat -- 14 What he told me specifically is that a Scientology 15 investigator came to him and asked him to either provide or 16 show them how to create information to get Bob Minton; in 17 other words, to get him in legally, to get him involved in 18 law enforcement, on the bad end of law enforcement. And 19 Jeff Schmidt said that he was refusing to do it, and had had 20 many negotiations with this private investigator. 21 Finally his office was broken into and materials 22 were taken out of the office, and at that point, that's when 23 Bob and I flew over there to discuss, "Well, okay. What was 24 taken? What does this mean? What can be done?" Prince at 119-120 on June 18, 2002. It is utterly inconceivable that Scientology did not threaten Minton. Minton is now doing what Scientology has demanded him to do to make the McPherson case "go away." 13 Q Are you aware of any kind of trouble that was 14 started with Nigeria in reference to the Swiss government? 15 A I know that certain allegations were brought in 16 Nigeria. And the private investigator working on 17 Scientology's behalf did go to Switzerland, talked to 18 prosecutors, talked to law enforcement, and to use whatever 19 sway or ability that they had to try to get charges brought 20 against Bob in Prince at 124. 127 12 Q And how did Mr. Minton feel about losing his 13 partnership in a Lexus dealership in New England? 14 A He just broke down and cried. He was like, how is 15 it possible to live in a country like America and not be 16 able to stop this, to turn this off in some way? 17 Q What about any other noisy investigations? 18 A I guess they went to his mother's house and 19 basically told his mother that he's crazy and needed to be 20 incarcerated, and to somehow get the family together to try 21 to get some kind of incarceration going, or at least get 22 that idea going something was seriously wrong with Bob. 132 10 A He -- he called me on the phone and he said, 11 "Jesse, you won't believe what they're doing now. They're 12 going after my daughters." "Oh. What happened?" "Well, 13 she was followed," or, "They papered the neighborhood," or, 14 you know, "They're passing leaflets out. They're talking to 15 their friends," his daughter's associates, parents, or 16 different people, you know, and just kind of doing their 17 noisy investigation. And this was apparently quite 18 upsetting to his wife, Therese, who would always -- Bob said 19 she would ask, "Well, what are you going to do about it? 20 Well, this can't happen. How do you make this stop?" 133 7 So for anyone 8 to -- to have that much done to them, I mean, even in my 9 time I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy an 10 individual. 137 24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Minton said that he felt that 25 if he came to Florida, that he was going to go to 138 1 jail. He had been being told that he was going to 2 jail. 139 3 He was concerned that if Scientology was 4 allowed to have access to his different bank 5 accounts, that he would end up fighting another war 6 with Scientology as he did with the John Fashanu 7 fiasco, and he was just tired of it. 140 8 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there's another 9 aspect to this, your Honor. And the aspect is this: 10 Bob Minton, in his mind, always tried to keep 11 his family separate from his activities. He was 12 ready to exhaust every personal resource that he had 13 for himself to keep the fight going, but he was not 14 willing to risk that for his wife and his children. 15 And so when the wife and children became a factor I 16 guess something happened. Prince, July 18, 2002. Plaintiff's Ex. 109 is a policy letter introduced into evidence through Prince. It describes manufacturing evidence if real evidence to intimidate the attacker/enemy of Scientology is not discovered. 8 THE COURT: What does the term "sue for peace" 9 mean? 10 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, it means 11 basically that a person just wants to end 12 what's-ever happening and let's just settle it and 13 all walk away as happy as possible. 14 BY MR. DANDAR: 15 Q Like a disengagement? 16 A Yes. Prince at 151-152. Per this policy letter, Plainitf's Ex. 109, Scientology has Minton begging for peace, doing whatever Scientology wants so that its harassment of Minton and his wife and daughters will end. This is extortion. IV. ALLEGED "RECANTATIONS" ARE A FRAUD ON THIS COURT RESULTING FROM AN ILLEGAL "MARY CARTER AGREEMENT." A. The Law on Mary Carter Agreements. Testifying without informing the opposing party and the court that the testimony is pursuant to a settlement or as a precondition to a settlement is known in Florida as a "Mary Carter Agreement." Such secret agreements have been declared "illegal" and "unethical" by the Florida Supreme Court. Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1993), where it stated that these agreements "mislead judges and juries and border on collusion." At 243. The court later deemed any secret agreement as "charades in trials." Lamz v. Geico General Insurance Company, 803 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla 2001), reversing the trial court which refused to permit the victim to refer to the victim's insurer as his "uninsured/underinsured motorist" insurer. Unethical and illegal conduct by lawyers requires bar discipline and court sanctions. In many instances, Mary Carter defendants may exert influences upon the adversarial process before a trial as well. They may, for example, share with a plaintiff work product previously (or subsequently, if the agreement remains secret) disclosed to them by a nonsettling defendant....In addition, Mary Carter agreements, by their very nature, promote unethical practices by Florida attorneys...In order to skillfully and successfully carry out the objectives of the Mary Carter agreement, the lawyer for the settling parties must necessarily make misrepresentations to the court and to the jury in order to maintain the charade of an adversarial relationship. These actions fly in the face of the attorney's promise to employ "means only as are consistent with truth and honor and [to] never seek to mislead the Judge or Jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law." ... Some courts have even held that a Mary Carter agreement in which the settling defendant retains a financial interest in the plaintiff's success against the nonsettling defendant is champertous in character. Dosdourian, at 244. B. The Evidence of the Illegal Agreement. In addition to the extortion, COSFSO also entered into an illegal Mary Carter Agreement with Minton. If it were not for this court ordering the production of the Yingling notes, there would be no evidence of the demand to make the case go away. One need only apply common sense to the fact that Brooks and Minton went to Scientology first before coming to this court to claim that they needed to recant in order to see through the charade and discover the collusion between them and Scientology to dismiss this case. The fact that the most vocal opponent worldwide against Scientology and who spent over 10 million dollars is now in collusion with them clearly needs no further explanation as to motivation to now come into court and lie for Scientology. The words of Jesse Prince ring true: Scientology could not get Minton to get the case voluntarily dismissed so they resorted to the next plan: get rid of the attorney or involuntary dismissal. Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do. The bottom line was Scientology wanted Bob to say that Ken Dandar caused Bob Minton to perjure himself in the breach of contract case in front of Judge Baird. The plan was to get Ken removed from the wrongful death case and get disbarred as an attorney. Prince April 2002 affidavit at 12, line 22-26, page 6. 13 Q. All right. Can you tell me about those 14 meetings? 15 A. At the present time there's a 16 confidentiality agreement in place between my 17 attorneys and the attorneys for the Church of 18 Scientology and I'm not at liberty to comment. 19 Q. Why is that? Why a confidentiality 20 agreement? What is it that -- what is it that the 21 Church of Scientology has presented to you to 22 cause this complete reversal of position on your 23 part? 24 MR. ROSEN: Your Honor, to the extent 25 that counsel is insinuating that the Church 1 has made any promise or any inducements to 2 this witness to testify as he has here before 3 you today on April 19th we waive 4 confidentiality. 5 He can just ask him the question -- 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 MR. ROSEN: -- did they promise you 8 anything? And I will not assert any 9 confidentiality with respect to that. Minton, April 19, 2002 hearing before Hon. Judge Baird at 132-133. Notice how cleverly Mr. Rosen couches the waiver of confidentiality by limiting the waiver to promises or inducements made by the Church, which technically excludes threats of any kind. The collusion of Minton and Scientology was presented to this court when Minton's attorney, Bruce Howie, was ready to produce all of the notes of the New York meetings, until Scientology counsel, Lee Fugate, spoke up and said that Rosen would have to first give his permission! 63 12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, so the record is clear, 13 I have communicated with Mr. Jonas and resolved our 14 position on the last page. However, Mr. Fugate's 15 raising a new issue concerning turning over all 16 notes of the meeting that I think pertain to these 17 notes, and I think it's best that we turn them all 18 over -- 19 THE COURT: You mean to tell me you're ready to 20 turn them over and Mr. Fugate has some objection? 21 MR. HOWIE: No. There's -- there's another 22 issue that Mr. Fugate is -- is raising here, 23 concerning turning over -- 24 THE COURT: What is it? 25 MR. HOWIE: -- all the notes. 64 1 THE COURT: What's the issue? 2 MR. FUGATE: Judge, the issue -- 3 Here's what I would like to do. I want to get 4 Mr. Rosen's notes. And I want to have those notes, 5 provide the notes to you. There's -- there's -- 6 THE COURT: I don't understand this. This is 7 Mr. Minton's counsel. Mr. Minton's counsel has been 8 contacted by the current counsel and they have no 9 objection. Why in the world would the church have 10 any authority to step in and make any statement? 