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



           2                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11



                DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
           6    Representative of the ESTATE OF
                LISA McPHERSON,

           8              Plaintiff,

           9    vs.                                     VOLUME 1

                and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,


          16    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                                    Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                CONTENTS:           Testimony of Kennan Dandar.
                DATE:               May 30, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
                PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
          20                        St. Petersburg, Florida.

          21    BEFORE:             Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
                                    Circuit Judge.
                REPORTED BY:        Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
          23                        Deputy Official Court Reporter,
                                    Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.


2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR MR. THOMAS DANDAR 4 DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 5 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorney for Plaintiff. 6 7 MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 8 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 9 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 10 11 MR. LEE FUGATE MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. 12 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 13 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service 14 Organization. 15 MR. MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG 16 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor New York, New York 10003 17 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 18 19 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 20 740 Broadway at Astor Place New York, NY 10003-9518 21 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 22 23 24 25
3 1 THE COURT: You may be seated. 2 (Oath administered to the witness.) 3 THE WITNESS: I do. 4 THE COURT: What day of the hearing is this? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Fifteenth. 6 THE COURT: Fifteenth? 7 MR. WEINBERG: It's the fifteenth day of the 8 hearing. 9 MR. FUGATE: In the 30th day of May. 10 THE COURT: But it's the fifteenth day? 11 MR. WEINBERG: That is what I think. I may 12 have lost track, but I think that is what it is. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 THE WITNESS: I'm glad the trial will only be a 15 month! 16 THE COURT: Go ahead. 17 ______________________________________ 18 KENNAN DANDAR, 19 the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 20 and testified as follows: 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q Mr. Dandar, is it your position -- 24 THE COURT: Would you put his name on the 25 record?
4 1 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sorry. 2 BY MR. WEINBERG: 3 Q Could you state and spell your name for the 4 record, please. 5 A My legal name is Kennan, K-E-N-N-A-N, Dandar, 6 D-A-N-D-A-R. 7 Q Is it your position that Mr. Minton gave you, 8 between 1997 and 2002, $2 million, and that Mr. Minton had 9 no say in how the money was to be used by you? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q And all that time he also poured millions of other 12 dollars into enterprises like the LMT, the movie The Profit, 13 as well as some of the other individuals associated with the 14 case like Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks? 15 A You characterized it as poured so the answer would 16 be no. Plus, I have no personal knowledge of what money he 17 gave out to other people or entities. 18 Q So you never discussed that with Mr. Prince as to 19 what money Mr. Minton gave him? 20 A No, until you requested an accounting of how much 21 money he had paid in the past years. 22 Q And you didn't discuss with Ms. Greenway or 23 Mr. Alexander, or anyone connected with Courage Productions, 24 how much money Mr. Minton put into that movie? 25 A Never.
5 1 Q And you didn't discuss that with Mr. Minton, 2 either? 3 A Never. 4 Q Now, is it your position that during that period 5 of time, from October of '97 until March of 2002, that you 6 never met with Mr. Minton to discuss activity in this 7 wrongful death suit? 8 A Well, that is too broad of a question. Activity? 9 I don't know what you mean. 10 Did I ever consult him before I did anything? No. 11 Q Did you ever meet with him to discuss what was 12 going to happen in the case? 13 A No. 14 Q Did you ever meet with him to discuss what had 15 happened in the case? 16 A Not for that reason. If I'd been invited to 17 dinner and the case came up, it would always be about past 18 tense, what had happened in the case. 19 Q And is it -- is it your position that over the 20 past almost five years now that -- during which time 21 Mr. Minton put this money into the wrongful death suit, that 22 during those years, Mr. Minton just sat quiet -- quiet about 23 what was transpiring in this wrongful death suit as it 24 relates to you and dealings with you? 25 A I don't understand the question.
6 1 Q Well, is it your position that Mr. Minton, during 2 the course of those four-plus years -- and we'll get into 3 the details of the money and phone calls and 4 conversations -- but generally to start out this 5 cross-examination, is it your position, during those 6 four-plus years, that Mr. Minton never once, either on the 7 telephone or in person or by E-Mail or by fax, suggested to 8 you what should happen in this case? 9 A The only time I recall Mr. Minton asking me 10 anything about the case was in the year -- I want to say 11 early 2001 when he said, "Why don't you use Jesse or Stacy, 12 why don't you use them more often," in assisting me in 13 depositions. 14 Q Was that in person, or by phone, or how? 15 A I think it was at the LMT. I went over after a 16 hearing, stopped in to say hello. 17 THE COURT: When you say "helping me," you 18 seemed like you were talking about what Mr. Minton 19 said, then I was trying to think of whether he meant 20 helping him, Mr. Minton, or helping me-you. Was it 21 you he was talking about? 22 THE WITNESS: No, he wanted to know why I 23 wasn't using the expertise of Mr. Prince or Stacy 24 Brooks more in assisting me in deposing Scientology 25 staff.
7 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 BY MR. WEINBERG: 3 Q So, again, we'll get into more details later. But 4 what he was suggesting to you at this meeting at the LMT is 5 that in the way in which you conducted this wrongful death 6 case, he was suggesting that you utilize Ms. Brooks and 7 Mr. Prince more, is that a fair statement? 8 A Well, no, it isn't because, number one, it wasn't 9 a meeting. 10 And, number two, it was an off-the-cuff remark. 11 And, number three, I mean, it was just the one 12 statement, and there was nothing that came of it, and there 13 was no further discussion about it. 14 Q All right. Well, let's take number one. I mean, 15 you were actually eyeball to eyeball with Mr. Minton in the 16 LMT headquarters. Is that right? 17 A That's right. I stopped in to say hello after a 18 hearing in Clearwater. 19 Q Okay. And you were able to remember -- and this 20 was somewhere in, what, January or February of 2001? 21 A Yes. I said I don't really know the date. But I 22 think it was over a year ago. 23 Q And somehow you remember this off-the-cuff -- I 24 think you said -- remark Mr. Minton made? 25 A Yes.
8 1 Q And it is only that one off-the-cuff remark in the 2 course of the last four and a half years that you can recall 3 that Mr. Minton has ever made eyeball to eyeball, over the 4 telephone or by E-Mail to you about what you ought to be 5 doing in the wrongful death case, is that right? 6 A Yeah. Yes. It was very hard to get Mr. Minton to 7 talk to me about anything, including the case. 8 Q Is it fair to say that you rarely talked to 9 Mr. Minton over the last four-plus years? 10 A Rarely. Yes. 11 Q Is it fair to say that you rarely engaged in 12 telephone conversations with Mr. Minton over the last 13 four-plus years? 14 A Well, if this is a word game, you're going to have 15 to define what the word "rarely" means. 16 Q You just said you agreed rarely. So why don't you 17 define what you mean by rarely communicate or talk to 18 Mr. Minton over the last four years. 19 A I have no idea. But it was few and far between. 20 That is probably a better word. 21 Q Well, do you have any -- any estimate as to the 22 number of phone calls that you have had with Mr. Minton 23 since you first talked to him? I think you said he called 24 you in October of '97. How many phone calls can you 25 estimate you have had with Mr. Minton since October of '97?
9 1 A I have no idea. 2 Q Well, are we talking -- 3 A The answer is -- 4 Q -- a handful? 5 A The answer is I don't know. 6 Q Are we talking a lot? 7 A The answer is I don't know. 8 Q Okay. Now, how many meetings have you had with 9 Mr. Minton in the last four-plus years? 10 A The answer is I don't know. 11 Q Well, do you know whether it's more than a 12 handful? 13 A Well, let's see. I don't think I ever had a 14 meeting with Mr. Minton. The only things I recall having 15 with Mr. Minton is dinner or lunch. And it was always like, 16 "If you're in town," you know, "I haven't seen you in a long 17 time, let's have dinner." Things like that. 18 Q And you wouldn't call those dinner meetings then? 19 A No. 20 Q But you have had, with clients and other lawyers, 21 what we refer -- we lawyers refer to as dinner meetings? 22 You have had that? 23 You are familiar with a dinner meeting, what that 24 is, right, with the concept? 25 A Well, I could understand what that might mean.
10 1 But right now I can't remember having such a thing. 2 Q All right. So the times that you sat down and ate 3 dinner or lunch or breakfast or snacks with Mr. Minton, 4 there was no discussion about what should happen or 5 transpire in the wrongful death case. Is that correct? 6 A Well, that's for sure. You got that right. 7 Q Okay. Now, you did engage in E-Mail exchange with 8 Mr. Minton, didn't you? 9 A From time to time. Sure. 10 Q All right. And what -- what was the purpose of 11 that E-Mail exchange? 12 A To communicate. 13 Q I mean, you would send him E-Mails? 14 A I would send him. He would send me. 15 Q Okay. And the subject matter of those E-Mails 16 was? 17 A I have no idea. 18 Q Well, did they have something to do with what 19 Mr. Minton was putting his money into down here in 20 Clearwater? 21 A Well, I don't understand what that means, either, 22 so you have to be a little bit more specific. He put his 23 money into a lot of things. 24 Q Well, he put $2 million into this wrongful death 25 case. Correct?
