Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500 Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500 76 1 2 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 4 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11 5 DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal 6 Representative of the ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, 7 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. VOLUME 2 10 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS 11 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S., 12 Defendants. 13 _______________________________________/ 14 15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief. 16 DATE: June 4, 2002, morning session. 17 PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding 18 St. Petersburg, Florida. 19 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge. 20 REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, 21 Notary Public, State of Florida at large. 22 23 24 25
77 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR DANDAR & DANDAR 3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33602 4 Attorney for Plaintiff. 5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 7 Attorney for Plaintiff. 8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON MOXON & KOBRIN 9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 11 MR. LEE FUGATE and 12 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 13 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 14 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 15 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN 16 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD 740 Broadway at Astor Place 17 New York, NY 10003-9518 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 18 Organization. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
78 1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS 2 PAGE LINE 3 Recess 95 16 Recess 177 9 4 Reporter's Certificate 178 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
79 1 (The proceedings resumed at 9:06 a.m.) 2 THE COURT: Good morning. Well, good. Here 3 are my tablets. I thought I'd lost them, and that 4 would have been bad. But I didn't. But I almost 5 need this one anyway. 6 Okay. Let's see. If we're lucky and if I can 7 get all this put together today, I'll have all those 8 orders ready for you all. 9 I had an ex parte communication with Mr. Moxon 10 this weekend. I needed to know a date when a 11 hearing started, and so I had a feeling I could 12 catch him at his office, and I did, and he gave me a 13 date. So it was nothing more than just saying, 14 "When did this hearing happen," and he went and 15 found it for me. So I didn't have -- I didn't know 16 for sure if you'd be in your office, so I started 17 there, and he was there. 18 MR. MOXON: I confess that's true. I was 19 working this weekend, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: You were working and I was working. 21 Mr. Dandar, were you working? 22 MR. DANDAR: I was definitely working, yes. 23 THE COURT: Okay. As I said, I picked one or 24 the other of you, I found him, and didn't have to 25 call you, therefore, so --
80 1 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I filed -- 2 MR. MOXON: May I make one comment as to those 3 orders first? 4 THE COURT: The orders? 5 MR. MOXON: Yes. 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. MOXON: Just very briefly, you mentioned 8 the Prince motion was going to be one of them. 9 THE COURT: Yes. 10 Which one? 11 MR. MOXON: The sanction motion. 12 THE COURT: Mm-hmm. 13 MR. MOXON: Mr. -- Mr. Lieberman mentioned last 14 week we've been working on a further supplemental 15 memorandum with respect to the qualification issue. 16 Have nothing to do with bias. You've ruled on that, 17 and that's -- we've accepted that, of course. 18 But there will be a supplemental memorandum 19 filed within the next day or two concerning the 20 qualification issue of whether or not he could ever 21 be qualified as an expert, and I think there 22 probably will be some testimony. I certainly know 23 there will be some testimony and evidence introduced 24 which goes to that issue also during these hearings. 25 So since this has been banging around for
81 1 several months and won't really relate -- the order 2 you issue won't really relate to these hearings, I 3 would respectfully request you hold off for a couple 4 days and we'll get you this memo. 5 THE COURT: I'm going to file it. It was a 6 hearing. It was -- I held it. I've made a 7 decision. I nunc pro tunced it back to the date of 8 that hearing. My concern is that it's filed, it's 9 done as of that date. That was my decision. 10 Obviously, anything that's done in something like 11 that can be amended, can be reconsidered. So I'm 12 not going to hold it. 13 I don't know what memo you're talking about 14 now. The sanctions memo is a different order from 15 the Prince qualification order. The Prince 16 qualification order, just on a motion to strike, 17 which I just denied. And both of those orders were 18 the only two that I nunc pro tunced, because I felt 19 that both of those had some -- well, you know, the 20 order related to a specific point in time -- 21 MR. MOXON: Okay. 22 THE COURT: -- and did not relate to -- to 23 anything that might occur after it. 24 MR. MOXON: Understood. 25 As I recall, the court had indicated that
82 1 whether or not he qualified -- whether or not he 2 could ever qualify would have a -- 3 THE COURT: Had to do with my decision on the 4 case law, as to whether or not, in Florida, you 5 could exclude a witness on bias, based on my reading 6 of the law at the time. 7 MR. MOXON: Okay. Yeah. This goes to -- 8 THE COURT: In other words, I was dealing with 9 the issue based at that time, then and there, and 10 had to do with his bias -- it may have had to do 11 with his qualifications. In other words, I may have 12 listened to whatever I heard on that date and made a 13 decision that he was qualified. But as I said, it's 14 a nunc pro tunc order. I -- I feel like it was 15 pending, I decided it and I want to file the order. 16 MR. DANDAR: Judge, the plaintiff filed two 17 requests to produce at hearing. One -- they're both 18 in front of you on your right-hand side. One 19 request, the committee of evidence reports on the 20 following individuals who are staff members of the 21 defendant. They are Brian Anderson, Alain 22 Kartuzinski, Janis Johnson, David Houghton, David 23 Minkoff, Humberto Fontana -- 24 THE COURT: Who's that? 25 MR. DANDAR: They're all staff members.