11 MR. FUGATE: I don't have any authority -- 12 THE COURT: Well, then good. Then you don't 13 need to be here and we can deal with this today. 14 MR. HOWIE: Well, your Honor, it's just that I 15 have to revise my notice of filing and so on. And I 16 understand there are issues concerning the 17 confidentiality agreement that Mr. Fugate wishes to 18 address on Monday, which may affect -- 19 THE COURT: Oh. 20 MR. HOWIE: -- the issue of the notes. 21 MR. FUGATE: That's all, Judge. There's no 22 hide and seek. I don't have any authority over 23 that. It's an issue that I want to raise with the 24 court that's been raised with me through counsel. 25 THE COURT: Who? Which counsel? 65 1 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Rosen. 2 THE COURT: Oh. 3 MR. FUGATE: And that's all, Judge. And I -- 4 you know -- 5 THE COURT: On these notes? On Mr. Minton's 6 counsel's notes? 7 MR. FUGATE: On our -- when I say our, 8 Mr. Rosen's notes. 9 And I think it reflects on what I understand 10 are in these notes. All I just want to do is just 11 bring it to the court's attention and let you look 12 at those sets and that's it. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. HOWIE: That's correct, your Honor. 15 Because much of what Mr. Jonas's notes have include 16 comments by Mr. Rosen. 17 THE COURT: I -- oh, I see. All right. 18 MR. FUGATE: No -- no hide and seek. Nothing 19 nefarious. I just want to raise an issue with your 20 Honor and let you look at them and then you decide 21 whatever you want to do. 22 THE COURT: We'll take that up Monday. And you 23 may be excused. 24 MR. HOWIE: We'll be here 9:00 Monday. June 7, 2002 Returning to the courtroom on Monday morning, there was no explanation by Fugate, Howie, Rosen, or anyone else representing Scientology to explain the Scientology objection and delay in producing the Jonas notes. 4 23 THE COURT: Now, some notes. Let me start 24 and go backwards. 25 Well, Mr. Howie, did you have something for 5 1 me this morning? 2 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor, I do. I'm 3 going to go ahead and file the notes of the March 28th 4 meeting in New York that I received from Steve Jonas, 5 starting as always with a courtesy copy to the Court. 6 THE COURT: Thank you. 7 MR. HOWIE: And I'm filing the original with 8 the clerk. 9 THE COURT: All right. 10 MR. HOWIE: And I'll distribute the copies. 11 THE COURT: I expect we ought to make this 12 an exhibit. 13 MR. WEINBERG: That's fine. 14 THE COURT: I don't know who -- I think, 15 Mr. Dandar, it was you that wanted these, wasn't it? 16 MR. DANDAR: Yes. It would be plaintiff's 17 exhibit. 18 THE COURT: So we might make it plaintiff's 19 next in line, Madam Clerk. What would that be? 20 THE CLERK: 90. 21 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Howie. 22 MR. HOWIE: And that's all I have this 23 morning, unless anybody needs me. 24 THE COURT: I don't. And I thank you for 25 coming and bringing this, and I'll take an opportunity 6 1 to look through it when I have a minute. 2 MR. WEINBERG: That was 90? 3 THE COURT: 90. 4 MR. DANDAR: Are these all the notes? 5 MR. HOWIE: Those were all the notes, with 6 the exception of the last page, which we determined in 7 conversations with Steve Jonas to be work product, 8 indicating his mental impressions of what he was 9 hearing from the Church. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. DANDAR: I would like that filed with 12 the Court, to have the Court determine if it meets 13 that criteria and if it's still protected under 14 Florida law. 15 THE COURT: Well, do you want to speak with 16 Mr. Jonas about that and see if he has an objection 17 with it? 18 MR. HOWIE: I'll speak with him. 19 THE COURT: It's sort of in the nature of a 20 privilege log or something like that? 21 MR. HOWIE: Well, it's -- without 22 representing the contents of it, it's a total of two 23 lines indicating his mental impression of what he 24 feels the -- 25 THE COURT: Well, then why don't you -- if 7 1 you don't think he would have an objection, why don't 2 you just bring it over and let me take a look at it. 3 If I agree with you, I'll hand it back. 4 MR. HOWIE: Let me speak with Mr. Jonas. 5 MR. DANDAR: There were no notes on the 6 29th, correct? 7 MR. HOWIE: No. These are all the notes 8 that I've been faxed, except for that one page, which 9 consists of about two lines. And I did not receive 10 any notes for the 29th. I believe these were strictly 11 notes for the 28th. That's the way it's been 12 represented to me. 13 THE COURT: And there were none from the 14 29th? 15 MR. HOWIE: I have not received any from the 16 29th. I'm not aware of any from the 29th. I assume 17 that Mr. Jonas provided me with all the notes that he 18 had. 19 MR. DANDAR: Since he's going to contact 20 Mr. Jonas about that last page, could we ask him to 21 ascertain if there's notes on the 29th? 22 THE COURT: Could you ask Mr. Jonas, were 23 those all his notes and he simply did not make any for 24 the 29th? 25 MR. HOWIE: Yes, I will ask him. 8 1 THE COURT: In case there's any confusion. 2 MR. HOWIE: And I'll try to get through to 3 him today, although there's sometimes as much as 4 one-day delay in him getting back. 5 THE COURT: That's all right. 6 MR. HOWIE: Thank you very much. 7. THE COURT: I appreciate if. 8. (Mr. Howie left the courtroom.) June 10, 2002, AM session. In the afternoon session, Mr. Howie gave two pages to the court in camera for review. After review, the court held page six was mental impressions and that page was not turned over. See pages 47-48 of June 11, 2002. If Rosen had no problem in letting Minton testify in front of Judge Baird, why did Rosen now have a problem in letting the notes of Minton's lawyer come into evidence? We will never know, since it was never explained. However, the fact that Minton's lawyers yielded to Rosen's objections is glaring. V. ATTACKING OPPOSING COUNSEL IS AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS PRACTICE OF SCIENTOLOGY. Scientology has a history of attacking its critics and their attorneys. In evidence are Scientology documents ordering the "manufacture" of evidence, using suits to harass, and evidence of attacking other attorneys, both physically and with allegations of suborning perjury. A. Other Cases of Church Disqualification Motions. 1. Entire United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Wollersheim case. 2. Entire Los Angeles Superior Court including the two trial judges, Swearinger and Margolis, in the Wollersheim case. 3. Graham Berry in the Fishman case. 4. Graham Berry in the Aznaran case. 5. Graham Berry in the Cipriano case. 6. Graham Berry in the FACTNET case. 7. Dan Leipold in the Wollersheim case. 8. Charles B. O'Reilly in the Wollersheim case. 9. Walt Logan in the Cazares case. 10. Robert Hayden in the McLean case. 11. Michael Flynn in multiple suits. The ESTATE does not imply from the above list that the list is exhaustive. Interestingly, Scientology also sought from Attorney Michael Flynn and his counsel the "amount and sources of fees paid." Flynn v. Church of Scientology International, 116 FRD 1 (D. Mass. 1986). The complaint alleges a written conspiracy by Hubbard and his individual and organizational agents and employees "to destroy" Flynn. This conspiracy was carried out, it is alleged, by various named Scientology organizations and individuals over which Hubbard has absolute authority. The torts alleged to have been committed at Hubbard's direction are: malicious abuse of process; malicious prosecution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; trespass; conversion; interference with contractual rights; invasion of privacy; unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 93A; assault and *1086 battery; and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68. Flynn v. Hubbard, 782 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986). Of particular importance is the case of United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118 (1st Cir. 1988), an extortion prosecution of Scientology private investigators, where the Scientology private investigators were targeting attorney Michael Flynn as an enemy of the church. This decision notes that Scientology's top private investigator, Eugene Ingram, suborned perjury against Flynn. This is the same Eugene Ingram found in Minton's Harassment Time line, in evidence, and the same Ingram who Moxon used to suborn perjury from Cipriano against attorney Graham Berry. Geoffrey Shervell was put in charge of the Church's investigation. Shervell, who testified as a government witness in this case, oversaw the investigation in his capacity as Director of Scientology's Investigation Section. The Church ran advertisements in several major newspapers, including the Boston Globe, offering a $100,000 reward "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the forgery and attempted passing of [the] check." Shervell employed private investigators to look into the check scheme. Some evidence was adduced at trial that these investigators, particularly Eugene Ingram, suborned false statements from various persons in order *120 to implicate Flynn himself in the check forgery. The statements against Flynn were given substantial play in the Church's newspaper, Freedom. The Church also publicized these allegations in a number of press conferences. Shervell was removed from the check scam investigation for several months due to his "ineffectiveness" in procuring information, but was reinstated by the Church in August 1984. At this point Reservitz, the actual mastermind of the check scheme, became a cooperating witness and operative of the government. Reservitz testified that he approached Church investigators to see if they would attempt to procure false testimony from him. In effect, he was to be bait for possible illegalities by the Church. Church investigator Ingram did in fact try to get Reservitz to implicate Flynn. Reservitz, while wearing a body recorder provided by the FBI, negotiated with the Church investigators about how much he was to be paid for his incriminating statements. At 119-120. We reject the idea that Kattar's asserted "agreement" with the Church could constitute a "legitimate entitlement" to the reward money. Any contract that was entered into between Kattar and the Church that Kattar would be paid $100,000 for false information, so that that information could be used to defame, ridicule and discredit Michael Flynn, is an illicit and unenforceable pact. Even if Kattar had some sort of claim to the money, such cannot be said to have been a "legitimate entitlement." We therefore conclude that any threat of pecuniary harm used to obtain the money would have been "wrongful," and thus a violation of the Hobbs Act. If the jury found that Kattar threatened to blow the lid on the Flynn incrimination scam unless paid the $67,000, then conviction was appropriate on a theory of economic extortion, even though there may have been an agreement to exchange the money for Kattar's false statements. At 124. There, the court also noted that the government acknowledged Scientology's illegal practices and "Fair Game" policy. 