11 1 A As far as I know. 2 Q All right. Now, did those E-Mails have to do 3 with -- in any of them, with the wrongful death case? 4 A I'm sure there have been -- there were a few 5 E-Mails from me, after he cut me off, that I asked him if 6 there was anyone else out there, i.e., his friends in 7 Europe, who would still be interested in helping the Lisa 8 McPherson case. 9 But before that, unless you show me something, 10 Mmm, I don't know. I mean -- 11 Q Well -- 12 A -- I mean, he may have asked me some comments or 13 suggestions on his criminal prosecutions where he was 14 defending himself after being set up by Scientology. 15 He may have asked me about the picketing, where he 16 was being enjoined, which I'm not sure he ever did that 17 either, but -- 18 Q You're not sure he ever picketed? 19 A I'm not sure he asked me for my advice on 20 picketing. He knew I had a strong stance against it, as 21 well as Stacy Brooks. But -- you know, as I'm sitting here, 22 I'm not sure he ever asked me my advice on almost anything. 23 So I might be wrong. I have no idea. You have to show me 24 something. I mean, five years is a long time. 25 Q Well, believe it or not, I don't have a copy of
12 1 your E-Mails between you and Mr. Minton. 2 A Okay. 3 Q Now, do you have a -- 4 THE COURT: There have been some because there 5 have been some introduced. 6 MR. WEINBERG: We'll eventually get to what we 7 have. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q But I don't have the benefit of having all of the 11 E-Mails you and Mr. Minton sent back to each other. 12 Now, do you have a collection of E-Mails, either 13 electronically on your computer or in some hard form? 14 A No. 15 Q None? 16 A No, I -- no. You have, I think, the most 17 pertinent ones. And other ones -- I mean, I don't E-Mail 18 someone, then save it, routinely. 19 Q Well, did you E-Mail depositions to Mr. Minton? 20 A It's possible. 21 Q Well, he said you did. 22 A Well, it's possible. 23 Q Well, was he right when he said you E-mailed 24 Mr. Armstrong's deposition to him? 25 A That I don't recall at all. I don't think I -- I
13 1 don't even think it was in a digital format. 2 Q No, we're talking about the second Mr. Armstrong 3 deposition, the one that Mr. Moxon took in the year 2000, 4 not the one that I took or the one that you -- the one you 5 took, I mean. The second Mr. Armstrong depo. Did you 6 E-Mail him that one? 7 A I don't recall. 8 Q Did you E-Mail him Teresa Summers' deposition like 9 he testified? 10 A I think I did. 11 Q Well -- 12 A I may have. It wasn't confidential. Mr. Moxon 13 forgot to instruct the witness. But I think I may have. 14 Q Well, and when did you E-Mail him that deposition? 15 Right after the deposition? 16 A I have no idea. Why don't you show me the E-Mail 17 and we can all know. 18 Q I'm asking you for your recollection. 19 A I have no idea. 20 Q Okay. 21 A It's no big secret. 22 Q But you did -- following Teresa Summers' 23 deposition, you filed a motion for sanctions against 24 Mr. Moxon for not having instructed Ms. Summers that it 25 could be confidential. Correct?
14 1 A Probably. 2 Q Do you remember that? 3 A That sounds right. 4 Q All right. But -- you moved for sanctions against 5 Mr. Moxon, but you E-mailed the deposition to Mr. Minton? 6 A Well, I'm not sure of the time sequence. I mean, 7 once it's done, it's done. It's a public record. Now we 8 know all of the depositions, including the Scientology 9 staff, are now all public record. 10 Q Now, is there a reason why you saw fit to E-Mail 11 depositions to Mr. Minton -- 12 A Well, that -- 13 Q -- from this case? 14 A -- that particular deposition, Stacy Brooks and 15 Mr. Minton were extremely worried about Teresa Summers lying 16 about them because she quit and was an ex-employee, and they 17 called me a few times because they were so worried about it. 18 And after the deposition I said, "What are you 19 worried about? She told the truth." 20 Q Well, this was in the summer of 2001. Correct? 21 A I have no idea. You tell me. I mean, I don't 22 know. 23 Q I wasn't at that deposition. You were. 24 THE COURT: Well, Counselor, we're really not 25 going to do this, because this has been a long
15 1 5-year period. 2 MR. WEINBERG: Fair enough. 3 THE COURT: Give him the dates. I get 4 confused. Lawyers get confused. When he says he 5 doesn't know, I'm going to accept that answer. 6 So if you want to get specific, get it out and 7 get it to him. 8 MR. WEINBERG: We will. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Can you remember, off the top of your head, any 12 other matters that had to do with this case that you sent to 13 Mr. Minton, gave to Mr. Minton, E-mailed to Mr. Minton, 14 faxed to Mr. Minton, mailed to Mr. Minton? 15 A Extremely limited. Extremely. And if Teresa 16 Summers was the only one, it wouldn't surprise me. But he 17 certainly didn't get any of the ones that were marked 18 confidential. 19 Q But I'm talking about anything from the case, like 20 documents, pleadings, advance copies of pleadings, drafts of 21 pleadings. 22 A Oh, he never got an advance copy of anything. 23 Anything he got that was in a pleading would have been 24 something that was already part of the public record. 25 And I know he -- his affidavit talked about Brenda
16 1 Hubert's knowledge report -- which I don't remember how he 2 got that -- but it wasn't a privileged document. So I 3 wasn't concerned when he started talking about it. But I 4 don't know if I sent that to him or not. 5 Q You might have sent it to him? 6 A It's posted all over the Internet. I mean, I 7 don't know. 8 Q Now, you have repeatedly asserted, throughout the 9 wrongful death case, that Mr. Minton had no control and was 10 not involved in directing the case. Is that correct? 11 A That assertion in your question is absolutely 12 true. 13 Q Now, I want to review with you something that you 14 said. I'm just going to give you -- hand up to you -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach? 16 THE COURT: You may. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q -- this, some excerpts from this proceeding. I 19 want to make sure that this is still correct. And it's been 20 a long time, almost a month ago, on May 3rd of 2002. 21 And on that day, if you'll turn to Page 89, I want 22 to review with you what you said, and I want to make sure 23 that before we go any further, that this is correct. 24 A Okay. You are telling me, and I will, of course, 25 assume you are correct, that this is my testimony?
17 1 Q This is your testimony. That is correct. 2 A All right. 3 Q And I think you will recognize it as soon as we 4 start reviewing it. 5 Page 89, line 19, what you said is: "And I will 6 say absolutely, positively, I never met with Robert Minton 7 to discuss anything that had to do with pleadings, parties, 8 adding on parties, anything like that. Robert Minton was 9 out there on the Internet, and he was out there in 10 Clearwater later on, not even up until this time. He didn't 11 come to Clearwater until the December, I believe, '99, late 12 fall, December of '99. All of this is me acting as the 13 lawyer, gathering up information. I tried to gather 14 information from the defendants. They were all pleading the 15 Fifth on advice of counsel because the criminal charges were 16 still there. And I was going through all these amendments 17 based upon what my experts and consultants were telling me, 18 and never had any input from Mr. Minton whatsoever, never, 19 not even till today, not even up until today. Never." 20 Then if you'll turn to 108, please, line 15: 21 "Now, what I can tell you, without question, is that Robert 22 Minton had no input whatsoever in any of these additional 23 parties, in any of the allegations of the complaint, in any 24 of the different counts of the complaint. All those 25 different counts of the complaint came out of my mind based Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 18 1 upon what information I had gathered --" 2 THE COURT: Why are we having you reread 3 testimony that happened in this very hearing? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Well, because I want to ask him 5 about -- well, let me -- 6 THE COURT: Well, ask him a question. This is 7 his testimony. I mean, I guess he's going to say 8 yes, it's his testimony. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Well, it has been a long time 10 ago, and I want to make sure. Then I'm going to 11 show him a number of things that will raise some 12 issues. 13 THE COURT: Well, since it's in the record 14 already, why don't you just ask him to read whatever 15 it is you want him to read, then ask him questions 16 about it? 17 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 18 BY MR. WEINBERG: 19 Q Is it correct that Mr. Minton -- is it your 20 testimony that Mr. Minton had no input whatsoever in any of 21 the decisions, activities, actions that you took in this 22 case? 23 A That is the truth. 24 Q Okay. And you stand by those statements, is that 25 right?