83 1 THE COURT: Okay. Brian Anderson too? 2 MR. DANDAR: Brian Anderson was the OSA chief 3 at Flag, and Humberto Fontana, number F, 1-F, was 4 his assistant. Of course, the others -- 5 THE COURT: Right. I -- 6 MR. DANDAR: -- are defendants, and Dr. Minkoff 7 was a defendant. 8 Paragraph 2 asks for each and every knowledge 9 report filed with reports office, RTC, concerning 10 Lisa McPherson. And that's pursuant to the booklet 11 entitled Command Channels of Scientology, at page 12 48. 13 Paragraph 3 asks for each and every routing 14 slip concerning Lisa McPherson. That's a 15 requirement also that must be in existence pursuant 16 to the Command Channels of Scientology, at paragraph 17 30 -- I mean, page 30 of that booklet. 18 THE COURT: What is a committee of evidence 19 report? 20 MR. DANDAR: That's when they investigate 21 something that's gone wrong. And of course, Lisa 22 McPherson dying, I would present to the court, would 23 be something that went wrong. And they therefore 24 are required to have a committee of evidence where 25 they look into the matter and decide what happened
84 1 and why it happened. 2 THE COURT: All right. Do you all want to 3 address this now or you want to address it this 4 afternoon? 5 MR. MOXON: Well, it's -- I saw this request, 6 and it says, "Comes now the estate of Lisa McPherson 7 requests Robert Minton to produce." 8 MR. DANDAR: That's -- those are my fault. 9 Typographical errors. 10 MR. MOXON: Well -- 11 THE COURT: Well, you're going to have to -- 12 MR. DANDAR: I'll redo it again. I'm sorry. 13 THE COURT: The next one says the same thing. 14 MR. DANDAR: Yes. I'm -- it's all directed 15 toward the defendant Flag. And I'll have it redone. 16 Sorry. I just noticed that for the first time. 17 THE COURT: Well, let's look at what that is. 18 And since you filed it, we know that that's a 19 mistake. 20 Let me see what you're asking for here. 21 MR. DANDAR: These are videotape surveillance 22 security tapes taken outside the room where 23 Ms. McPherson was stated to be. As you saw, the -- 24 the security tapes they have at the Lisa McPherson 25 Trust, every time someone enters or exits, an alarm
85 1 goes off. We want the security videos that would 2 show Lisa McPherson coming to the Ft. Harrison 3 Hotel, Lisa McPherson attempting to leave the Ft. 4 Harrison Hotel during November 18th and 5 December 5th, and finally, Lisa McPherson actually 6 leaving the hotel on December 5th to get into Janis 7 Johnson's van on her trip to see Dr. Minkoff. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I suggest that you all 9 know what he's asking for. He'll get these in 10 order, and that'll give you some time to look at 11 what he's asked for. If you have them ready by this 12 afternoon, we'll take them up after lunch. If you 13 don't, we'll take them up tomorrow morning or 14 whenever you get them ready. 15 MR. MOXON: When we get the requests, we'll go 16 back and look at this. We didn't have a request 17 date, your Honor. 18 MR. WEINBERG: It's not like we haven't had 19 discovery in this case. These are things he looked 20 for five years ago. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 MR. WEINBERG: And I don't know why we're going 23 through the process again. And I suppose we can go 24 through the process again. 25 THE COURT: Only thing I can think of, it says
86 1 to produce at the hearing, so I'm assuming he has 2 some request, that he thinks this would be -- I 3 don't know, for example, what the -- I guess the 4 relevance of the Lisa McPherson tapes, if any such 5 tapes existed, and the other is because I sort of 6 put him on notice that your motion to dismiss, 7 motion for summary judgment in effect was at issue 8 in this hearing. Kind of unusual, but I decided to 9 put it at issue. 10 MR. MOXON: Right. 11 THE COURT: So that would be something that may 12 have some bearing on that. 13 MR. MOXON: And when he does get this together 14 and serves these, he should serve them, obviously, 15 on the counsel representing some of these people. I 16 have no idea who -- he just handed it to me and -- 17 THE COURT: Maybe because what you said the 18 other day is, if you've got a copy of something, you 19 see to it that the lawyers got it. 20 MR. MOXON: Okay. 21 MR. DANDAR: That's true. 22 THE COURT: So -- 23 MR. DANDAR: Plus Flag -- Flag is the person or 24 the entity that would have the committee of evidence 25 reports, not the individual.