127-128. The criminal actions took place in 1984 with the conviction in 1986, while Miscavige is running all of Scientology and the Office of Special Affairs, Department 20, is in full swing. ENEMY -SP Oder. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. Ex.. 165, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Penalties for Lower Conditions 272 2 Q Now, Mr. Oliver, what does the term dead agent 3 mean? ... 12 BY MR. LIROT: 13 Q In the context of that letter, what did you 14 understand it to mean? 15 A I understand it to mean that it would -- that the 16 DA information that would have been found on this subject 17 would have been used to try and reverse a decision in some 18 court case that they had been involved in, where they had 19 given testimony. 280 11 A Yes. I know of a specific instance where 12 information was gathered on a subject, that I was certain 13 wasn't used for litigation purposes, because of its nature. 14 I won't go into specifics, I guess, because that's not what 15 you want to hear. 16 BY MR. LIROT: 17 Q Well, without mentioning any name, can you give 18 the court some specifics as to what the information was? 19 A It tried to paint an individual who was in a 20 position of -- an executive position in an organization, 21 whose views were different than that of Scientology, in an 22 unfair light, as having been involved in some kind of adult 23 entertainment industry, when in fact it wasn't the case. It 24 was just a -- you know, somebody said this, so, "Okay. 25 Yeah. We're going to use that." And it wasn't true about 281 1 the individual. 2 Q Did you ever see any of the information that -- 3 that you had developed or you knew of people in OSA 4 developing against individuals used in handbills and things 5 like that? 6 A Yes. It was information on some subjects that I 7 did some surveillance on when I was out there, and 8 information was gathered from these individuals and was 9 later explained to be something it was not. It was 10 explained to be deprogramming, when in fact it wasn't. 283 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. Yes. To dead agent 5 someone or to put out information on the individual 6 based on intelligence that had been gathered by -- 7 BY MR. LIROT: 8 Q So you had -- we talked about the one document 9 that had, basically, the points for local -- local stats, 10 national stats -- 11 A Mm-hmm. Local attacks, national attacks. It was 12 you attacks, who attacks; you know, different statistics 13 that were based on different things on either individuals 14 that were identified as attackers and individuals that were 15 identified as attacker that you got information on. It 16 breaks it down into 10 different stats. And however much 17 information was actually gotten, you know, was worth 18 something. And then if it was actually used -- if it was 19 used in litigation, there was -- actually -- a litigation or 20 getting the person convicted of some crime, it was worth 21 more points, if you will. 22 And it's laid out in the -- in the description of 23 the statistics. 286 10 BY MR. LIROT: 11 Q Now, we have talked about the policies and the 12 cancellation of the policy referred to as fair game. Were 13 you familiar with other policies in your OSA training that 14 also required -- and I'll use the terms of the policy 15 itself -- lie, trick, sue or destroy? Are there other 16 policy letters that indicate those are part of what your 17 responsibilities were? 18 A There were several, I believe. And we 19 introduced -- we introduced a couple of them. I can't 20 remember the exact ones. But they said in essence the same 21 thing. Or I think in another policy letter, that statement 22 is also made, but I can't -- I can't tell you for certain. 23 You'd have to -- 24 THE COURT: You're talking about ones that 25 have -- you have already -- 287 1 THE WITNESS: Correct. 2 THE COURT: -- looked at here? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. 4 BY MR. LIROT: 5 Q And were all four of those different categories 6 part of your responsibilities in OSA? 7 A Well, it was -- it was known -- having read the 8 policy, and understanding it, it was part of what was known 9 to be within my job description, if you will, and I guess an 10 expected practice. 11 Q Were you ever instructed that -- that, in keeping 12 with the work product doctrine, that you weren't supposed to 13 lie, trick or destroy people; that you were just supposed to 14 do things relative to suing them? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Sustained. 18 BY MR. LIROT: 19 Q Were you ever told to focus simply on the sue or 20 the litigation nature of those directives? 21 A No. I was never told that specifically. 22 Q Was it encouraged that you go beyond those -- just 23 simply the litigation aspects of OSA's policy letters that 24 you were supposed to familiarize yourself with? 25 A Gathering information on an individual to use in 288 1 any way possible, as, you know -- as dictated with the hat; 2 you know, it said gather information to be used with PR, 3 legal or -- you know, I didn't know what it was used for. 4 So anything was gathered, anything we could gather on the 5 individual was subject to a report and to be entered into 6 the machine, if you will. 7 Q All right. With your familiarity with the dead 8 agent caper or dead agent doctrine, I guess I'll call it, 9 was that simply focused on litigation or were you encouraged 10 to go beyond that, to try to DA a person? ... 22 BY MR. LIROT: 23 Q Were you encouraged to go beyond litigation, to 24 try to achieve the DAing of a person? 25 A Yes. 289 1 Q In what way? 2 A I was sent out to DA an individual that -- I 3 believe I testified to this. I was sent out to DA an 4 individual that had been speaking out critical of the 5 organization. And what I was asked to do couldn't be 6 indicated -- at least I couldn't see how that would have 7 anything to do with legal. I was to go out and try to 8 discredit this person in a public place, and hand out 9 Scientology literature about this -- you know, this man and 10 this -- the organization that he was talking about. Didn't 11 have anything to do with legal. I mean, I had to go out 12 there and try and discredit this man in a public place and 13 give out literature that would counter anything that he had 14 said at this meeting. That wasn't in any way, to me at 15 least, indicative of anything having to do with a legal 16 case. Frank Oliver, former OSA agent, July 15, 2002. Contrary to Ben Shaw's testimony and counsel for COSFSO, "Fair Game" is a continuing practice of the Church of Scientology. Wollersheim and U.S. v. Hubbard, 474 F.2d 64 (D.C. 1979). Other cases also address "Fair Game": A. United States v. Kattar, 840 F.2d 118, 126 (1st Cir. 1988), which noted: The Church, according to the U.S. Attorney, "launched vicious smear campaigns ... against those ... perceived to be enemies of Scientology." The Church's methods for this included the subornation of perjury.... The memo also acknowledged the existence of the Fair Game doctrine as the active animating philosophy of the Church. More significantly, in a footnote, the government alleged that the Church "continues to pursue" (in 1986) the Fair Game Policy, "as the action against Flynn, Sullivan and others referenced in the text attests." This directly contradicts Shervell's testimony, and in fact strongly suggests that the Fair Game Policy was in effect as to Michael Flynn during this time period. B. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (2nd Dist. 1991), A. Christofferson v. Church of Scientology of Portland, 57 Or.App. 203, 644 P.2d 577 (OR App 1982), B. Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 (CA 2nd 1993), C. Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 T.C. 381 (1984), D. Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 18, 1976), G. Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 535 F.Supp. 1125, 1141-1142 (M.D.Mass. 1982), where the court stated: Finally, taking plaintiff's complaint as a whole, Count XI, which alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress through the Fair Game doctrine, does state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Van Schaick alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Game doctrine, agents of the Church engaged in a course of conduct, including slanderous telephone calls to her neighbors and employer, physical threats, and assault with an automobile, which was designed to dissuade her from pursuing her legal rights. In Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917 (2nd Dist. CA 1991), Armstrong left the church and took church documents in fear of retribution from Scientology. The trial court's evidentiary finding that the church's "Fair Game " policy was implemented against Armstrong in 1981 and 1982, (well after the policy was canceled per the church), was upheld on appeal. "[T]he court also determined that Armstrong's conduct was justified, in that he believed the Church threatened harm to himself and his wife, and that he could prevent such harm by taking and keeping the documents." 