19 1 A I stand by those statements, as I did on May 3rd 2 and other hearings throughout the last five years. 3 Q And you have asserted in front of other judges, 4 not just in this hearing, but previously, that Mr. Minton 5 was not involved in any way in the lawsuit, correct? 6 A That is right. 7 THE COURT: Well, you know, that is kind of a 8 vague -- Mr. Minton is not involved in any way in 9 the lawsuit. But, Lord, he was financing the 10 lawsuit. 11 MR. WEINBERG: Well, he just answered -- 12 THE COURT: You better stick to what you're 13 talking about. He didn't have anything to do with 14 adding -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I'm talking -- 16 THE COURT: -- pleadings, parties. I mean, he 17 did have something to do with the lawsuit if he paid 18 money. Or are you not talking about that? 19 THE WITNESS: I don't think he is. 20 MR. WEINBERG: I wasn't talking about money. 21 He made that very clear. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q I want to make clear, then we'll go over some of 24 the other things you said, that when you say that Mr. Minton 25 had no input or -- or when you said Mr. Minton had no
20 1 control, you go further than that. I mean, your testimony 2 is, is that he didn't have any input and wasn't involved at 3 all in -- in the shape, manner or activities in this 4 lawsuit. Is that right? 5 A That is correct. Zero. 6 Q Zero involvement? 7 A Zero. 8 Q Okay. Now, you did an affidavit in this case. Is 9 that right? 10 A Yes, I did. 11 Q And the reason you did the affidavit was what? 12 A I was sick and tired of spending and wasting my 13 time and money on everything that interested Mr. Moxon and 14 Mr. Shaw that had nothing to do with this case. 15 Q Okay. And the reason -- and so what was the 16 purpose of preparing the affidavit? Was it going to be used 17 in some way? 18 A To try to stop the abuse of discovery. 19 Q Okay. Is there a particular event, a particular 20 motion, a particular pleading, that it was supposed to be 21 used for? 22 A Well, you know, I'm trying to remember. 23 Q Let me show you your affidavit. Maybe -- 24 A Yes, why don't you help me out there. It had 25 something to do with abuse of discovery.
21 1 THE COURT: I think we have it. It's in 2 evidence. 3 MR. WEINBERG: His affidavit? I don't know. 4 THE COURT: Maybe not. I think it is. 5 MR. SHAW: 113. 6 MR. WEINBERG: It is Defendant's 113. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'll just mark this on here. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q This is your affidavit, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And it's dated December 3rd, 2001? 13 A That's right. 14 Q Do you want to take a quick opportunity to read 15 it? 16 A Well, no. Just ask me a question. 17 Q Well, does it refresh your recollection what it 18 was used for? 19 A Oh, I'm sorry. Then let me read it then. Well, 20 there are several reasons in here. 21 Q Okay. 22 A You want me to list them? 23 Q Yes. 24 A First reason is that I wanted to establish with 25 the Court that Mr. Minton had absolutely no control over the
22 1 wrongful death litigation. That is in Paragraph 3. 2 That the only one who does have control over the 3 litigation is Dell Liebreich, the personal representative. 4 That is Paragraph Number 4. That Dell Liebreich was 5 appointed by her sister, Lisa's mother, Fannie McPherson. 6 There -- that is Paragraph 4, to eliminate these false 7 allegations of forgery by Mr. Moxon. 8 Number 5, any money provided by Minton has been 9 provided as a nonrecourse interest-free loan. Mr. Minton 10 has no "investment" in any litigation involving the estate. 11 That is because in his first deposition you slyly used the 12 word "investment or piece of a litigation." 13 And he said, "If that is what you want to call it, 14 okay." But that was your words, Mr. Weinberg, not 15 Mr. Minton's words. And since then, you and Mr. Moxon have 16 used that over and over and over again and, I believe, in a 17 deceptive way. 18 "Repayment to Mr. Minton is at the sole discretion 19 of the estate." That is true, based upon Mr. Minton's 1998 20 deposition. 21 Q So it's not at the discretion of you, it's at the 22 discretion of the estate? 23 A That's right. And according to his deposition 24 testimony. 25 Q And in this affidavit, the loan that you speak of
23 1 is a loan to whom? 2 A Well, it's a loan to me. 3 Q But it doesn't say that. Does it? 4 A Well, it doesn't say anything about that. 5 Q It just says the estate has the option to repay 6 this loan. But you are suggesting that this loan is a loan 7 to you? 8 A Well, this Paragraph 5 doesn't suggest anything as 9 to who the loan was to. It just says it's a nonrecourse 10 interest-free loan. Period. That is not in this 11 paragraph -- this affidavit, as far as I know. 12 Q Why did you say in the paragraph that the 13 repayment of this loan, which you say is to you, was at the 14 discretion of the estate, and not at your discretion, though 15 the loan, you say, was made to -- 16 A Because I answered it twice already. That is the 17 way Mr. Minton put it in his deposition. And every time he 18 was asked that question by either Mr. Moxon or Mr. Rosen 19 after that, he said, "I'll refer you to my '98 deposition 20 where I explain in detail," as he did, truthfully, the 21 circumstances on repayment of the loan. 22 Because if the estate would get $2 million, and 23 Mr. Minton had loaned $2 million to me, he would leave it up 24 to the estate, Dell Liebreich, to decide if he gets anything 25 back, because he wanted to make sure that the aunts and
24 1 uncle of Lisa McPherson got something, although they really 2 don't need any money. So he didn't -- he didn't want to be 3 greedy. And he never was greedy. Mr. Minton, until you 4 guys got a hold of him, was a very honorable person. 5 Q We'll get into more detail later. But let me just 6 understand. This loan obligation that you had was no 7 obligation at all to anyone as far as -- as far as you were 8 concerned? 9 A No. That is not true. 10 Q Well, who did you have to pay back? 11 A I'm the one that would be writing the check to 12 Mr. Minton. I'm fiduciarily or legally or morally bound to 13 make the -- sure the man gets his money back. 14 Q Well, were you going to use your money to pay back 15 Mr. Minton this money that you say he loaned to you? 16 Whose money were you going to use to repay this 17 loan? 18 A No, the money comes out of any recovery in this 19 lawsuit. 20 Q So the loan is to you, but the obligation to repay 21 it is the estate's? Is that what you're saying? 22 A No. I would say refer to Mr. Minton's '98 23 deposition. 24 Q Go to the next paragraph. What is the reason for 25 that one?
25 1 A Oh, this is about the so-called bulk proceeds 2 payments to Mr. Minton or something he's connected with. 3 That Paragraph 6 just put it out again, the truth 4 that there is no such agreement, informally or formally, nor 5 has there been any discussion about it. 6 Q So when you say here in that paragraph, under 7 oath: "At no time has the estate, or the beneficiaries of 8 the estate, entered into any informal or formal --" let's 9 just focus on informal "-- negotiations, discussions or 10 agreements with Robert Minton," are you suggesting that what 11 Mr. Minton testified under oath to, as well as your clients 12 initially, about this -- about an understanding, are you 13 saying that that never happened, that there was no informal 14 understanding or discussion about -- about the proceeds 15 being given, by the estate, from any settlement, to either 16 an anti-cult group or FACTNet or the Lisa McPherson Trust? 17 A Well, which of those five or six questions should 18 I answer first? 19 THE COURT: Yes, I think that is a compound 20 question. You have to read it. It says with 21 Mr. Minton, not with each other. I mean, you have 22 to read what it says there. "Any informal or formal 23 discussions, negotiations or discussions with Robert 24 Minton." 25
26 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Right. It says: "At no time has the estate, or 3 beneficiaries of the estate, had any informal negotiations, 4 discussions or agreements with Robert Minton." That is what 5 it says. Right? 6 A Yes, that is true. 7 Q So -- so there weren't even any informal 8 discussions or understandings between you and/or Dell 9 Liebreich on behalf of the estate, Mr. Minton, as to what 10 might happen to the proceeds? 11 A That's right. As you know, the only discussions 12 occurred between the family members themselves. 13 Q Then you say, "with Robert Minton or any other 14 third party." In other words, the estate -- it says, "No 15 informal discussions with Robert Minton or any other third 16 party." 17 So there was no one that had any discussions with 18 anyone, as far as you know, between the estate, Robert 19 Minton or a third party concerning even informal discussions 20 as to these proceeds? 21 A There were no discussions of any kind where the 22 estate was going to give anything to Robert Minton or any 23 third party. Period. 24 Q Did you ever discuss with Robert Minton any 25 agreement or understanding, informal or otherwise, that you
27 1 had from your clients, to donate a percentage of the 2 proceeds or settlement or resolution of the case to some 3 group, some anti-cult group? Did you ever discuss that with 4 Mr. Minton? 5 A Not from my clients' mouths. Mr. Minton was 6 correct and told the truth in his 1998 deposition where he 7 said that he and I had lunch and talked about it would be an 8 idea for the family to set up a foundation or donate to a 9 foundation, a nonprofit organization, in memory of Lisa 10 McPherson. That was my idea. That was his idea. The 11 family wasn't involved in that at all. 12 In May of '99 in Dallas, Texas at a dinner -- 13 maybe you want to call this a dinner meeting -- with the 14 family members and me, and perhaps Brian Haney was there, 15 I'm not sure, that is when the family discussed for the very 16 first time and agreed that it would be a good idea -- 17 idea -- to set up their own nonprofit corporation, a 18 foundation, in memory of Lisa McPherson. 19 So Paragraph 6 of my affidavit again is absolutely 20 true. Mr. Minton, the LMT, Stacy Brooks, FACTNet, for 21 heaven's sakes, any other foundation out there, any for 22 profit, nonprofit. There was nobody discussed. 23 And the agreement between the family members at 24 dinner in '99 only concerned the family members doing 25 something among themselves.