87 1 THE COURT: If -- if you would -- I know 2 Mr. Kartuzinski, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Houghton have 3 counsel. I don't know about Mr. Minkoff. I assume 4 he does. 5 MR. MOXON: Yeah, he does. 6 THE COURT: Okay. I don't know about these 7 other gentlemen. 8 MR. MOXON: Yeah. They're all separately 9 represented, actually, in part, although we 10 represent one of these, David Houghton. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. MOXON: Well, we'll take it up when he -- 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, when he takes it up, I 15 just want to not let it pass, Mr. Dandar made 16 certain characterizations about what Scientology 17 beliefs and practices are and what may exist or may 18 not exist. By our silence, you should not take that 19 to mean that we agree -- 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- or that it's even 22 appropriate for him to be arguing some of those 23 himself. 24 THE COURT: All right. Well, it's always 25 appropriate to be arguing it. Whether or not it's
88 1 appropriate to grant it may be subject to some legal 2 discussion. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, one other thing I'd like 4 to hand up that we got a copy of after court the 5 other day. 6 THE COURT: After what, sir? 7 MR. WEINBERG: After court the other day. 8 This is Bill Franks -- you remember that name? 9 THE COURT: Yes. I think. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Well, he's the expert that was 11 subpoenaed in the International Mall. And it turns 12 out that during this whole process, after he was 13 subpoenaed, he wrote a letter to Mr. Dresher, which 14 Mr. Dresher didn't receive until May the 30th, which 15 is extraordinary in what it says. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me look at it. 17 Did you give a copy to Mr. Dandar? 18 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I did. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. WEINBERG: So that apparently what 21 Mr. Franks is saying -- and we only brought it to 22 your attention so -- we're getting somewhat blasted 23 by Mr. Dandar suggesting that in some way we were 24 interfering with him bringing Mr. Franks here. And 25 Mr. Franks has made it clear that, A, he thinks he's
89 1 being brought here under some subterfuge anyway, by 2 having been served down here -- brought down here 3 and served. And secondly, as he says at the end, 4 not only does he not know anything about the case, 5 but as far as he's concerned, standard church 6 procedure would never have allowed this to happen. 7 And what he's talking about, "this to happen," he's 8 talking about allowing Lisa McPherson to die. 9 So I don't know what this Bill Franks thing is 10 about, but -- 11 THE COURT: Well, I don't either. But 12 apparently he also says the thought that he was 13 somehow participating in this service is inaccurate 14 too, so -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: Right. He said he was 16 brought -- I mean, as we understand, he was asked to 17 come down to some meeting with either Patricia 18 Greenway or Peter Alexander. You've heard those 19 names. And he was served at a luncheon with them. 20 So for the record, what we're going to do is 21 file an affidavit from Mr. Dresher, identifying 22 this -- this various series of correspondence. 23 You've seen two of his letters and you've seen two 24 of Mr. Franks's letters. We have a courtesy copy 25 for you, a copy for Mr. Dandar, and then we'll --
90 1 What do we do with the original? Do we file it 2 with the clerk here? 3 THE COURT: Yes. 4 Madam Clerk, you can file original pleadings 5 for us, can't you? 6 THE CLERK: Yes. 7 THE COURT: It's not part of this hearing, it's 8 a pleading, right? 9 MR. WEINBERG: It's an affidavit that 10 identifies this series of correspondence that you've 11 now seen, the last of which is this letter that I 12 just showed you. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. WEINBERG: So we can do it in this hearing. 15 THE COURT: All right. You want to file this 16 as plaintiff's next num- -- defendant's next number? 17 MR. WEINBERG: As defendant's next number, 18 right. 19 MR. DANDAR: What number is that? 20 THE COURT: I don't know. 21 What number is it, Madam Clerk? 22 THE CLERK: That's Number 143. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. WEINBERG: And I think sort of the point of 25 this is on April 12th we got a notice from
91 1 Mr. Dandar saying notice of plaintiff's expert, 2 identifying Bill Franks as his next expert on 3 Scientology. That has happened a number of times in 4 this case, you know, starting with Jesse Prince and 5 Hana Whitfield and some person's name I can't even 6 remember -- Letkerman (sic), Carol Letkerman and now 7 Bill Franks. 8 And somehow through this process, we get 9 accused of interfering with them being witnesses 10 when he can at least see, certainly, here, here's a 11 man that's been gone for over 20 years from the 12 Church of Scientology; says he has no interest in 13 any of this, and really has no knowledge. I don't 14 know how he appeared on the witness list as an 15 expert. Obviously, according to Mr. Franks, his 16 letters, he hasn't even been communicating with 17 Mr. Dandar. 18 And it almost appears as though they're put on 19 the list, taken off the list, and in the process, 20 we, the church, get accused of having them taken off 21 the list. 22 Well, in this case, it appears that if he comes 23 off the list, it's not as a result of anything the 24 Church of Scientology did. That was the point. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, as far as I'm