1063-1064. The trial court also found credible the evidence of Hubbard shredding of court ordered documents and Scientology's practice of "persons attempting to leave were locked up." 920-921. The American Lawyer magazine ran an investigatory article on Scientology litigation tactics. In addition, the church wrote nine letters of complaint to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers about Flynn alleging unethical conduct -- one complaint based upon drafts of documents church detectives found by rummaging through Flynn's trash. Outside trial lawyer Earle Cooley, who joined the church's legal team two years after the last complaint was filed, defends the church's method of gathering information: "Trash retrieval has been [upheld] by the Supreme Court of the United States." Cooley insists that at least one complaint against Flynn was justified. "Flynn had a corporation called FAMCO in which shares were sold to lawyers throughout the country to participate in a nationwide program of civil litigation against the church!" he exclaims. Drafts of a plan for FAMCO (purportedly found in Flynn's trash) were provided to The American Lawyer by Cooley, who says he "assumes" it became operative. Regardless, according to a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Flynn has never been the subject of a disciplinary action. Plaintiffs lawyers Charles O'Reilly claims he became a target for retaliation after he won a $ 30 million jury verdict against the church on behalf of former Scientologist Larry Wollersheim in 1986 in California superior court. (The verdict was reduced to $ 2.5 million and finally affirmed on appeal this March; the church petitioned the California Supreme Court for review on May 29.) Wollersheim had alleged that the church's fair game harassment tactics and coercive religious practices, such as auditing, exacerbated an existing mental illness. O'Reilly contends that, in the years following the verdict, he was questioned by the California state bar for substance abuse (the inquiry was eventually dropped), by the IRS (an investigation in ongoing), and by the state franchise tax board (no charges were ever brought). The evidence of church involvement in these matters is circumstantial -- and thin. O'Reilly points to documents filed in federal court by church lawyers during the Wollersheim case seeking records from substance abuse treatment centers relating to him. "I've never been in any of those facilities," he says. O'Reilly presents no other proof of church involvement. American Lawyer, at n.24, attached as Appendix E. Also, the Plaintiff filed a declaration of Robert Cipriano, who alleges that Scientology, through Kendrick Moxon, suborned Cipriano's perjury against Graham Berry. Mr. Moxon then informed this court that there were several declarations of Cipriano filed subsequently that recanted the declaration filed by the Estate. Moxon then filed those declarations. What Moxon failed to tell this court is that Moxon took a subsequent deposition of Cipriano to attempt to clarify the several declarations. In that deposition, Mr. Cipriano is adamant that it is Mr. Moxon who suborned his perjury to attack Graham Berry. In the case of Michael Hurtado v. Graham E. Berry, in the Superior Court of the state of California for the county of Los Angeles, Case # BC 208 227, Robert J. Cipriano discusses in his August 7, 2000 deposition conducted by Kendrick Moxon the following: 1. As he arrived for his deposition, Cipriano met Moxon outside and shook his hand. He informed Moxon that he had had enough and was "here for the truth. This is an atrocity; that I am not for or against Berry. I am not for or against Mr. Moxon and that I have been privy to documents in the last four weeks....I just want an end to this and the truth to come out as I see it..." Page 53-54. 2. He was visited by private investigator, Eugene Ingram, retained by Moxon & Kobrin or the Office of Special Affairs. Mr. Ingram had penetrated Cipriano's highly secure condominium complex and when Ingram knocked on his door, Ingram flashed a Los Angeles police badge, identifying himself as a police detective from that police department. Page 65. 3.. Ingram told Cipriano that his attorney, Graham Berry, had done illegal things in Los Angeles with regard to his practice....and involved in "some seedy sexual occurrences." Page 68. 4. Ingram told Cipriano that he knew Cipriano had an arrest warrant issued against him in New Jersey, he was a "fugitive from the law" and wanted on "numerous charges both in New York, New Jersey, and other places. Page 71. 5. He was also led to believe that if he did not cooperate, Cipriano would take him back to New Jersey for arrest. Page 72. 6. Ingram had told Cipriano that if anyone attacks Scientology there is a term used called "Fair Game"...to "discredit them so that they're attack (sic) upon whatever organization is weak by finding credibility problems with the person." Page 202. 7. During a "number of conversations" Ingram said Berry was subject to Fair Game and that "If Mr. Berry would just go away, quit litigating against his boss, then he would live a free and easy life." Page 202. 8. Later Ingram told him they plastered Berry's neighborhood with "hate flyers" and "we grabbed his bank accounts." Page 202-203. 9. Moxon paid cash to and for Cipriano, including his apartment, security deposit, rental car, paid off final judgments, and paid him to sign a declaration against Berry by disguising it as a donation to the Day of the Child Foundation. Moxon also paid him to sign a recantation affidavit. Pages 154, 155, 157, 159, 160- 163, 166, 167-177, 189, 195, 197, 210, 211. 10. The declaration that Cipriano signed as prepared by Moxon and given to Cipriano by Ingram was false. It was not what Cipriano had said. It also had exaggerations in it which Cipriano told to Ingram and Moxon. Nonetheless, it was used against Berry. Pages 100-103. 11. Ingram and Moxon talked of filing a bar complaint against Berry. Page 110. 12. Flyers would be circulated to Berry's clients. Page 114. 13. Moxon had also paid another fact witness to testify against Berry, Anthony Apodaca. Pages 113-120. 14. Moxon referred Cipriano to Gary Soter, the same attorney referred to Minton by Moxon. Page 140. 15. "There were conversations which I carefully let Mr. Moxon know that most of this declaration of May '94 was an exaggeration by Ingram." Pages 146-147. 16. Moxon told Cipriano "not to say anything about the exaggerations." Page 156. Not only was perjury suborned, but Mr. Moxon leased a car and apartment for Cipriano and paid him to sign false declarations. This multi-volume deposition is filed as further evidence of the criminal nature of the established business practice of Scientology. It is filed under separate pleading due to its late discovery and Plaintiff requests that it be admitted in evidence for the Plaintiff in support of the Plaintiff's claim of extortion herein and the routine of attacking opposing counsel. VI. THE ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE LIABILITY, (PARAGRAPH 34). After hearing the ESTATE's witnesses, this court concluded on June 17, 2002: 154 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. Contrary to Brooks' hearing testimony, and in accord with her prior declarations in other cases,(which she maintains not to be false), it has been previously judicially declared that the SEA ORG is the real management of all of Scientology. David Miscavige, in assuming the top position previously occupied by L.R. Hubbard, is the sole head of the SEA ORG. "After carefully examining the record and attempting to understand the nominal corporate structure of Scientology, it is apparent to the court that it is something of a deceptis visus. Real control is exercised less formally, but less tangibly, through an unincorporated association, the SEA Organization, more commonly referred to as the SEA ORG." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., 26 CL. CT. 713, 718 (U.S. Claims Court,1992). It has been held "that the way in which Scientology operates is often indistinguishable from any commercial activity, in that church resources have been used for private benefit." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S., at 726. In Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 381, 504 (1984), where the court concluded that "the Church of Scientology was operated for the substantial commercial purposes of tax evasion, making money, and criminally manipulating the IRS as a method of financial planning. The general directors and staff of CST are, however, closely linked to other Scientology organizations." Church of Spiritual Technology v. U.S. at 720. CSI, RTC and CST are "management churches." Id., at 717. CST is "inextricably linked to other Scientology organizations." Id., at 731. "It is disingenuous for CST to maintain that it is independent of Scientology's ecclesiastical hierarchy." Id., at 732. "CST stands posed to assume a position at the apex of a pyramid of both ecclesiastical authority and financial control of Scientology." Id. With this legal precedent, Miscavige was and continues to be the sole head of all of the enterprise of Scientology under his post as the Captain of the SEA ORG. It has been judicially determined that L Ron Hubbard was the "managing agent" of all of the Scientology enterprise through his role as head of the SEA ORG and that "Scientology remained Hubbard's alter ego". Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1458 (D.C. 1986). Stacy Brooks had nothing to do with this case, in fact she was still inside Scientology. So how can she take credit for originating the managing agent theory as one of her "fabricated scenarios?" The only person who assumed Hubbard's role after Hubbard's death is David Miscavige. Miscavige is therefore in total control of the Scientology enterprise based on the evidence presented here and the prior court decisions. That is why the Plaintiff attempted to add Miscavige as a defendant, since he is not just a figurehead, he is indeed a micro-manager. The PR Flap created by Lisa McPherson in first taking off her clothes in public, telling authorities she was a Scientologist, and being readied to be admitted to the psychiatric ward of Morton Plant Hospital would all be matters which must be immediately reported up lines to the very head of Scientology, Miscavige. This is not based on the imagination of former Scientologists, but rather on Scientology's very own documents. Once reported, everyone below Miscavige must work to protect the image of Scientology and protect and shield Miscavige from any liability, just as they previously tried to shield Hubbard. Defendants move for involuntary dismissal based on one paragraph in the Fifth Amended Complaint alleging complicity of their leader, David Miscavige, in the death of Lisa McPherson, by simply stating that the Estate never had and never will have any evidence to prove, either directly or circumstantially, his involvement. They then use the new recantation affidavits of Brooks to say that this allegation is part of her fabrication. What is most notable here is that there exists no false testimony from Jesse Prince. It is Jesse Prince, not Brooks, who had expertise in the tech and who worked as an executive under Miscavige. Prince knows -- Brooks does not. Moreover, there is no evidence of false testimony from Vaughn Young, Teresa Summers, Peter Alexander, Joseph Yanny, or Vicki Aznaran. Ever since David Miscavige evaded service of process of the Fifth Amended Complaint due to service being thwarted by COSFSO giving false answers to his residential address in court compelled answers to interrogatories, he has been dismissed as a party defendant for lack of service. Since his dismissal, the Estate has not pursued David Miscavige. Yet, the defendants seek dismissal with prejudice for the allegation made against Miscavige in the Fifth Amended Complaint. First, RTC, on behalf of Miscavige, has proceeded to sue and obtain a judgment in the Texas Eastern District Federal Court against the Estate for adding on Miscavige. COSFSO has filed another suit in Clearwater before the Hon. Douglas Baird, seeking fees for filing suit against Miscavige and other entities. The Estate will ultimately prevail in both cases, since Judge Moody already ruled there was no breach. However, these two suits are an election of remedy, since Miscavige controls not only RTC, but also COSFSO. Scientology elected to pursue the ESTATE in two different courts for damages. It therefore is judicially estopped from seeking any relief in this court. Furthermore, the defendants have not cited one case, one statute, nor one rule which permits involuntary dismissal of an entire case, especially a serious case of wrongful death, simply for alleging that while there is direct evidence of the organization's liability, there is only circumstantial evidence of the culpability of the head of an organization. All of the cases cited by Defendants concern sanctions, not dismissal. Involuntary dismissal is the severest sanction of all and is only permitted if fraud is committed by a party on a matter which is truly material to the party's position. The record here is totally lacking of fraud on the court by the Plaintiff. The Estate did have a firm factual basis through investigation prior to naming David Miscavige as a responsible party for this homicide, i.e., an intentional act of medical neglect. The evidence has not changed. This evidence consists of the established business practice of the enterprise of Scientology through the affidavits of Robert Vaughan Young, Stacy Young Brooks, Jesse Prince, Vicki Aznaran, (former President of RTC), Joseph Yanny, Esq.(former attorney for RTC), and more importantly, Scientology's own documents included in the Estate's additional authority filed in October 1999. Stacy Brooks even admitted that all of her prior declarations were true while also admitting that Michael Rinder, top Scientology executive and senior to Ben Shaw of OSA, is also a perjurer and guilty of subornation of perjury: 5 Q And you knew that allegation by Mr. Rinder was 6 false? 7 A Right. That's why we didn't sign the affidavit. (Brooks, May 16, 2002 hearing at 1358). After colluding with Mr. Rinder since February of 2002, she now states that she simply misunderstood Mr. Rinder in 1994. Defendants seem to think that by getting Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks to perjure themselves as a precondition to settlement negotiations and testify that the Estate or its counsel was ordered by them or persuaded to add on David Miscavige as a defendant, this somehow makes the pleading not based on fact. Even though lying, Minton admitted on May 21,2002, that there was no vote of the trial team to add on Miscavige, but that it was entirely left up to the Plaintiff and its counsel! As the court will recall, the Estate had been educated by the Estate's first expert witness, Robert Vaughn Young, as to the operations of Scientology and that David Miscavige micro- manages all of Scientology. The payment for this expert assistance were all made payable to Vaughn Young, except the first check. All of these funds were funds of counsel, since Minton was not even known then. Brooks was clearly not considered an expert for the Estate. The allegations in the first amended complaint, which goes into great detail on Scientology history, hierarchy, structure, and policies, were partly formed by information provided by Mr. Young, based on his position and long history in Scientology. It was then, in the spring of 1997, that the First Amended Complaint was drafted at least 5 months before Mr. Minton ever entered the picture. In the improperly obtained work product letter of the Estate's counsel of May 1997 to Vaughan and Stacy Young, introduced into evidence by the defendants in this hearing, the Estate's counsel requested evidence to support the controlling power and involvement of Miscavige in the death of Lisa McPherson. This letter also included the first draft of the amended complaint. Minton was not known by the Estate or its counsel at this time. What is even more obvious from the pleading history is that after Mr. Minton began loaning money to the Estate's counsel in October 1997, the Estate filed its First Amended Complaint in December 1997 without adding on David Miscavige. So much for the theory that Minton was in control. Minton did not even know about the secret agreement that the Estate entered into with COSFSO in December 1997. This proves Minton's and Brooks' and Scientology's assertions are without substance. There is much more evidence that proves that Minton never had any control over the litigation. Upon questioning by the court on May 21, 2002, Minton could not cite one instance where the Estate listened to any of his "orders" or "suggestions." David Miscavige was not added on to the complaint until there was a motion filed and evidence presented to Judge Moody. This occurred only after the Estate had retained Jesse Prince as an expert. It was Prince's high executive position at RTC, selected by LRH himself for his expertise on the "tech," that satisfied the Estate's counsel that the Estate finally had the complete and competent evidence from someone with first hand knowledge of the inner workings of top management during serious "PR Flap" situations. It was only through Prince that evidence of similar conduct of "processing" orders to permit death was discovered. Later in 2000, Teresa Summers provided similar testimony. With this new evidence, which still has not been refuted, and only upon approval of the court, did the Estate go forward and proceed to amend the complaint to add on David Miscavige. Now the defendants attempt to challenge this evidence even though Miscavige is no longer a party! The defendants' challenge is only based on the use of the phrase "end cycle", yet this is a Scientology term and has been defined even by Brooks to include a Scientology process of assisting someone who is terminally ill. 2 Q Your definition that you testified about "end 3 cycle," it's like someone being on hospice care. And 4 correct me if I'm not saying it right. But is that your 5 definition of "end cycle"? 6 A Actually, I think that was the Court's 7 understanding of what I said. What I said was it was my 8 recollection that I had seen -- I believe I saw that term, 9 end of cycle, in a technical -- board technical bulletin, 10 to be exact, which listed a number of different types of 11 assists that one could -- it was called an assist summary 12 checklist, as I recall. And that particular assist had to 13 do with someone who was dying. And it was -- its purpose 14 was to basically allow the person a peaceful death. Brooks, Page 1681, May 17, 2000. It is really a "red herring" to concentrate on the term "end cycle." What really does matter is that there is a nearly dead person inside the hotel, (if that is where she is), death was totally foreseeable and reversible, hers was a medical condition not a spiritual one, and no one did anything about it. This is intentional medical neglect as opined by three independent forensic pathologists. Even Scientology's new witness, Stacy Brooks, explains above that Scientology lovingly "assists" terminally ill people to die, which may be called "end cycle." The problem is Lisa McPherson was not terminally ill! When this expert view of Scientology thinking is applied to the medical evidence of homicide, intentional medical neglect, then none of the allegations of the six complaints filed by the Estate are a sham pleading. The Second District Court of Appeal has already held that Lisa McPherson died while in the care of the Church of Scientology and that the only issue is causation. "McPherson died while in the care of church staff members. The parties' medical experts disagree on the cause of McPherson's death." Estate of Lisa McPherson v. Church of Scientology,815 So.2d 678 (Fla 2nd DCA, April 3, 2002). There are four pending opinions of homicide. 1. JOAN WOOD, M.D. A. February 1997 Deposition by COS, pp.113-114. 20 THE WITNESS: Clearwater Police Department has 21 been told by us at this point in time that the death 22 of Lisa McPherson is wholly unexplained by the 23 information that's been provided to us thus far. Her 24 death is at this point undetermined, may well be 25 ruled a homicide, that she is -- this woman should 1 not be dead and that an incredible amount of work 2 needs to be done to investigate this death. B. June 2000 Prosecutor interview under oath, She considered changing it back to homicide. 35:12. 2. CALVIN BANDT, MD. Deposition:779-781: 11 Q. Well, what did you mean then when you 12 said homicide as a result of the intentional 13 neglect of medical care? 14 A. I meant that they chose to keep her 15 under their own care rather than to take her 16 to a medical institution. 17 Q. So it is not your opinion that this 18 was an intentional homicide then? 19 A. Right. And that's the way it's 20 stated. It was intentional neglect of medical 21 care. 829-830 21 Q. Okay. Have I asked you to render an 22 opinion as to whether or not someone intended 23 to kill Lisa McPherson? 24 A. No, I don't recall that you have. 25 Q. Okay. As a medical examiner, are 1 you -- do you render opinions as to whether or 2 not a suspect intended to kill another? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Who renders that opinion in your 5 practice? 6 A. That is left up to the County 7 Attorney. Or the grand jury, I might add, 8 usually the grand jury. 831 8 Q. Okay. What is the reason that your 9 opinion is that the manner of death is 10 homicide as opposed to accidental? 11 A. Well, accidental involves some 12 unforeseen component by its definition, and I 13 do not see any unforeseen -- well, further, 14 it's very often traumatic, but not 15 necessarily, but any -- I don't see any of 16 that involvement in this case that I feel was 17 an underlying or related cause of death. 3. WERNER SPITZ, M.D.: 383. 16 ... To a -- to a reasonable degree of medical 17 certainty are you prepared to testify in this case as to 18 the manner of death of Lisa McPherson? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And -- and what is that? 21 A Homicide. 382.. 25 A That this is gross negligence what occurred here. 383 2 A This is gross negligence. 6 A This individual was taken to -- was in a condition where 7 she needed medical attention, not incarcerated in a hotel 8 room... 387 13 ... when I put all this together, it is evident that this 14 individual should not have been and would have been -- it 15 would have been noted by any lay observer that this 16 individual should not have been outside of a medical 17 facility. 4. JOHN I. COE, M.D., 456 9 Q Now, In considering all that you know today 10 and all of you did - you have discussed in rendering your 11 opinions, how would you certify the death of Lisa 12 McPherson? 13 A Well, I would certify it with the 14 underlying cause as dehydration, and other significant 15 findings, if you accept them, as pulmonary embolus, and I 16 would classify the mode of death as homicide by reckless 17 abandonment, neglect, or whatever. Not a -- not a first 18 degree homicide, but second degree homicide. The complaint does not allege that someone, even David Miscavige, set out and ordered that Lisa McPherson should be killed, i.e., premeditated murdered. What is apparent from the testimony of staff, medical experts, and others is that no one in charge took action that was obviously needed in face of the extremis medical condition of Lisa McPherson. The omission was reckless, as alleged, and under the medical facts, medical opinions, and Florida law, this recklessness amounts to willfulness, wantonness and intentional conduct, something akin to seeing someone bleeding to death and the attendant simply stands around watching or walks away. Reckless indifference to the rights of another equal intentional conduct under Florida law. Nesbitt v. Auto-owners Insurance Company,390 So.2d 1209 (Fla 5th DCA 1980), which held that under the Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, 768.31, Florida Statutes, "...willful or wanton conduct or conduct which displays a reckless indifference to the rights of others is tantamount to intentional conduct for the purposes of this statute. It is understandable there may be a lack of proof that a tortfeasor formed a specific intent to injure another, but his conduct may be of such a willful, wanton or reckless degree as to amount to the "intention" mentioned in the statute." The Nesbitt court went on to conclude in its analysis the adoption of these words from Black's Law Dictionary 1418 (5th ed. 1979). Reckless, heedless, malicious; characterized by extreme recklessness or foolhardiness; recklessly disregardful of the rights or safety of others or of consequences. Means undisciplined, unruly, marked by arrogant recklessness of justice, feelings of others, or the like; willful and malicious. In its ordinarily accepted sense connotes perverseness exhibited by deliberate and uncalled for conduct, recklessness, disregardful of rights and an unjustifiable course of action. (cits. omitted). It defines "wanton act" as One done in reckless disregard of the rights of others evincing a reckless indifference to consequences to the life, or limb, or health, or reputation or property rights of another, and is more than negligence, more than gross negligence, and is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of action, equivalent in its results to wilful misconduct. David Miscavige is of course responsible due to his routine business practice and pattern of conduct in the micro-management of the entire enterprise of Scientology. This pattern and practice are evidenced by the policy letters and other documents published by Scientology, combined with the experience of the Estate's retained experts, Young and Prince, in addition to testimony from former Scientologists: Bill Franks, appointed Executive Director International for Life, ED INT, by LRH himself, Teresa Summers, former Commanding Officer at COSFSO and 20 years in Scientology, Nancy Many, a 20 year volunteer for OSA, and Frank Oliver, former member of OSA. Miscavige's role as the head of Scientology through his position as the head of the SEA ORG is also confirmed by Peter Alexander and Brian Haney. Was there a transformation of a simple wrongful death case to an all out attack on Scientology and its leader because of Minton's desire to use the case as his centerpiece? Take a look at the original complaint filed in early February 1997: 15. Prior to deciding to take LISA MCPHERSON to a hospital while she remained in the defendant's exclusive care, custody, and control, the members of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY willfully, intentionally, maliciously and as a result of their members' culpable negligence ignored the medical condition which required urgent medical care. This original complaint alleges the same reckless and intentional and wanton conduct that is alleged in the last Fifth Amended Complaint. The so-called "transformation" of the case from a simple wrongful death to one of recklessness amounting to intentional conduct under Florida law, as alleged on page 11 of defendants' memorandum, never happened. What did happen was the education of the estate's counsel on Scientology practices through discovery, investigation, and contacting Robert Vaughan Young and others from March 1997 to December 1997. On page 12, defendants argue that there is no evidence to show direct involvement of Miscavige. Defendants have destroyed many documents, such as attendant logs and many papers from Lisa's PC Folders. Defendants cleaned up the room Lisa was in before the police arrived for inspection within 12 hours of death, if she was at the hotel. The defendants washed or bathed the dead body of Lisa McPherson before taking her to the emergency room on December 5, 1995. All of this missing evidence creates reasonable inferences in favor of the Estate under Florida law. All of this missing evidence will show that Lisa wanted to leave Scientology and Clearwater, was likely not at the Ft. Harrison, making all the attendants liars, was fed upon by cockroaches antemortem, and died from severe dehydration. Whether it was Miscavige or some other senior executive who was guilty of commission or omission in not taking her to a hospital sooner is not fatal to the case. What matters is that this is what the evidence concludes: action or inaction amounting to reckless and intentional conduct. Every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act. American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sunny South Aircraft Service, Inc., 151 So.2d 276 (Fla 1963). A sham pleading is the entire pleading which is not supported by fact, not just one allegation of the pleading. Rhea v. Hackney, 157 So. 190 (1934). Defendants attack the one allegation of the Fifth Amended Complaint, ¶ 34, since it includes the leader of the entire enterprise of Scientology, David Miscavige. 34. The extremis medical condition of LISA MCPHERSON was obvious to SCIENTOLOGY and all of the individual Defendants. Yet the defendants, in total and conscious disregard for the rights of LISA MCPHERSON, willfully, intentionally, wantonly and maliciously towards the last days of her life decided to let LISA MCPHERSON die, (i.e., "end cycle" in Scientology terms)rather than save her life, even though her extremis physical condition was known to be entirely reversible and SCIENTOLOGY has no restriction on seeking licensed professional medical care. This decision made by SCIENTOLOGY, through the Sea Org by David Miscavige and carried out by Kartuzinski, Johnson and Houghton was only due to their desire to protect Scientology from bad public relations. There is no competent evidence that this allegation is not based on fact. Quite to the contrary, all of the sworn testimony and Scientology documents support the allegation that the care of Lisa McPherson was not a local isolated event. As stated in the Introspection Rundown Series, (Defendant's Ex. 306), Lisa should have been taken back to the hospital for a complete medical examination, an examination she never received while being seen at the Morton Plant ER on November 18, 1995. 43 5 Q: Did she take her clothes off when you 6 conducted a physical exam? 7 A: I don't think I had her take all her clothes 8 off. Just listened to her heart and lungs, felt her 9 belly and felt her legs. And she says nothing hurt her. 10 I didn't do any blood test, I didn't do any -- and 11 there was no reason to do it at that time. 12 Q: And you didn't view her whole body for 13 bruising or marks of any sort? 14 A: No. 15 Q: Was she sitting during the exam? 16 A: She was lying down the whole time on the 17 stretcher. 