28 1 Q Now, you mentioned Mr. Minton's deposition in -- 2 whenever it was -- January -- was it January or February of 3 1998? 4 A January 13th. 5 Q January of 1998. You were there, correct? 6 A Yes. Representing the estate only. 7 Q And you had met with Mr. Minton prior to the 8 deposition? 9 A What year? What month? I mean -- 10 Q He testified that you had some meetings with him 11 where, among other things, you discussed this idea of 12 donating some of the proceeds or bulk of the proceeds to 13 some anti-cult group. 14 A Well, he said in his deposition that we had lunch 15 at the Tampa Club in December of '97. 16 I can't say yes or no to that. That sounds fine. 17 I mean, I have no recollection of that. But I do have a 18 recollection of having a lunch with him where this few 19 seconds of conversation took place. 20 Q Well, do you remember -- you said that your 21 clients had never discussed the concept, until right before 22 their May '99 deposition, when, for the first time, they 23 actually went on record and said something about donating 24 the bulk of the proceeds, is that -- 25 A Well, that was their first deposition, I believe.
29 1 Q Actually, Dell Liebreich's deposition we had taken 2 in '97 for the first time. Do you remember that, in the 3 spring of '97? 4 A Not really. Actually, I don't remember that. 5 But -- that was the first time that Sam Davis, the only 6 brother of the family, came from Mexico for his deposition. 7 And that was the first time he could be at a gathering. And 8 that is when we discussed this. 9 Q And then after that discussion, they testified in 10 their deposition about what they had agreed to? 11 A Yeah. I let them answer that question. 12 Q Now, but going back to Mr. Minton's deposition, do 13 you remember that in that deposition Mr. Minton not only 14 said that he had discussed with you this idea, but that you 15 had gotten back to him and said that you'd discussed it with 16 your clients and that they'd agreed -- or with your client, 17 Dell Liebreich, and that she had agreed? 18 A You'll have to show that to me. I don't remember 19 that, as I'm sitting here right now. 20 Q Okay, we'll get that. 21 A Are you talking about his '98 deposition? 22 Q Yes, the '98 deposition. 23 A Yes, I need to see that. 24 Q Now, going back to your affidavit. 25 A Yes?
30 1 Q Number 7. 2 A Right. Paragraph 7 affirms again that Scientology 3 is lying to the Court when it says that Robert Minton 4 controls the wrongful death litigation. 5 I'm asserting under oath, as a Florida Bar member, 6 there is no truth in that allegation whatsoever. 7 And I'm also again telling the Court through this 8 affidavit my frustration because of Scientology conducting 9 enormous discovery in an attempt to create evidence -- 10 create evidence that doesn't exist about Mr. Minton's 11 control over the wrongful death litigation. 12 Q Did you provide this affidavit that you executed 13 in December of 2001 to Mr. Minton and/or Mr. Minton's 14 counsel in order to assist Mr. Minton in efforts to avoid 15 discovery of bank records? 16 A I don't think so. Their affidavits prepared by 17 Mr. Merrett, not me, were filed in December of 2000, a year 18 before this. And it had something to do with Mr. Moxon 19 repeatedly putting Minton and Brooks on his witness list and 20 trying to get their personal financial resources, which 21 caused them a lot of grief, like it would anyone else. 22 Q I'm talking about to Mr. Jonas. Do you remember 23 that you provided a copy of this affidavit to Mr. Jonas to 24 file in a motion to quash on behalf of Mr. Minton in 25 Massachusetts in an effort to avoid discovery as to his
31 1 financial records? 2 A Well, that's possible. I don't know if this is 3 the reason this affidavit was created, but I think when 4 Scientology went to Boston to get his personal banking 5 records, Ms. Ricci of Mr. Jonas' office called me and said, 6 "What's going on in the wrongful death case? Why in the 7 world would the Court permit this kind of discovery?" 8 And I think that happened months after this 9 affidavit was written by me in December of 2001. But again, 10 I have to rely upon the records, so you're going to have to 11 show me something. 12 Q Well, were you concerned -- were you concerned 13 that upon the discovery of Mr. Minton's financial records, 14 that someone was going to find, uncover, that $500,000 15 untraceable Swiss bank check from May of 2000? 16 A I was never concerned about the $500,000 UBS bank 17 check that I was told came from friends in Europe. Never. 18 Q So the reason that you did an affidavit -- well, 19 let me just show you what we'll mark as -- we'll mark 20 this -- 21 THE CLERK: 142. 22 MR. WEINBERG: -- we'll mark this as 142. And 23 it's a reply memorandum of Robert Minton in further 24 support of his motion to quash and his supplemental 25 affidavit of Linda Ricci in further support of
32 1 Robert Minton's motion to quash. 2 And I'm going to hand Mr. Dandar what we marked 3 here. 4 THE COURT: But you need to hand Mr. Dandar a 5 copy -- this Mr. Dandar a copy. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I did. I will. 7 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q All right. 10 A Okay. 11 Q All right? I handed you Exhibit 142, and I think 12 the other one is marked 142 B or something? 13 A One is 142 A, which is the reply memorandum. And 14 142 B is the supplemental affidavit of Linda Ricci. 15 Q Now, Linda Ricci -- if that is her name -- is a 16 partner or associate of Mr. Jonas. Is that right? 17 A As far as I know, yes. I have never met her, I 18 don't think. 19 Q And you talked to her? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And what was the reason that you talked to her? 22 A About this, what is in 142 A and B. 23 Q Did she seek you out, or did you seek her out? 24 A She sought me out. 25 Q And if you look at 142 A and B, you'll see that
33 1 these were filed in early December 2001, is that right? 2 A Well, the service date is December 4, the day 3 after I signed my affidavit. So how did she do it that 4 quick? I don't know. Maybe I faxed it to her. 5 Q So the recollection that there was some longtime 6 differential turns out not to be accurate, is that right? 7 A Yes. I thought it was at least a couple months 8 later. 9 Q So this is at the end of December -- I mean at the 10 beginning of December of 2001, what, three months after 11 Mr. Minton has told you that there will be no more funding 12 in the case. Is that right? 13 A Whatever August to December is, right. 14 Q Right. And you were still having communications 15 with Mr. Minton about the case, weren't you? 16 A No. 17 Q You were still having communications with 18 Mr. Minton after he cut off funding? 19 A No. Never. The man wouldn't even talk to me 20 about why he cut off -- 21 Q Well, how is it that you were able to communicate 22 with, talk to, Mr. Minton's personal lawyer in early 23 December of 2001? How did that happen? 24 A She called me on the telephone. 25 Q All right. And said what?
34 1 A And said what I just said before, "Why are they 2 getting after his personal financial records? What's going 3 on in Florida? How could this happen?" 4 And then she asked me for an affidavit. I 5 guess -- now, wait a minute, before I said she asked me for 6 an affidavit, I would like to see what is going on in the 7 wrongful death case because, unfortunately, I didn't review 8 for my testimony, Judge. And I can't answer that question 9 if I filed this only -- sent it to her only, or did I also 10 file it in this case, the wrongful death case. 11 Q I mean, I know I'm not testifying, but for 12 whatever it's worth, I can't find anywhere else where this 13 affidavit was used, other than this motion to quash. 14 A All right. I mean, if that is what you say, I'll 15 take you at your word. 16 Q It may be. But I haven't found it. 17 A Don't say may be. 18 THE COURT: I don't understand. This affidavit 19 is in this motion to quash? Because I haven't found 20 it yet. 21 THE WITNESS: Right here, Judge. 22 MR. WEINBERG: You see the attachment? 23 THE WITNESS: It's on B. 24 THE COURT: On this big thing? 25 THE WITNESS: Right here, Number 2.