92 1 concerned, he's still under subpoena. And if 2 Mr. Dandar wants to call him -- 3 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not -- 4 THE COURT: -- well, we'll deal with anything 5 that needs to be dealt with at that time. 6 MR. DANDAR: I'll point out to the court this 7 letter, that is now Defendant's Exhibit 143 by 8 Mr. Franks, says he took the letter from Mr. Dresher 9 as a threat after he was subpoenaed. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Whatever -- 11 THE COURT: Is this part of this -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. This is the last one, I 13 believe. 14 THE COURT: I don't remember -- I mean, I read 15 it real quick. So if it says that, it says that. 16 If it doesn't, it doesn't. 17 But I don't need to deal with that this 18 morning. This has all been filed. And we'll see if 19 Mr. Franks comes and answers his subpoena, and you 20 all can inquire at that time. 21 MR. FUGATE: Judge, this is Friday's 22 transcript, mundane as it is, but -- 23 THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. 24 Are these transcripts right here? 25 MR. FUGATE: Yes, they are. That's what I
93 1 handed to you -- no, I think you took those with 2 you. When I said Friday, I misspoke, I think. It's 3 Thursday. 4 No. You took the transcript copies that we 5 gave you, with you. This would be Thursday's 6 transcript. And these are time lines that put 7 together the LMT and that -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. FUGATE: -- that I gave them Friday. 10 THE COURT: Okay. I worked on orders. I 11 didn't do a lot of reading, except what I needed to 12 read to do orders. 13 Mr. Dandar, are you ready to resume the stand? 14 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Where is your lawyer? 16 MR. DANDAR: He's on his way. And actually, my 17 brother can't be here today. And unless you tell me 18 that I need a lawyer to be present, I really don't 19 think I do. But he's on his way. 20 THE COURT: I just can't impress upon you 21 enough again -- you seem to think that this is some 22 sort of a hearing that you don't need -- 23 I mean, yes, you need a lawyer. What if 24 there's an objection to be made? I mean, it's very 25 uncomfortable for me to have a witness objecting.
94 1 Especially on -- I mean, I understand -- I remember 2 reading the hearing -- at the other hearing, and you 3 were objecting on things out of the Second District. 4 But I mean, it would be awful to have you say, 5 "Well, relevance or leading --" 6 I mean, yeah, when's he going to be here? 7 MR. DANDAR: He should be here in less than 30 8 minutes. 9 THE COURT: Well, we're going to wait. 10 MR. DANDAR: Okay. 11 THE COURT: I don't feel comfortable -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, it's like a Woody Allen 13 movie, almost. 14 THE COURT: Yeah. You need -- 15 MR. DANDAR: Well, I'll call him right now and 16 make sure he gets here faster. 17 THE COURT: As I said, I can't force you to 18 have somebody. But it's awkward to me. Here's -- 19 here's a lawyer for the plaintiff, and you're a 20 witness here being accused of perjury and suborning 21 perjury, and you're on the stand, I presume to be 22 questioned about those things, which include crimes. 23 I can't protect you, nor should I, nor would I 24 protect any other witness. And sometimes I ask, I 25 hope, searing questions, and it's very awkward to do
95 1 that without seeing a lawyer out there. 2 MR. DANDAR: I was incorrect. I thought the 3 court would permit me to object. But I will not do 4 that then. 5 THE COURT: Well, I just -- you know, as I 6 said, I think if you're -- if whoever's here doesn't 7 object on some matter of privilege or something 8 really important. But would I want you objecting to 9 a leading question? No, I really wouldn't. So I 10 don't feel comfortable. 11 We'll be in recess until I'm advised that 12 Mr. Lirot -- 13 Is that who's coming? 14 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Lirot is here. 16 (A recess was taken at 9:25 a.m.) 17 THE COURT: Okay. I took advantage of the 18 break to finish a couple of changes I had to these 19 orders. I have filed and I will now give you all 20 five orders. 21 I have four copies for the defendants. Make 22 those go as far as you can. 23 And I am right I can count on you all to get 24 these to these lawyers who aren't here. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
96 1 THE COURT: So I don't have to mail them. 2 I have two for the plaintiffs. This is the 3 order denying defendant's motion to strike Jesse 4 Prince as plaintiff's expert witness. 5 MR. DANDAR: Thank you. 6 THE COURT: The second order is an order 7 granting sanctions against the defendant Church of 8 Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. for 9 improper interference with the plaintiff's witness. 10 For you. 11 On that order, I did enjoin -- sort of. I 12 didn't style it an injunction -- the church, its 13 agents and what have you from having anything but 14 legal contact, and excluded inadvertent contact with 15 Mr. Prince, and likewise excluded Mr. Prince from 16 having any contact with the church agents or members 17 except to answer subpoenas and what have you. 18 And when I say does not include inadvertent 19 contact, what I mean is if somebody runs into 20 somebody at a mall -- maybe that's a bad -- in light 21 of the service -- but in other words, if you run 22 into somebody, I don't want to hear about it, okay? 23 So I don't want to hear about some other contact. 24 I have requested that Mr. Prince be served a 25 copy of this as well.