18 Q: And on her back? 19 A: Um-hmm. Lovett deposition, November 18, 1997 The initial walking down the road nude is a huge "PR Flap" that is required to be reported up the line to RTC where Miscavige is the head. It is also required to be reported to OSA locally, which is then required to be reported to OSA INT, (International), where again David Miscavige receives intelligence reports from OSA. Kartuzinski, the local senior case supervisor, Sr C/S, must report to his senior, Sr C/S INT in Los Angeles, Ray Mithoff. Scientology cannot escape its own policies of the absolute requirement of reporting up lines. See The Command Channels of Scientology. (Plaintiff's Ex. 97) In Volume 4 of the Green Books, entitled The Organization Executive Course, Copyrighted 1991, the Organization Board, ORG BOARD, for the Technical Division is found on page 37. The KSW NEWS, (Plaintiff's Ex. 110), published in 1994, contrary to Ben Shaw's hearing testimony, clearly orders all PTS-Type III be reported up lines. All of this shows conclusively that the Senior Case Supervisor, Kartuzinski, must report up line to the Department of Processing, who then reports up line to the Technical secretary, Tech Sec. Lisa's own notes show that INT Management was involved in her care in February 1995. (Plaintiff's Ex. 91). No rebuttal from COSFSO. Heidi Degro also had INT Management override Kartuzinski's order (Plaintiff's Ex. 96). No rebuttal from COSFSO. The chronically ill are determined to be at the lowest of the "tone scale" in Scientology. This is known as 1.1, Apathy. LRH writes in his book, Science of Survival, at page 157, that "there are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts." He then states the first thing to do is to try to raise them up on the tone scale, while "the other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." Plaintiff's Ex. 188. See also Summers, beginning on page 103, June 10, 2002: 2 Q And in your personal experience, did you ever use 3 the tone scale on someone who is chronically ill? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Who? 6 A My father. 7 Q How? 8 A My father was chronically ill. He had kidney 9 disease. And I was living with him at the time. This was 10 in Ohio. 11 Q While you were a member of the Church of 12 Scientology? 13 A Yes. I was. 14 Q All right. 15 A And I was having a very difficult time with him. 16 And I went into the Church and -- for help. And I said, 17 "Look, I don't know how to deal with him. He's driving me 7 18 crazy, basically. It's very difficult, you know." 19 And Kevin Leach, who I believe was ethics officer 20 at that time, brought me the Science of Survival book -- 21 Q This is a book -- 22 A Basic Scientology book. 23 Q -- entitled Science of -- 24 A Science of Survival. It is all about the tone 25 scale is what it is. 104 1 Q All right. 2 A It is a very thick book. And he had me look at -- 3 find where chronic illness was on this chart, you know. 4 I wish we could have brought the chart -- I could 5 have brought the chart. And showed that it is at the level 6 of apathy, which is very low tone, and had me read a section 7 in the book where it describes apathy. 8 And it was just -- it described the apathetic 9 person is just a cesspool of overts, and they are just -- 10 you know, they're not worth the trouble, they are just there 11 to hurt you. And it really described them in a way that it 12 was very cruel, really, to me now, I think. 13 And -- Mmm -- anyway, that was the -- you know, 14 and I was really told that I should just not give my dad 15 any -- just not to care much because he was so low tone, he 16 was trying to die. Because low tone people, you see, are 17 trying to succumb. That is part of the tech. 18 And so he was just going to turbulate me. 19 Q Do you recall Mr. Hubbard, in that book, Science 20 of Survival, saying if you can't get them to come up tone, 21 they should be quietly done away with and without sorrow? 22 A Quietly done away with without sorrow is 23 definitely part of that. And also there is a portion where 24 he talks about segregating low tone people from society. 25 That is definitely in Science of Survival. 105 1 THE COURT: Definitely in what? 2 THE WITNESS: Science of Survival. A book 3 called Science of Survival. ... 11 Q Well, you don't seriously claim the passage from 12 Science of Survival you were referring to authorizes or 13 suggests that Scientologists should kill someone, do you? 14 A That is what it says. 15 Q You are seriously saying that the -- 16 A Do you want -- give it to me. I'll read it. 17 Q Here is what I'm asking. It's a simple question. 18 A Yes? 19 Q In your experience, you think Science of Survival 20 has authorized people to be killed? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And that has happened? 23 A Well, I can't say that it's happened. I'm telling 24 you that is what it says. 25 Q That is your interpretation? 175 1 A That is what it says. If you would read that 2 passage instead of other passages, as you did, but that is 3 what it says. 4 Q Okay, well -- 5 A It's right there. 6 Q Have you ever heard of that happening? 7 A No. Summers, June 10, 2002 In another HCO bulletin, LRH writes that the psychotic, PTS-Type III, Potential Trouble Source, "is beyond the facilities or orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic." More revealing is the admission of the failure of the tech on page 93, which states that psychotics "sometimes can't be kept alive...." See attached HCO Bulletin of 24 November 1965, Search and Discovery, part of the Plaintiff's Ex. 92. In "Science of Survival", Part One, page 131, first and second paragraphs, Hubbard wrote: "The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such ['1.1, or covertly hostile, low-toned'] persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value. In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints." A "1.1 person" is said by Hubbard to be "in covert hostility"emotionally. One "training aid" called the "Tone Scale Illustrated", depicts a person at the "Tone Level" of 1.1 by a drawing of a man smiling, while holding a knife behind his back. There is no passion or caring in Scientology for someone who is down on the tone scale, like Lisa McPherson. Summers testified about how this tone scale affected the way she treated her chronically ill father. She was very disturbed by this. Summers at 103, June 10, 2002. VII. THE CREDIBILITY ISSUE. Scientology has the burden of proof. It is totally relying upon the credibility of two admitted perjurers, Minton and Brooks. No one else supports the lies told by these two witnesses. No one. This court on numerous occasions has stated that the court will refer Minton and Brooks to the state attorney for prosecution. The defendants and their counsel are implicated in this fraud upon the court since it was Scientology who met in private with these witnesses, who asked that their counsel not attend. It was only during these meetings, without counsel being present for Minton and Brooks, that the scheme was hatched. Significantly, no notes were taken of these meetings, while three sets of notes of the first two days of meetings with counsel present were taken. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ACCUSATIONS Defendants intentionally misrepresent the "slimming down" of the complaint on page 9. It had nothing to do with this allegation of Miscavige's role, since the Fifth Amended Complaint was the first time he had been named.. The fourth amended complaint is 22 pages and 8 counts while the slimmed down version in the fifth amended complaint is 18 pages and 5 counts. This had to do with the Estate dropping two counts under Chapter 400 . Prior to the unusual negotiations between Minton and Brooks with Scientology, which they intended to keep secret from the court and the Estate's counsel until exposed by Jesse Prince, Brooks and Minton were extremely loud and vocal in what they said about Scientology's purposeful death of Lisa McPherson. Although Brooks hemmed and hawed in court about her postings to the Internet when she truthfully wrote about Scientology and Lisa McPherson's death, as well as the Estate's counsel and its expert, Jesse Prince, (all of which was glowingly positive), she maintained that all of her postings were not lies. 1 Q When you put postings on the Internet, are those 2 postings truthful, or are they -- can they contain lies 3 made by you? 4 A I don't intentionally lie. 5 Q Not even in a posting, correct, to the Internet? 6 A Correct. (Brooks, May 16, 2002 hearing at 1318. 20 Q That was based upon your personal knowledge as it 21 states in paragraph 28, correct? 22 A Yes, but I think I -- you could say I exaggerated 23 my personal knowledge. 24 Q So does that make it a lie? 25 A No. (Brooks, May 16, 2002 hearing at 1348, referring to her Wollersheim declaration of March 1997 filed by Estate in support of Motion to add David Miscavige, explaining how he micro-manages all of Scientology). What is important about the Brooks affidavits and declarations is that all of them express personal experience as to the hierarchy of Scientology, its operations, and Miscavige as the sole person in control, before Robert Minton ever entered the picture. Her affirmations are also confirmed by Vicki Aznaran, former president of RTC, Joseph Yanny, Esq., former attorney for RTC, Robert Vaughn Young, her ex-husband and former International PR spokesperson for Scientology, and Teresa Summers, former SEA ORG member and Commanding Officer at FLAG. Therefore, it is bogus for Scientology to present this picture that the instant case was created without factual basis to allege Miscavige's role in the death of Lisa McPherson. COSFSO insists that Miscavige's rank of Captain in the SEA ORG is just an honorary rank, equal to all the others who have ranks of Captain in the SEA ORG. The IRS would certainly like to hear that, since Scientology's answers to the IRS questions during its fight for tax exemption clearly states that while all other captain ranks are honorary, only David Miscavige has the earned rank, not honorary, of Captain in the SEA ORG. See Defendant's Ex. 209, page 3-5. IX. CONCLUSION. Defendants have not met their burden of proof on the allegations to disqualify counsel and involuntary dismissal of this wrongful death case. The motions and the hearing evidence are so frivolous and in bad faith that this court should enter sanctions as requested. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand-delivery this 19th day of August, 2002, to KENDRICK L. MOXON, ESQ., and by mail to the attached service list. ____________________________________ KENNAN G. DANDAR, ESQ. DANDAR & DANDAR, P.A. 1715 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 750 Post Office Box 24597 Tampa, Florida 33623-4597 813-289-3858/FAX: 813-287-0895 Florida Bar No. 289698 Co-counsel for Plaintiff LUKE LIROT, ESQ. 112 East Street, Suite B Tampa, Florida 33602 813-221-9533/Fax: 813-221-9275 Florida Bar No. 714836 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff SERVICE LIST Morris Weinberg, Esquire Lee Fugate, Esquire Zuckerman Spaeder Taylor & Evans, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas McGowan, Esquire Attorney at Law 150 Second Avenue North, Suite 1500 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Attorney for Stacy Brooks Anthony S. Battaglia, Esquire Stephen J. Wein, Esquire Timothy W. Weber, Esquire Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-1100 Attorneys for Robert Minton as Counter-Defendant