35 1 MR. WEINBERG: See, she lists and she files his 2 affidavit -- 3 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Exhibit Number 1? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 5 THE COURT: I got it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. 6 THE WITNESS: I apologize to the Court for not 7 knowing the answer about filing it in this Court, as 8 I sit here right now. I should know that but I 9 can't recollect. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Well, did you discuss with Mr. Minton, in or about 12 December of 2001 -- in or about the time you did this 13 affidavit -- the fact you were going to do an affidavit, 14 have any discussions with him? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q Do you remember any discussions or communications 17 with Mr. Minton about the bank record issue in November or 18 December of 2001? 19 A Well, there are so many of them, so let me think 20 here. 21 Q What do you mean, so many of what? 22 A Well, there are so many requests by the Church of 23 Scientology and Mr. Moxon, not you, but Mr. Moxon, to get 24 his bank records, all over the place. 25 I had, even after he cut off funding -- I was
36 1 still concerned for the man because, you know, he -- he did 2 quite a bit to help us in this case financially. And so 3 even though I wasn't getting any more money, that didn't 4 stop me from being concerned about him being abused by the 5 Church of Scientology. 6 So I had several conversations, and I can't tell 7 you when, about, "Look, they want to subpoena these bank 8 records," whatever they were, you know, "Is there anything 9 there that -- you know, Merrett hasn't done anything about 10 it? Does he know this is going on? Is there anything there 11 that -- you know, do you care about this?" 12 I mean, that is as far as I can go because I can't 13 remember anything else. 14 Q But that means you were talking to him about 15 matters that pertained to him personally, that he would -- 16 he should have been talking to his own personal lawyer 17 about, right? 18 A Oh, yeah. Because I was concerned. It was 19 abusive. I didn't like it. It was my case and I didn't 20 care for it. 21 Q But it didn't have anything to do with your 22 concern that the discovery might blow open the Lisa 23 McPherson case? 24 A No. No. No concern at all. 25 Q And it didn't have anything to do with your
37 1 concern that the discovery might lead to the revelation 2 about this UBS bank check? 3 A I could care less about the UBS bank check. 4 Mr. Moxon had already subpoenaed the $250,000 check in the 5 summer of 2001. 6 Q Well, that wouldn't -- 7 A And I didn't even attend the deposition because I 8 didn't know it had to do with me. It just wasn't worded 9 that way in the subpoena. But, to my surprise, it had to do 10 with me. 11 Q But that $250,000 check in the summer of 2001 was 12 the May 2001 check to you personally that was a personal 13 check on one of Mr. Minton's accounts that had his name on 14 it, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q That wasn't the Swiss checks? 17 A I don't even know if you can call them a Swiss 18 check. But, no, it had nothing to do with the May 2000 19 check. Like I said, I could care less. 20 Q Let's get back to the conversation with 21 Mr. Minton -- 22 A I could care less -- I should back up about that. 23 I complied with all court orders to produce all checks up 24 until January of 2000. I didn't like doing it, but 25 Mr. Minton was on the Internet talking about it, so Judge
38 1 Moody said, you know, nothing we can do about that. 2 Now, after that, there were no further court 3 orders, ever, until I got -- I got a stay on all court 4 orders, then I won the appeal. 5 So as far as I was concerned, you, Mr. Weinberg, 6 said to Judge Moody, you were only concerned about checks 7 that Mr. Minton wrote. So I was never concerned about the 8 UBS checks. 9 Q Because he didn't write that check, did he? 10 A Right. 11 Q Now, going back to this conversation or 12 conversations with Mr. Minton about subpoenas that were to 13 him or his financial institution about his financial 14 records, were you acting in an advisory capacity to 15 Mr. Minton in the fall of 2001? 16 A No. 17 Q Ever did you act in an advisory capacity to 18 Mr. Minton? 19 A No, not that I can remember. 20 Q You were just doing this as a friend, having these 21 conversations with him about what he ought to do concerning 22 discovery efforts being conducted by the Church of 23 Scientology for his personal bank records? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Now, did you -- when you discussed -- had these
39 1 discussions, prior to this motion to quash his lawyer, 2 Mr. Jonas' firm, filed, did you have any discussions at that 3 time about the $500,000 UBS check? 4 A No. I never discussed that check with anyone. 5 Q Including your brother? I'm talking about prior 6 to this hearing. I mean, prior to the revelations by 7 Mr. Minton in his -- in the contempt proceedings in April, 8 is it your testimony you never discussed that $500,000 UBS 9 check with anyone other than Mr. Minton, is that right? 10 A Well, I'm going to leave my brother out of this. 11 That is attorney-client privilege. Attorney privilege. 12 Work product privilege. Privacy privilege. 13 Q Well, what did you mean when you said you never 14 discussed that check with anyone? 15 A Well, I didn't. I didn't discuss that check with 16 anyone outside my law firm. So I'm -- I'm -- I didn't 17 discuss it with anyone with a non-privileged communication. 18 Q Well, you testified in front of Judge Baird that 19 you discussed it with Dell Liebreich, I think I heard you 20 say, didn't you? 21 A No, I said a non-privileged communication. 22 Q I know, but you already testified about that. 23 A Well, okay, then you have to remind me of that and 24 show it to me, too, before I'll agree with you. Although I 25 take you at your word. Don't get me wrong.
40 1 Q Now, did you have any discussions with Mr. Jonas 2 or Ms. Ricci about the $500,000 check, or any of the checks, 3 for that matter, at or about the time of this motion to 4 quash when she got the affidavit from you? 5 A I don't think so. 6 Q And did she give you -- did you volunteer to her 7 that you would send up an affidavit? Is that how it 8 happened? 9 A I have no idea. I mean, it could have happened 10 that way, or she may have asked me. And if you're telling 11 me I didn't file it in the wrongful death case, it surprises 12 me, but -- I thought I did. 13 Q Okay. Now, we were talking about -- have you had 14 any discussions at all ever, ever, either before December of 15 2001 or after December of 2001, up until today, with 16 Mr. Jonas, Ms. Ricci or anyone from the Hale & Dorr law 17 firm, about the $500,000 check? 18 A I doubt it. I don't think so. 19 Q Well, you would remember if there was something 20 since April, is that correct? 21 A Since April of when? 22 Q Of this year. 23 A Oh, this year? 24 Q We are only talking about December of 2001 until 25 May. We're only talking about a few months here.
41 1 A You would be amazed. Let me think. 2 THE COURT: Sometimes I can't remember what 3 happened two weeks ago. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Well, unfortunately, I'm in that 5 same status in life. 6 THE COURT: It seems like a long, long time, to 7 me. 8 MR. WEINBERG: It does. 9 A I believe the last time I talked to Ms. Ricci was 10 about this motion that is in front of me, 142 A and B. I 11 don't think I talked to them since then, that I can 12 remember. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q And you don't remember any discussions with anyone 15 from that firm, including Mr. Jonas and Ms. Ricci, 16 specifically about the UBS check and issues related to the 17 UBS check? 18 A No. No. Not at all. 19 Q Let me take that exhibit and I'll -- or it will 20 just get confused. 21 Now, I asked you that question about -- about 22 Mr. Minton and what he said in that first deposition on 23 January 13, 1998. 24 And that is a deposition, by the way, that not 25 only were -- were we both there, but a representative from
42 1 Mr. Leipold's firm was there, as well as Kathy Shipe, is 2 that right? 3 A Yes, she was there representing Mr. Minton because 4 she had some Scientology litigation experience that he 5 wanted, and Mr. Jonas did not. 6 Q Now, then I asked you whether you recalled that he 7 had been asked about how this -- you know, about this 8 discussion with you and whether or not you had told him that 9 the family agreed to it, as well. 10 And let me refer you to Pages 64 and 65. You can 11 start at 64, if you want to, at the bottom, and then we've 12 marked an area on 65, and see if that refreshes your 13 recollection that Mr. Minton testified under oath -- and I 14 think you said he testified truthfully in that deposition -- 15 that, in fact, you had told him that Ms. Liebreich -- you 16 discussed this with Ms. Liebreich, and she had agreed to it. 17 THE COURT: Tell me what you are having him 18 read? 19 MR. WEINBERG: It is Pages 64 and 65 from Bob 20 Minton's first deposition, which is January 13, 21 1998. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. WEINBERG: And the way I am doing it is 24 using it to refresh his recollection first. 25 A Okay. That is what he says on Page 65, that Dell
43 1 Liebreich agreed to -- 2 THE COURT: Am I in the wrong thing? I'm 3 not -- this is the January 13th? 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 MR. WEINBERG: '98. It would be the first 6 deposition. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Page 64 and 65. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Could I see it for a second? I 9 could point it out for you. 10 THE COURT: "Is there any agreement whatsoever 11 that you have with Mr. Dandar, the family?" 12 And he says, "None whatsoever." 13 Is that it? 14 MR. WEINBERG: I don't know. Let me see it. 15 THE WITNESS: Well, that is in there, too. 16 MR. WEINBERG: But then you have got to go on. 17 I want him to start at 64, to show that I had not 18 taken it out of context, then 65 -- 19 THE WITNESS: Judge, may I go down and get my 20 excerpts? 21 THE COURT: Sure. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Well, can I take this back then? 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, you may. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Specifically what I was showing 25 him, to refresh his recollection, was 65, line 16
44 1 through 20. 2 A That is what Mr. Minton said. 3 BY MR. WEINBERG: 4 Q Right. And you didn't correct him during that 5 deposition, did you? 6 A You know, I would like to see a lawyer correct a 7 nonparty -- 8 Q I'm just asking you a question. You didn't 9 correct him, right? 10 A No, because, as a matter of fact, it could have 11 been that my client was already agreeable to that idea -- 12 THE COURT: And he had his own lawyer there, 13 didn't he? 14 THE WITNESS: Of course. I wasn't his lawyer. 15 THE COURT: I would have been real upset if I 16 was presiding and he would start trying to correct 17 him or do anything. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. But Mr. Dandar 19 did say, a few minutes ago, that -- he made a point 20 Mr. Minton told the truth in that deposition about 21 what the state of that agreement was. 22 And then I asked him if he didn't remember that 23 Mr. Minton had said that -- 24 THE COURT: Well, I understand that, but the 25 question you just asked him is, "You didn't correct
45 1 him, did you?" 2 I mean, can you imagine what you would have 3 done if Mr. Dandar had started, in that deposition, 4 saying, "Just a minute, I would like to object." I 5 mean, come on. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Maybe I'll ask a different 7 question. 8 THE COURT: There is nothing -- you can't -- 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q After that deposition, did you take Mr. Minton 11 aside and say, "What in the heck were you talking about?" 12 A No, because he had two lawyers there. I wasn't 13 going to talk to him. He wasn't my client. 14 Q Wait a minute. You talked to him before the 15 deposition. 16 A But he had his lawyers there. And that could be 17 true. I'm not saying that is a lie. I could have talked to 18 Dell about it and she thought it was a good idea. 19 Q All right. 20 A But it doesn't change the fact May of '99 was the 21 first time the family got together and discussed this. 22 Q Now -- 23 THE COURT: I have always been a little 24 confused about this. When we talk about this 25 agreement, this is maybe because I don't know
46 1 anything about probate or -- I don't know -- I don't 2 know anything about probate and nobody in my family 3 ever had any money so I never had to worry about 4 that, either. But who is it that has to agree here? 5 Dell Liebreich is the personal representative 6 of the estate. 7 MR. WEINBERG: It would be her. 8 THE COURT: Well, can she agree for the 9 beneficiaries? 10 MR. WEINBERG: Sure, she's the personal rep. I 11 mean, legally, I don't think the beneficiaries have 12 any say in it. 13 THE COURT: You mean to tell me that she can 14 just decide to give the bulk of this -- even though 15 she was personal rep, she could give the bulk of 16 this away and they wouldn't have any -- 17 MR. WEINBERG: Redress is in probate court. 18 The personal rep has responsibilities to act in a 19 fiduciary capacity to the estate and, ultimately, I 20 guess, to the beneficiaries. 21 THE COURT: So if she wanted to avoid being 22 sued by her sisters and brother, to say nothing of 23 the fact avoid having her family break apart, this 24 would have to be a family decision? 25 MR. WEINBERG: Of course.