97 1 MR. DANDAR: I will -- I will give it -- 2 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, this is still your 3 witness. Will you -- 4 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 5 THE COURT: -- see to it that he gets a copy of 6 it immediately? 7 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 8 THE COURT: He's served, and I would expect it 9 to be honored immediately. 10 MR. DANDAR: At the end of the day. 11 THE COURT: Fine. 12 Next is an order granting in part, denying in 13 part, defendant's motion to exclude expert 14 testimony, paren, insect testimony, cockroach bites; 15 four for you all, two for you. 16 And the only one that needs to be served on 17 anyone other than counsel is that one that affects 18 Mr. Prince. 19 MR. DANDAR: Yes. 20 THE COURT: Next is orders denying defendant's 21 motion to exclude evidence, the vitreous chemistry. 22 And the last is order denying plaintiff's 23 motion to rescind order of summary judgment on 24 count III false imprisonment claim. Four and two. 25 And as I was looking at these last night for
98 1 the umpteenth time, and proofing them, I saw one 2 huge error. So you know, it was -- when I say huge, 3 I had put defendant's and I meant plaintiff's. And 4 it didn't make much sense. But in any event -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: If we see something like that, 6 we'll bring it to your -- 7 THE COURT: If you see something glaring like 8 that, bring it to my attention. 9 Now I also have my calendar. I understand that 10 Judge Demers is going to cover my Friday docket. So 11 unless I told you all to the contrary -- and if I 12 did, you tell me -- we can go through Friday this 13 week. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. 14 Next week, Friday is out for me. So the 14th, 15 no hearing. 16 I also have a meeting that I'm supposed to go 17 to all day on Wednesday. I haven't decided yet what 18 to do about that. Monday is trial week, and I'm the 19 jury qualification judge. I could probably get 20 somebody else to do that. I'm going to assume that 21 I can. So I can go Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Of the week of the 14th -- 23 THE COURT: Of the week of the 10th. 24 MR. WEINBERG: 10th. Okay. 25 THE COURT: I'm looking at Monday. I don't
99 1 know what you all are looking at. 2 MR. DANDAR: Judge, Mr. Pope and Mr. Rosen have 3 set a hearing before Judge Baird on June 11th. 4 We've asked them to change it because of what we're 5 doing here, and they declined. I think I need you 6 to get involved in talking with Judge Baird about 7 it. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, if they can do it the 9 12th, I'd be so pleased, because the 12th -- that 10 would make up my mind for me. I wouldn't have to 11 interfere with that, and -- 12 MR. DANDAR: 12th is fine. 13 THE COURT: -- you could -- you all -- 14 Of course, I don't know. Judge Baird's 15 calendar is probably bogged down the 12th. But as I 16 said, that would make up my mind for me. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I don't have a calendar in front 18 of me. So right now it's looking that week 19 Monday -- what did you say, Tuesday, Thursday -- 20 THE COURT: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 22 THE COURT: I could go Friday morning, but the 23 truth of the matter is, you know, I think I'll give 24 you the day -- I have an afternoon appointment that 25 I must keep, so I'm going to just give you the whole
100 1 day off, including myself. 2 MR. FUGATE: So no court on the 12th, right? 3 THE COURT: Pardon me? 4 MR. FUGATE: No court on June 12th. 5 THE COURT: I'm not keen on going to that 6 meeting but if I thought I could -- 7 MR. DANDAR: We'll be here. 8 THE COURT: For now let's say Monday, 9 Tuesday -- if I've got to give up Tuesday for Judge 10 Baird, I'm going to definitely do Wednesday hearing. 11 As I said, if Judge Baird can somehow move his 12 hearing till Wednesday, then I'll -- 13 MR. FUGATE: I'll step out, when we start, in 14 the hall. 15 THE COURT: Yeah. That would be good, if you 16 could. 17 If it could be done on Wednesday, I'll go to 18 Tampa, 'cause I've got a meeting. But like I said, 19 if I could get out of it, it wouldn't hurt my 20 feelings too bad. 21 MR. FUGATE: I'll -- 22 THE COURT: I'm not done yet. 23 MR. FUGATE: I'm sorry. 24 THE COURT: On the next week, I have a meeting 25 in Naples on Friday and Saturday. And all the next
101 1 week is effectively out. In other words, I've got a 2 circuit judges' conference the 24th, 25th; I'm 3 moving on the 28th. I've got to pack. That's out. 4 And the next week, I'm taking vacation, if you want 5 to call it that. I'm moving into a new home. I 6 don't know if that's a vacation or not. Probably 7 not. But -- 8 MR. LIROT: It's more work than vacation. 9 Doesn't count. 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 So the week of the 24th -- unless we're down to 12 where -- 13 I'm coming back actually on Tuesday. So if 14 we're down to where one day will finish this off, 15 I'll come in. But for now, call me off. In other 16 words, call me out the whole week of the 24th and 17 the whole next week. 18 And that's as far as I want to go. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And the week before the 20 24th, there was one day, Friday? 21 THE COURT: Friday. 22 MR. WEINBERG: And what's that date? 23 THE COURT: That's the 21st. And I definitely 24 have an all-day meeting in Naples. And the day 25 before, I've got to leave for Naples, and I've got
102 1 to leave at a reasonable hour, so -- I don't like to 2 drive after dark. 3 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 4 THE COURT: So I may -- again, maybe if -- if 5 we're getting where we're close to finishing, that 6 may have some bearing on it. If we're just right in 7 the middle of things, I may take that day off too. 8 But Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I believe 9 I'm covered. 10 So does that tell you all pretty much -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 12 THE COURT: -- the schedule, subject to change? 13 Okay. So I think I'm up to date on my orders 14 that I have had under consideration. Obviously, you 15 all have motions that are out there that I have not 16 heard, ruled on or whatever. But I do not think 17 I've anything else under advisement. 18 MR. LIEBERMAN: No, your Honor. 19 Just one thing on the scheduling. If it's 20 possible, unless your Honor intends to hear argument 21 on motions this Friday, may I be excused because I 22 do have to do some things in New York. 23 THE COURT: Absolutely. I don't think that 24 we'll be done. 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'm sure.