 COSFSO named Garko and Dandar in its Motion to Add Parties in the pending breach of contract case in Clearwater, where COSFSO is suing the Estate for breaching the contract not to add parties, the same contract which Judge Moody in this case held was not breached.  See attached Appendix A, outline of Garko’s testimony denying Minton’s accusations.  See VI herein and page 154 of the June 17, 2002 hearing.  Estate of Lisa McPherson v. Church of Scientology COSFSO Service Organization, Inc., at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D767 (Fla 2nd DCA April 3, 2002), 27 Fla. L. Weekly D854 (Fla 2nd DCA April 12, 2002), and 2002 WL 959992 (Fla.App. 2 DCA May 10,2002).  See paragraphs 12, 18, 48, and 54 of the First Amended Complaint.  Numbers refer to page numbers of Defendants’ 55 page Memorandum of Fact and Law in Support of Omnibus Motion with service date of 4-30-02.  See VI herein and page 154 of the June 17, 2002 hearing.  Minton testified for the last time on October 11, 2001, in the breach case at 170 as follows: 21 Q. Do they agree to donate anything? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Had they ever agreed to do so? 24 A. No.  Plaintiff also incorporates its Reply to Summary Judgment on Count I.  In this hearing, COSFSO attacks Prince’s credibility by saying his deposition testimony of pulling loaded guns on Miscavige when Miscavige was ousting him from RTC for not supporting Miscavige’s forced takeover of the Church of Scientology is fabricated. However, the file in this action shows the defendants filing a motion for protective order to keep Prince from appearing as a consultant for the Estate at depositions due to this incident. Beginning on page 43, hearing September 13, 1999, Mr. Weinberg raises this incident even though he states he doesn’t believe it happened. Typically, he then brings it up in this court to attack Mr. Prince, but offers no witness to rebut this testimony. (See Appendix B.”)  This court has accepted Jesse Prince as an expert. See July 8, 2002 transcript at 199:7-11, where this court has held that he can express opinions.  Dr. Shields was at the Ft. Harrison on December 2-3, 1995. The story Janice Johnson tells is that Janice Johnson spent this weekend assisting Dr. Shields in doing physicals on staff at COSFSO. Neither Dr. Shields, Dr. Minkoff, nor Johnson bothered to see Lisa that weekend before her death, let alone do a physical on Lisa. as required by church policy.  Dr. Garko resigned as the ESTATE’S trial consultant after testifying for Scientology. Garko hearing testimony, June 11, 2002: 12 7 A Okay. I would not consider it a meeting. 8 And this is a different interaction than is 9 outlined in Mr. Minton's affidavit. 10 But present were myself, Mr. Dandar, Ms. Brooks 11 and Mr. Minton. And Jesse Prince was not there, as alleged 12 in Mr. -- in Mr. Minton's affidavit.  See April 19,2002 hearing before Judge Baird.  On questioning from Rosen, Minton testified before Judge Baird on April 9, 2002: 10 1 Q. Sir, I understand you didn't have copies but as 2 the one who caused the checks to be issued, if you wanted 3 to get copies from the bank, you could do that, correct? 4 A. I didn't have a relationship with that 5 particular institution.  1 A. But it's not his account, that's right. 2 It's a bank check and he's already testified he 3 can't even get a copy of it, which I'm still 4 trying to figure out how you got a copy of it.  Service was thwarted by COSFSO Vice President, Mary Story, falsely answering court compelled answers to interrogatories as to Miscavige’s home address.  See Kelly Davis attached excerpt at pp16-19. (Appendix C)  Sandra Anderson deposition May 19,2000, at 52-53. Anderson did not correctly remember the year in which Fannie had this conversation, but does remember Fannie telling her it was in November when Lisa made this call to her mother. Fannie talked about this on a daily basis. 56:4-6.  Mr.Weinberg stated to this court on July 8, 2002 at 239: 8 whatever they did wasn't authorized by 9 Mr. Hubbard, wasn't authorized by the Church of 10 Scientology  For example, In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, for Premises at 2125 S Street, Northwest Washington, D.C., 572 F.2d 321 (US Ct App, DC, 1978), executives of Scientology, including the founder’s wife, were found guilty and sentenced in Scientology’s “Snow White” operation, resulted in convictions of its executives for “ (1) Conspiracy to steal government property from: (a) the office of the United States Attorney in the U.S. Court House, Washington, D.C., and more particularly from the office of "Assistant United States Attorney Nathan Dodell" (App. 41, 52); (b) the office of Staff Attorney Paul Figley, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (App. 41, 48, 50); (c) the Internal Revenue Service (identification cards) (App. 42) and possibly other documents; and (d) by unlawfully breaking and entering such offices and the offices of Interpol maintained in the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington, D.C. (App. 49). (2) Conspiracy to obstruct justice: (a) by illegally obtaining from opposing parties in litigation "documents relating to Scientology-instituted Freedom of Information Act suits against, inter alia, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, (the U.S.) Customs (Service), Interpol and the Defense Communications Agency" (App. 50); (b) by engaging in illegal eavesdropping (App. 46); (c) by perjury and subornation of perjury committed, inter alia, by Henning Heldt, Greg Willardson, Duke Snider, Michael James Meisner, Richard Weigand, Gerald Bennett Wolfe (App. 57-61) and others; most of whom occupy managerial positions with the Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, California (App. 75, 76).”  Lopez sued Scientology for bilking him out of his automobile accident settlement and causing permanent damage to his brain. Dan Leipold represented him. The case settled. This case is one of many listed by Rosen, comprising the “magnitude of the damages” for Scientology’s RICO case against Minton.  Jost was deposed by Moxon in this case and testified on 10-30-01 at 62-63: 24 Q. Have you had any communications with 25 Mr. Minton about tax implications of transfers of 1 funds from Europe to the United States? 2 A. No. 3 Q. You were at one point employed by the 4 government in the field of criminal investigations 5 of money laundering, right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Have you assisted Mr. Minton with 8 respect to that area of expertise? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How so? 11 A. That I can't answer. That's 12 privileged.  Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), rejected by Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973).  (Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim (9th Cir.1992) 971 F.2d 364; cert. den. (1987) 479 U.S. 1103, 107 S.Ct. 1336, 94 L.Ed.2d 187.)  Church of Scientology v. Superior Court, CV 86-1362ER.  See Plaintiff’s Hearing Ex. 5, Stacy Young Declaration of 12-14-94, at ¶16, where Rinder asked her to sign a declaration against Berry, accusing him of subornation of perjury. Described on May 6, 2002 at page 422, with questioning beginning at 411.  Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 937 F.2d 611 (9th Cir., 1991), where it is disclosed that the Aznarans signed releases containing confidentiality and non-assistance provisions. The Aznaran declarations entered into this case attacking Berry were presumably part of this settlement.  See Cipriano declaration on the extortion and suborning of perjury by Kendrick Moxon, in evidence as Plaintiff’s Ex. 186. Cipriano’s deposition was subsequently filed, which shows Cipriano stating that Moxon to request hin to lie against Berry. [30 ]Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.NET, Inc., 945 F.Supp. 1470 (D.CO., 1996).  See previously filed transcript where Mr. Rosen uses the Brooks recantation affidavit filed in this case as the basis to attack Mr. Leipold. (Plaintiff’s Ex. 77.)  This attorney was physically attacked in addition to obtaining his bank and credit records. Prince hearing testimony, June 18,2002 at 81-82,115-116.  Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 429 So.2d 348 (Fla 5th DCA 1983).  Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. McLean, 615 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. Fla, 1980).  “Boston personal injury lawyer Michael Flynn, for example, who at one time represented more than two dozen plaintiffs against the church, was sued by the church more than a dozen times in four jurisdictions for everything from contempt of court to defamation. All the suits were eventually dropped or dismissed. (Flynn declined comment pursuant to the terms of a settlement he received from the church in 1986.)” The American Lawyer, July, 1992 / August, 1992. The TWO Faces of SCIENTOLOGY By William W. Horne. Appendix E.  This magazine article is a late discovered exhibit. Plaintiff moves it in evidence as an admission against interest in reference to the statements of the Church of Scientology and its attorneys.  Goldsberry Weber, “public MLO,” admitted to Miscavige’s overall authority of the SEA ORG: 151 10 Q. What is your understanding of Mr. Miscavige's 11 position within Scientology? ... 152 5 Q. What is your understanding? 6 A. He is the overall head of the Sea Org.  Brooks referring to 1994 declarations of Rinder and herself when Mr. Rinder attempted to obtain a false declaration from Brooks and her then husband, Vaughn Young, attacking the ethics of Graham Berry, Mr. Wollersheim’s counsel.  Upon questioning by Plaintiff, the corporate representative of Defendant, COSFSO, who is also the local head of OSA, was asked to admit that there is a requirement to report up line, i.e., to RTC, anyone who is “psychotic,” PTS-Type III, as those words are defined in Scientology, where psychotic also applies to someone who wants to leave. Mr. Shaw was shown Plaintiff’s Ex. 110, KSW NEWS, where the fold out middle section specifically requires the reporting up line. Mr. Shaw said that only came out in response to Lisa McPherson’s death. Shaw at 44-45, June 13, 2002.