47 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. WEINBERG: But the exact answer to the 3 question is that is what the personal rep's job is. 4 THE COURT: So the personal rep can sign the 5 check. But the truth of the matter is the personal 6 rep could get sued by the beneficiaries and would 7 have to pay? 8 MR. WEINBERG: If it were my family and the 9 personal rep gave my family -- my parents' money 10 away, I would say that my brothers and I would have 11 an argument. But the personal rep can bind the 12 estate. So she would have to be in litigation with 13 her siblings. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q I'm going to hand up to you some -- some 16 transcripts -- and I just want to go over them quickly -- 17 things you said in hearings on this issue. They are very 18 brief. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Here, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Thanks. 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q I just handed you a transcript of a hearing which 23 is August 29, 2001, a hearing in front of Judge Beach. And 24 it is with regard to a motion to compel with regard to LMT 25 records.
48 1 Specifically, I'm going to refer you to Page 97, 2 what I highlighted, where do you recall telling Judge Beach 3 in that hearing, "These people have nothing to do with this 4 case. The man loans me money for litigation. And all he 5 expects to get paid back is the principal sum. He does that 6 point to --" 7 A No, "how does that." 8 Q "How does that point to any -- in his involvement 9 in the case. He doesn't control me. You can put me under 10 oath. I've said this before to the other judges in the 11 case: He has no influence whatever on how the case is 12 operated." 13 Do you recall saying that? 14 A Well, I'm reading it so I'm assuming it is correct 15 and the truth -- it's 100 percent the truth. 16 Q So it's true -- 17 A Notice it says he loans me. Okay? 18 Q Right. What I am focusing on -- what I want to 19 focus on in this next question -- is you said that "He has 20 no - no influence whatsoever on how this case is operated." 21 That is your testimony. Right? 22 A Absolutely. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not going to mark these 24 unless -- I'm just going to refer to them. 25 THE COURT: No.
49 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q I'm handing -- I handed you what is a memorandum 3 of law in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 4 or in the alternative, strike as sham pleadings the 5 defendant's counterclaim. 6 And if you look at the end, it's a motion that you 7 filed and signed on December 13, 2001. 8 Is that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And this was a motion directed to the 11 counterclaim, which is really sort of the essence of the 12 allegations concerning Mr. Minton's involvement in the case. 13 Is that right? 14 A Yes. I believe this motion is still pending. 15 THE COURT: Is it? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. 17 THE COURT: All right. 18 THE WITNESS: It's a motion for summary 19 judgment or -- yes, summary judgment or strike as a 20 sham the pleadings -- 21 THE COURT: I think it is. I don't think we've 22 heard it yet, but it is pending. 23 MR. MOXON: You heard it and granted it orally 24 but no order ever issued. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Granted what?
50 1 THE COURT: Granted a summary judgment for him 2 on the counterclaim? 3 MR. MOXON: No, you denied it. I'm sorry, you 4 denied his motion for summary judgment orally but no 5 order ever entered. 6 THE COURT: I think I granted the motion -- I 7 have denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, 8 then I think he filed this. And I don't think it 9 has been set for hearing. 10 THE WITNESS: Right. 11 MR. MOXON: Well, I can provide you the 12 hearing. We actually had a lengthy hearing on it. 13 But it was quite a long time ago. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q In any event -- 16 A Okay? 17 Q -- if you will -- you did this -- 18 THE COURT: Well, Counselor, it was only made 19 in December of 2001, so it couldn't have been a long 20 time ago. I think you are mistaken. 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q But, in any event, if you'll turn to Page 5 of 23 14 -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q -- you go through this -- you identify
51 1 "Allegations," and then you say "The Truth." 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 A It is rather dramatic, I guess. 5 Q Yes, it is rather dramatic. 6 But, in any event, Allegation Number 5 in there 7 is: "Allegation: In the process, plaintiff and her 8 co-actors, Minton and others, suborned perjury, tampered 9 with witnesses, paid fact witnesses, tampered with jury pool 10 and committed other wrongful acts." 11 Then you write, "The Truth: The truth is there is 12 no connection between the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel 13 and Robert Minton. Plaintiff's counsel has received loans 14 from Mr. Minton and that is all. He has not directed the 15 wrongful death case. Mr. Minton has no control or authority 16 over the case, the personal representative or its counsel. 17 These are bold misrepresentations by Scientology." 18 That is what you said, correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And it's true -- is it your testimony it's true 21 that Mr. Minton -- there is no connection between 22 plaintiff's counsel, that is you -- you and Mr. Minton? 23 A Wait. Are you going to take this out of context? 24 You have to read the whole paragraph, and the whole 25 paragraph is true.
52 1 Q When you say "no connection," what do you mean? 2 What did you mean when you wrote that, "no connection"? 3 A I'm not a puppet of Mr. Minton or anyone else. 4 I'm not an extension of anyone else. 5 Q Okay. And -- 6 THE COURT: I see here where he says that 7 plaintiff's counsel has received loans from 8 Mr. Minton. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I see that. 10 THE COURT: Okay. I think you're going to 11 find, if you would look, every time this is referred 12 to, you're going to see that sometimes it's referred 13 to as a loan to him and sometimes to the estate. 14 It's very -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: We are eventually going to go 16 over that when we -- 17 THE COURT: But, I mean, it's interesting how 18 when it seems to read the way you want it to read, 19 you want to point it out. And when it reads the way 20 he wants it to read, you don't. And I would just as 21 soon, if you would get it out -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: We are -- 23 THE COURT: -- and cross-examine -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: We are getting into detail about 25 what it is. But, truthfully, I don't care if it's a
53 1 loan to him or a loan to the estate. That isn't my 2 concern. 3 THE COURT: Well, good. Then I don't have to 4 hear from you-all at all about whether it's a loan 5 to him or to the estate. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I didn't mean it that way. 7 THE COURT: Well, I didn't think you did, so if 8 you don't mind, whenever we see these things, if 9 you're going to point it out and it says the estate, 10 let's point it out. And when it says a loan to 11 counsel -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I read the whole thing. 13 THE COURT: Well, good. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q Now, let me show you -- you can put that one 16 aside, Ken. 17 THE COURT: What did you want to do with this? 18 MR. WEINBERG: I just reviewed it with him. 19 THE WITNESS: That's it. 20 MR. WEINBERG: I'm just establishing what he 21 said consistently over the case, and then -- I think 22 it's consistent. I want to make sure what he said 23 is accurate. And then there are a lot of things -- 24 THE COURT: Do you know what? I'm not going to 25 let you keep doing that then.
54 1 MR. WEINBERG: I only have a couple more. 2 THE COURT: That is his statement. And if you 3 have something that shows it is not true, let's go 4 there. But that is his statement. 5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm thinking I have got to 6 correct something somewhere. 7 THE COURT: Yes, I keep thinking we are going 8 to correct something here. And the truth of the 9 matter is I am going to review this stuff. And that 10 is not the purpose of this hearing. 11 MR. WEINBERG: This is the last one I'll review 12 with him. 13 THE COURT: All right. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q Do you remember appearing at a hearing in front of 16 Judge Baird, December 6, 2001? 17 A Not really. But I'll take the transcript as 18 accurate. 19 Q Well, there was a hearing that had to do with 20 Mr. Minton and not you, correct? Or not the -- not the 21 estate. Correct? 22 A That is what it looks like, yeah. 23 Q At the end of the hearing, on Page 39, do you see 24 that statement? 25 A Yes.