103 1 THE COURT: So -- and even if we are, you have 2 a life that you have to occasionally attend to. So 3 you may be excused. 4 Okay. So that -- that gives you all -- 5 As I said, as far as I know, I'm up to date on 6 my orders. As far as I know, that's my schedule 7 through the end of June. 8 I also told you about the first week of July. 9 And at some point in time we'll go further. And 10 that's about all I can tell you for now, okay? 11 All right. Mr. Dandar, if you'll resume the 12 stand, please. 13 MR. FUGATE: May I be excused, Judge? 14 THE COURT: Yes. 15 MR. FUGATE: I'd like to call -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: This is the document we were on. 17 Do you have that? This is the one we were on. This 18 is it right here. 19 THE COURT: Okay. What number was it? 20 MR. WEINBERG: It's Defendant's Exhibit 105. 21 It was already in. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Proceed. 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Mr. Dandar, when we left on -- I guess it was 25 Thursday afternoon -- I had just shown you what is
104 1 Defendant's Exhibit 105, which is the -- your -- the 2 counterdefendant's response -- that is, the response of the 3 estate of Lisa McPherson -- to counterclaims. That's the 4 church's sixth request for production. And the number 2 5 request on that was, "All telephone records -- identify 6 calls made by -- by you," Ken Dandar, "to Robert Minton, 7 during the period from and including January 1st, 1997 to 8 present." 9 And I believe where we were when we ended was you 10 had -- I had just asked you about the effort that your 11 office went through to tabulate this. And if I'm -- if I 12 heard you correctly after you were off the stand, I think 13 you said that -- Donna West said that the telephone numbers 14 that she checked to make this determination were the office 15 number and your cell number, is that right? 16 A That's correct, she did. 17 Q She did not check your home records, is that 18 right? 19 A No. 20 Q I mean, that's right, correct? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q Okay. 23 A She did not check my home records. 24 Q Okay. You did make calls however to Mr. Minton 25 over the past five years on occasion from your home, did you
105 1 not? 2 A Rarely, yes. 3 Q Is there any particular reason why, in response to 4 this request for production, you didn't check your home 5 records? 6 A I have no home records for the last five years. 7 Q You don't get home records of your calls, of your 8 long distance calls? 9 A I get records of my long distance calls. I do not 10 keep records after I pay the bill. 11 Q Did -- did you even -- did anybody from your 12 office even think of making a search to see whether or not 13 there were any records around? 14 A I did. 15 Q And there weren't any? 16 A Right. 17 Q Now, the response indicates that there were -- 18 that you all were unable to locate telephone bills for the 19 year 1998. 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Is that both for your cell phone and for the 22 office? 23 A Right. All the records for that year cannot be 24 located. 25 Q And do you have an explanation for that?
106 1 A No. My office -- I mean, I -- I don't know. 2 It's -- it's interesting. We had '97 but we don't have '98. 3 So -- 4 And you see the December, '98 showed up in our '99 5 bill. 6 Q All right. That would be your January, '99 bill, 7 right? 8 A Yeah. 9 Q But is there -- but could you -- 10 A Although she does have two in '98 here. She has 11 an August and a September. 12 Q But there's -- but you couldn't figure out why you 13 don't have those records in '98 -- 14 A No. No. 15 Q -- for both -- 16 Does the cell phone bill come to the office as 17 well? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Okay. Now -- but there were records that -- 20 Now, these records would -- would reflect calls 21 that you initiated to Bob Minton, is that right? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Now, there are -- over the years, you would have 24 made calls to Bob Minton from other phones, not just your 25 home phone, which aren't on here, your cell phone or your
107 1 office phone, is that right? 2 A I -- I can't say yes or no to that. I -- 3 Q Well, I mean you did make calls to him, for 4 example, local calls to him, that wouldn't show up on your 5 bills, when -- when -- when he was in the Tampa Bay area. 6 A Oh, well, right. If he's local, then it wouldn't 7 show up. 8 Q Okay. 9 A But his cell phones, I believe, are long distance. 10 And I believe, if I'm not mistaken -- I really don't know. 11 I'm speculating -- that calls from my office to St. -- or to 12 Clearwater, LMT, would show up on my office bill. 13 Q Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, 14 depending on the phone company and the -- and the year? 15 A I can't say. Without the -- I can't say. I just 16 know that Donna West prepared this list, and she prepared it 17 in this fashion because it was much more efficient than 18 trying to redact from the actual bills. 19 Q Do you still have the actual bills from which this 20 list was prepared? 21 A I'm sure. 22 Q Okay. And -- so that if we wanted -- if we asked 23 for those to be produced in a -- in a redacted form, you 24 would have them. 25 A I would have them, yes.
108 1 Q Okay. Now, what phone numbers of Mr. Minton were 2 checked? 3 A I have no idea, except they would be anything from 4 Boston or New Hampshire. 5 Q Did you all check his cell phone, for example? 6 A Well, yeah. His cell phone is an area code in 7 either Boston or New Hampshire. 8 Q Did you check the cell phone that he would -- 9 that -- that he used down at the LMT, that number, or don't 10 you know? 11 A Well, I think it is -- 12 THE COURT: Did he use more than one cell 13 phone? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 A Yeah. I'm not -- I'm not aware of a cell phone 17 that he used with a Clearwater or Tampa number that comes to 18 my mind right now. 19 BY MR. WEINBERG: 20 Q Now, have you -- how many -- how many numbers did 21 you have? Is it just one office number and one cell phone 22 number or is there -- has there been more than one? 23 A Are you talking about my numbers? 24 Q Yes -- no. Which bills? Is it just one cell 25 phone and one office or is there more than one cell phone
109 1 and more than one office? 2 A No. I only have one cell phone. And I have 3 multiple lines at my office, but they all come on the same 4 bill. 5 Q Now, these are all long distance calls on this 6 sheet here? 7 A Yes. Otherwise it would not appear. 8 Q Okay. Now, during this same period of time, 9 from -- from 1997 -- the first call on here is October 8th, 10 '97 -- until November 29th of 2001 -- during that same 11 several-year period, Mr. Minton called you as well, correct? 12 He initiated calls to you -- 13 A Sure. 14 Q -- just -- 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now, did he initiate calls to you on your cell 17 phone? 18 A Mostly. 19 Q And did he call your home from time to time? From 20 time to time? 21 A Rarely. 22 Q But from time to time, he did? 23 A I can't say from time to time. That's too many. 24 Q Did he call -- did he call you at the office as 25 well, on your office phone?
110 1 A Rarely. Usually it's on a cell phone. For 2 security purposes he could get on a cell phone. 3 Q Now, do you know how many calls -- do you have any 4 idea how many calls Mr. Minton initiated to you, from the 5 first time he called you sometime in early October or late 6 September, 1997, until now? 7 A Do I have an idea? 8 Q Yeah. 9 A No. 10 Q I mean are we talking dozens of calls? 11 A We're talking few and far between. 12 Q Few and far between? And few just means a 13 handful? 14 A Over five years? No. I would doubt -- I would 15 doubt that. It would be more than a handful at five years. 16 Q Several hundred? 17 A I can't guess. 18 It wouldn't be several hundred, no. 19 Q Did he call you -- did -- did you communicate 20 with -- with Mr. Minton by telephone on a weekly basis? 21 A No. 22 Q On a monthly basis? 23 A No. It was haphazard. There was nothing that I 24 can say was consistent. 25 Q So if -- if you would have talked to him every
111 1 several months or so, that would be unusual? 2 A Yeah. If I would talk to him every couple weeks 3 or every four weeks, I think that would be unusual. It was 4 haphazard. Ad hoc. 5 Q And did any of the calls that you initiated to 6 Mr. Minton, or Mr. Minton initiated to you, have anything to 7 do with any of the activities in this case with regard to 8 pleadings? 9 A Before they were filed or after they were filed? 10 Q Before or after. 11 A Well, none had had to do with before they were 12 filed, and I would only guess -- I mean, maybe anything had 13 to do with the case at all. 14 Q Well, does anything come to mind -- does anything 15 come to mind, as you sit here, about any phone call that you 16 ever had with Mr. Minton, whether you initiated it or 17 Mr. Minton initiated, in which the case activity -- I'm not 18 talking about money, now, I'm talking about the activity in 19 the case -- was discussed? 20 A The only thing that comes to mind is the discovery 21 against him, Stacy Brooks and the LMT. 22 And what else did we talk about last week? 23 There's something else. I just had it and I just lost it. 24 Oh, the Teresa Summers -- they were so worried 25 about Teresa Summers' two depositions by Mr. Moxon in 2001,
112 1 I think September, that -- after she left the LMT, that she 2 was going to lie. And they called me about that, 'cause 3 they knew when the depositions were, and I told them, you 4 know, she just told the truth. 5 Q Who called you about that? 6 A Bob and Stacy. 7 Q And that was sometime in the summer of 2001? 8 A No. It was in the September -- if I'm -- after 9 her depositions. I think she had two of them. September 10 and October of 2001. That's a total of three depositions. 11 But the first one is before they even knew anything about 12 her, which one I took. 13 Q And -- and the calls that were initiated either by 14 you or Mr. Minton concerning discovery issues relating to 15 Brooks, Minton and the LMT, when did those calls take place? 16 A Well, that happened over the years. I mean, that 17 happened in -- let's see -- 2000, 2001. They couldn't 18 figure out why their depositions were being taken at all. I 19 couldn't figure it out, except abuse. But they just talked 20 about their concerns about why their privacy was being 21 invaded when they had noting to do with the case. 22 Q Did you initiate any of those calls that had to do 23 with discovery issues? 24 A There's a few calls I initiated, when Mr. Moxon 25 was subpoenaing bank records of Mr. Minton, and I didn't see