55 1 Q "Judge, although I don't have a dog in this fight 2 at this stage --" 3 A I remember this now. 4 Q "-- I was at the depositions of Mr. Minton for the 5 two days. He answered every question that had anything, 6 even the broadest category, dealing with the issues in this 7 case. He has nothing to do with the wrongful death case. 8 He has nothing to do with the alleged breach of contract and 9 tried to add on parties. He does haven't any influence in 10 the wrongful death case. He answered all those questions in 11 the deposition." 12 And that is all true, is that right? 13 A It's all true. It's all true. Mr. Minton has 14 testified truthfully in all depositions and affidavits, as 15 far as I know, until this happened this year. 16 THE COURT: What is that that happened? 17 THE WITNESS: Until he made his deal with 18 Scientology. 19 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Now, you did appear at Mr. Minton's September 19, 22 2001 deposition in this case. Correct? 23 A Yes. I believe I appeared at all his depositions. 24 That is why I was able to make that statement. 25 Q And do you remember, during that deposition, that
56 1 Mr. Minton, at some point on direct examination, exercised 2 his Fifth Amendment privilege as to a number of questions -- 3 privilege as to a number of questions? 4 A Almost a hundred, I think. 5 Q But then you got up and did some cross-examination 6 of Mr. Minton. Do you remember that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, had you talked to Mr. Minton prior to that 9 deposition -- 10 A No. 11 Q -- about the deposition? 12 A No. 13 Q Did you have some reason to believe that 14 Mr. Minton was going to answer your questions but not answer 15 Mr. Moxon's questions? 16 A No. I just hoped he would, because he was leaving 17 a bad impression by pleading the Fifth Amendment. 18 Q And do you remember that when you started asking 19 him questions about some of the very things that Mr. Moxon 20 had asked him questions about, that rather than take the 21 Fifth, he answered your questions? 22 A Well, you will have to show me. And you'll have 23 to show me the Fifth Amendment questions. And you'll have 24 to show me that I can see that they're the same. 25 Q Do you remember that you asked him questions and
57 1 elicited from him, on your cross-examination, answers with 2 regard to -- 3 THE COURT: I think that is a fair request, 4 Counsel. And if you're going to do that, you're 5 going to have to show it to him. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I'm going to show 7 him what he asked him. 8 THE COURT: Well, he says he can't answer your 9 question without it. I think he's entitled to see 10 it. I'm sitting here looking at it, he's sitting 11 there with nothing. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I'm trying to pull out what the 13 questions are, Judge. 14 THE COURT: I said I'm sitting here looking at 15 it. I'm actually sitting here looking at a 16 deposition. I haven't found it yet. But I do 17 recall it. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I was just going to show him 19 where Mr. Dandar asked questions that Mr. Minton 20 answered -- 21 THE COURT: On? 22 THE WITNESS: On Page 299. 23 THE COURT: Show me the page. 24 THE WITNESS: 297. 25 MR. WEINBERG: 297, 298 -- I'm sorry, 297 and
58 1 299 are the two pages. Obviously 298 -- 2 THE COURT: Was that supposed to be the end of 3 the deposition? 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 THE COURT: This goes on for 445 pages. 6 MR. WEINBERG: It was right toward the end of 7 that session, I suppose, is what happened. 8 THE COURT: Oh, okay. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I wasn't there, but -- 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q I think on 297, Mr. Dandar, you -- you start your 13 cross-examination. 14 And your first question relates to what we've been 15 talking about. You elicited from Mr. Minton answers with 16 regard to whether or not he had any influence or involvement 17 in the case. Is that correct? 18 A Yes. 19 THE COURT: Okay, I'm sorry, I'm -- this is 20 Mr. Minton's deposition. 21 THE WITNESS: September. 22 THE COURT: September? 23 MR. WEINBERG: September 18. 24 THE COURT: Gotcha. 297? 25 THE WITNESS: Right.
59 1 THE COURT: It is toward the end of this 2 deposition, because this is only 310 pages. 3 THE WITNESS: I think it goes on longer than 4 that. 5 THE COURT: No, it doesn't. 6 THE WITNESS: No? Okay. 7 THE COURT: 310. 8 MR. THOMAS DANDAR: That is Volume 1. 9 THE COURT: That is the last of that volume. 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 THE COURT: I mean, that is the last of that 12 deposition. The next one was 10, 11 and 12. 13 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 297. I'm there. All right. 15 THE WITNESS: Judge, it says it is Volume 1, so 16 I have a hunch there is a lot more than that. 17 THE COURT: Oh, really? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is only Volume 1. 19 THE COURT: Well, you know what? You-all gave 20 it to me. So if you didn't give it all to me -- 21 THE WITNESS: I gave it to you? 22 THE COURT: Yes, Donna gave it to me. She 23 said, "You wanted Mr. Minton's depositions. Here 24 they are." 25 THE WITNESS: Oh-oh.
60 1 THE COURT: I said to them I would like to have 2 them. When I say "them," I'm talking about Lee or 3 someone on that side. So I have had them ever 4 since. 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q If you'll see on 297 you actually start asking 8 Mr. Minton questions, correct? 9 A I asked him questions, yes. 10 Q And let me just refer you to a couple of 11 questions. Then we'll move on. 12 A Then he asked to consult with his attorney. 13 THE COURT: Do you know, I'm -- if you're 14 talking about the questions of whether he had 15 anything to do with the prosecution, I don't think 16 he ever claimed the Fifth Amendment on that question 17 when Mr. Moxon asked him. 18 He only claimed the Fifth Amendment in there on 19 questions dealing with money. Let me -- Page 12: 20 "Let me generally set the stage. I don't intend to 21 answer any questions concerning my financial 22 affairs. I will be asserting my Fifth Amendment 23 privilege on each and every question concerning 24 payment of moneys to anybody who fits within the 25 general framework of Scientology's 'Enterprise
61 1 chart,'" which we now know Mr. Minton says was an 2 excuse. 3 So what is your question? 4 MR. WEINBERG: My question is I just want -- I 5 wanted to show Mr. Dandar these two pages, 297 and 6 299, and ask him if he remembers that he elicited 7 responses from Mr. Minton at that time that 8 Mr. Minton had had no influence or involvement with 9 regard to how to run the wrongful death case. That 10 he elicited those answers. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did ask him those 12 questions that appear in the transcript. And I read 13 297. I have read 299. And so far, Mr. Minton is 14 telling the 100 percent truth under oath. 15 BY MR. WEINBERG: 16 Q All right. And was there a reason why, at that 17 time, that you asked those questions? 18 A Reason why? 19 Q Yes. 20 A Mmm, because it was an issue with Mr. Moxon and 21 the Church of Scientology. 22 Q Okay. 23 A And it may -- see, I don't remember now when the 24 counterclaim was filed. And those salacious allegations. 25 So it may have had something to do with that.
62 1 Q Now, you were aware, were you not, that Mr. Minton 2 was -- 3 THE COURT: Now, in fairness, I think what you 4 said, when you started this, is that -- didn't you 5 ask questions where he had taken the Fifth Amendment 6 for Mr. Moxon. If you have got that proof, I want 7 it now. 8 MR. WEINBERG: He repeatedly took the Fifth in 9 those questions. 10 THE COURT: On those questions whether he 11 controlled the lawsuit. 12 Yes, he took the Fifth Amendment on money 13 questions. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, here are the questions 15 he took the Fifth on. So, I mean -- 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. WEINBERG: -- it seems -- I'm going to your 18 -- your -- 19 MR. THOMAS DANDAR: Copies? 20 MR. WEINBERG: I don't have a copy of this. 21 This is the motion on the Fifth Amendment which you 22 ordered Mr. Minton ultimately to answer. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. WEINBERG: There is a question, and I think 25 it is -- sort of overlaps what I'm saying, question
63 1 on 279, "Did you make a deal with Mr. Dandar with 2 respect to the proceeds of this case?" 3 THE COURT: Not the same. Sorry. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I -- 5 THE COURT: It has to do with money. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I know. I'm trying to show -- 7 THE COURT: Go ahead. 8 MR. WEINBERG: "How much money did you give 9 Mr. Dandar for reasons other than adding a specific 10 party to the case? Did you give him $250,000 11 because he was successful in adding any party to the 12 case?" 13 In other words, it sort of overlaps. 14 THE COURT: That is your opinion. In my 15 opinion, Mr. Moxon -- and I read this deposition 16 very carefully -- he took the Fifth Amendment at 17 every question Mr. Moxon asked him that dealt in any 18 way, shape or form with money, proceeds or money. 19 He did not take the Fifth Amendment to any 20 question that Mr. Moxon might have asked him like 21 the questions Mr. Dandar asked him. 22 Fair is fair. This is a member of the Florida 23 Bar you are attacking. Don't leave insinuations 24 there that aren't there. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, what I --
64 1 THE COURT: If Mr. Moxon asked those questions, 2 I want you to find them. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I don't think he asked that 4 specific question. What happened in that 5 deposition, however, was -- and the point I was 6 making -- is that throughout most of that deposition 7 Mr. Minton took the Fifth. For whatever reason, 8 when he got on cross-examination with Mr. Dandar -- 9 I wasn't there, this is my recollection of reading 10 the transcript -- for whatever reason, he answered 11 whatever questions it was Mr. Dandar asked him. 12 THE COURT: Maybe Mr. Dandar -- did Mr. Dandar 13 asked him questions about money? I don't recall 14 Mr. Minton taking any Fifth Amendment on questions 15 that didn't involve money. 16 Move on. That is all right. Whatever. But -- 17 but -- I mean, he was very clear in both his 18 September and the October deposition that he was not 19 going to answer questions that involved money. And 20 he did not. 21 However, I do recall that he answered all of 22 the rest of Mr. Moxon's questions and Mr. Rosen's 23 questions. 24 So if Mr. Dandar was asking him questions that 25 didn't involve money, I guess he answered them.
65 1 MR. WEINBERG: Could I proceed? 2 THE COURT: Let's see if Mr. Dandar asked him 3 any questions about money. There was one where he 4 asked questions about money, which he did answer. I 5 don't know if it is in this deposition or not -- 6 THE WITNESS: The closest is 299, line 18. 7 THE COURT: Yes, that would be as close as it 8 would come, "Have you ever loaned me any money or 9 given my any money --" there is one I think you 10 could say he may have taken the Fifth on a similar 11 question from Mr. Moxon. 12 So, now I think we're straight. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q Now, you were aware, Mr. Dandar, that 16 Mr. Minton -- on the day that you first were introduced to 17 him and -- for purposes of this question -- no, actually 18 from the day that you first met him in Clearwater, up 19 through the first phone call and for the last four-plus 20 years, you were aware that Mr. Minton was fanatically 21 hostile to Scientology, is that correct? 22 A The truth of the matter is that all I remember 23 about Mr. Minton from March of 1997, when I first met 24 Mr. Wollersheim and Mr. Lerma and Mr. Jacobsen, is that he 25 was some guy sitting on the dresser in this motel room, not
66 1 saying one word. I had no idea who he was, his name, 2 anything about him. 3 When he called me up in late September/early 4 October, after he spoke with Mr. Abelson, I still didn't 5 know who he was. He had to remind me that he met me in 6 March of '97. And that didn't ring any bells. 7 So I was clueless on who Mr. Minton was. I was 8 clueless on the name Robert Minton. And I don't think I 9 ever met him -- that I could say I met him -- until December 10 of '97. 11 Q Who else was in that hotel room in March of 12 whenever it was, 1997? 13 A I can't remember anyone else except the names I 14 just gave you. 15 Q Wollersheim. Minton. Who else? 16 A He says he was. I don't remember him being there. 17 He claims he was. And I assume he's telling me the truth. 18 Q Wollersheim. Who was the other? 19 A Lerma. And Jacobsen. 20 Q And the reason you were in that room was what? 21 A Because somebody called me up and said they were 22 coming down to Clearwater. And I didn't even know who 23 Wollersheim and Lerma were. I knew Jeff Jacobsen by then. 24 And they said, you know, "Why don't you bring us 25 some coffee and bagels over and we can talk about what we
67 1 know about Scientology." 2 Q By the end of that meeting, you were aware the 3 people in that room were hostile to Scientology? 4 A No. In fact, to this day I wouldn't classify them 5 as hostile to Scientology. I wouldn't classify them as 6 anti-Scientology. 7 Q Well -- 8 A That is a Scientology term for it. 9 Q What would you classify Mr. Minton's postings and 10 the postings of your expert, Mr. Prince, and others that are 11 affiliated with the LMT and have been listed as witnesses on 12 your witness list from time to time? How would you 13 characterize their attitudes toward Scientology in those 14 postings -- 15 A Well, unfortunately -- 16 Q -- if not anti-Scientology? 17 A I can't answer a question like that. 18 THE COURT: Why not? 19 THE WITNESS: There are hundreds of thousands 20 of postings. 21 THE COURT: They are hostile, aren't they, 22 Mr. Dandar? 23 THE WITNESS: It all depends what the postings 24 are about. Sometimes they are criticizing 25 Scientology --
68 1 THE COURT: If you were a Scientologist, would 2 you like to read about them? 3 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know. 4 THE COURT: Well -- 5 THE WITNESS: Judge, look -- look, I'm a 6 Catholic. A Christian. If someone said something 7 nasty about the Catholic church, which is going on 8 right now, I might tend to agree with them. In 9 fact, what is going on right now, I would say it was 10 nasty. 11 Was it hostile? You know, I think it's -- 12 hostile is -- is way -- 13 THE COURT: How about anti? That was the word 14 you used. Is that fair? 15 THE WITNESS: No, because right now I would 16 criticize what is going on in the Catholic church. 17 And I'm not anti-Catholic. See what I'm saying? 18 THE COURT: No. 19 THE WITNESS: Oh. Sorry. 20 THE COURT: I think what I have read in those 21 postings show that they are anti-Scientology, they 22 are hostile toward Scientology, and I think every 23 Scientologist that read them would be incensed at 24 that. That is what I think. 25 You see them, obviously, different from me. So
69 1 move on. 2 THE WITNESS: No, the postings you have, I 3 would tend to agree with. 4 THE COURT: Those are the ones I was talking 5 about, Mr. Dandar. Those are the only ones I know 6 about. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, okay. The vulgar -- 8 THE COURT: Would you agree those were hostile? 9 THE WITNESS: I would say so. 10 THE COURT: All right, now, we got those 11 straightened out. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Now, you did speak -- we'll go back to the phones 14 now. 15 You did speak, with some frequency, to Mr. Minton 16 on the phone over the past four years. Is that correct? 17 A Well, you know, frequency over the past four or 18 five years? You know, show me. Tell me how many. 19 Q Okay. 20 A That is too vague. 21 MR. WEINBERG: It is Defense Exhibit 105, your 22 Honor. 23 THE COURT: Is that the one right there? 24 MR. WEINBERG: It is not. I'll give you a copy 25 right now. I'll give him another copy.
70 1 THE COURT: Okay. I remember this. This was 2 Mr. Dandar's filing. Right? 3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: This is the one that Donna West 6 prepared to their response. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q Well, hold on. I have some questions for you. 9 A I'm sorry. I thought you had. 10 THE COURT: Well, you said show me. He -- 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Now, this is a pleading, that, regardless who 14 prepared it, you filed it and signed it on February 8, 2002 15 in this case. Is that right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Is that right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q It's in response to request for production done 20 with regard to the counterclaim. Is that right? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And if you look at Request Number 2, it is: "All 23 telephone records identify all telephone --" in other words, 24 what it is asking for is: "All telephone records identify 25 calls made by Ken Dandar to Robert Minton during the period
71 1 from and including January '97 to present." 2 Do you recall that is what the request was? 3 THE COURT: Should that read "All telephone 4 records identifying calls"? 5 MR. WEINBERG: Let me pull out the -- this is 6 his response, so let me pull out the -- 7 THE COURT: It's all right. 8 THE WITNESS: It doesn't matter. 9 THE COURT: We'll agree that is the general 10 meaning? 11 MR. WEINBERG: That is the general meaning. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q That is how it was understood, right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you -- in this response, you indicate in your 16 filing that there was a "diligent search made" which you 17 characterized as very burdensome, and you attach a list of 18 calls from '97, '99, 2000, 2001, made by you to Mr. Minton. 19 Right? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And except for a few calls, you indicate that 22 1998, for whatever reason, you can't locate the records? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q Okay now, and there are listed here, I believe, 79 25 calls, but you could count them. It is either --
72 1 70-something, 77, 79 calls. Do you want to count them, or 2 is that about right? 3 A No. I will take your word for it. 4 Q All right. Now, who made -- who actually -- well, 5 what did you do to reconstruct what calls -- telephone calls 6 you made to Bob Minton from the beginning of the case until 7 this request -- which would be probably at the end of 2001, 8 right? 9 A All I did personally was tell Donna West to do it. 10 Q Well, what -- what numbers did you search? 11 A I told her to search for Mr. Minton's numbers on 12 our phone bills. 13 Q Well, did you -- but did you check your home 14 records, your personal bills? 15 A Well, you know -- no. This goes to the estate of 16 Lisa McPherson. I certainly didn't go to my home -- well, I 17 don't even have those. I don't keep them like I do for my 18 business. But I wouldn't have done that and I didn't do 19 that. 20 Q Well, did you check your cell records? 21 A Well, I don't know if I checked my cell records. 22 She has the cell records, so she -- she may have. 23 THE COURT: You'll have to ask Donna. He 24 doesn't know. 25 MR. WEINBERG: I'm trying to figure out what he
73 1 knows and what he doesn't know. 2 A As far as I know, I believe she would have checked 3 the cell records. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q All right. And are you able, over the break, to 6 confirm what she checked and what she -- what she didn't 7 check? Can you do that for us? 8 A Yes, I will do that. I know we couldn't -- 9 THE COURT: Is it time for a little break? I 10 know we took a little break, but -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: No, I mean over the break -- 12 THE WITNESS: The weekend? 13 MR. WEINBERG: The weekend break. 14 THE WITNESS: You're not going to finish today? 15 THE COURT: With you? I don't think so. We'll 16 take a little break for 15 minutes, then go until 17 five, then we'll be done for the weekend. Call 18 Donna, whatever her name is. 19 THE WITNESS: West. 20 THE COURT: See if she can help you out here. 21 Let's quit. I'm tired. I mean, it is that 4 22 o'clock hour. I can't think good. I'm done for the 23 day. I'm tired. That is it. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Judge. 25 (WHEREUPON, Court stands adjourned at 3:50
74 1 p.m.) 2 ______________________________________ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
75 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 30th day of May, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index