113 1 anything being filed to object to -- or to try to limit it 2 in scope. I just called him to say, you know, "What's going 3 on?" I probably called John Merrett too, to see what he's 4 doing. 5 Q Okay. This was what we talked about last week. 6 This was in December of 2001 with regard to those Boston 7 records, when you -- I think before December you initiated a 8 call to Mr. Minton to ask whether or not he was going to 9 object or file some objection to -- to the effort to get his 10 bank records up there? Is that what you're talking about? 11 A I believe. 12 Q And that's when -- and that's when you did your 13 affidavit that was sent up to Mr. Jonas? 14 A Well, that's all different though. But it's the 15 same subject matter. Right. I mean, my affidavit to 16 Mr. Jonas or his associate, Ms. Ritchie -- Ms. Ritchie. I 17 think it was at their request, if I'm not mistaken. I can't 18 remember. But that time period, you know, I thought it 19 was -- there's a couple months in between, but you showed me 20 last week there was only a day. So I'm sure that had 21 something to do with them and not this case. 22 Q Okay. And the reason you initiated the call to 23 Mr. Minton with regard to issues that concerned discovery of 24 Mr. Minton was what? 25 A I just wanted to know if he knew all the names
114 1 that were being requested of checks, and was he planning on 2 doing anything about it, or he didn't care. 3 Q But you didn't represent Mr. Minton at that time. 4 He had his own lawyer, right? 5 A He had his own lawyer, that's right. 6 Q And is there any reason why you didn't just call 7 his lawyer and not Mr. Minton? 8 A I didn't know which lawyer was handling it, either 9 Mr. Merrett or Mr. Jonas, so I called Mr. Minton. 10 Q Now, when you go to Exhibit 105, which is this 11 pleading that you filed, and you go to the attachment -- 12 A Now, I thought -- 13 Oh, the records. Yeah. 14 Q Okay. 15 A Phone records. 16 Q It's your telephone log? 17 A Right. 18 Q Now, there are 77 calls that are listed here. And 19 of course, except for a few '98 calls, it doesn't include 20 whatever calls were made in 1998, right? 21 A Well, there's a few, yeah. But you're right. 22 Mostly it's not listed. 23 Q Do you have any idea how many calls you initiated 24 to Mr. Minton in 1998, other than what's reflected on this 25 list?
115 1 A No. It's very few, but I couldn't tell you. 2 Q Okay. So leaving aside '98, I'm representing to 3 you you have 77 calls listed here from October, '97 until -- 4 until November of 2001, all right? 5 A Okay. Well -- six in '97, so we have 71. And if 6 you take out -- we only have four for '98 -- take out 10. 7 So from '99 to 2001 we have, what, 61 calls? 8 Q Yeah. 9 A Okay. 10 Q And except for some recollection with regard to 11 conversations concerning discovery of Brooks and the one or 12 two calls that may have been initiated by you with regard to 13 Teresa Summers, you're saying that your recollection is, as 14 we sit here today, that none of these 77 calls had anything 15 to do with activities in this lawsuit. 16 A Well, that's a real broad question, "activities in 17 this lawsuit." 18 THE COURT: Yeah. I think -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. Let me -- let me -- 20 THE COURT: You're going to have to narrow -- 21 MR. WEINBERG: Let me -- I'll ask -- 22 THE COURT: -- as to what's relevant in this 23 hearing. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. That's fair enough. 25
116 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Let's look at -- 3 THE COURT: I heard them say they had lots of 4 conversations about all the discovery going on. 5 Gosh, there were at least four or five depositions 6 of Mr. Minton. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- 8 THE COURT: Lots of depositions of Ms. Brooks. 9 MR. WEINBERG: That didn't start till 2000, 10 though. 11 So let's -- let's -- let's go to 1997. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Will you go to your telephone log, please? 14 A Right. 15 Q Now, sometime before October 8th, you received, 16 actually, the first call from Mr. Minton, is that right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q He called you. 19 A Yes. 20 Q And that was a call that you talked about before, 21 where even though you didn't remember that you had seen 22 him -- that you had met him one time before, he in essence 23 introduced himself to you. And out of that telephone call 24 came the first hundred-thousand-dollar check, is that right? 25 A That's almost right.
117 1 THE COURT: What is the year again, did you 2 say? It's '97? 3 MR. WEINBERG: '97. 4 It's at the top of the list. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Sometime before October 8th, '97, you received a 7 call from Mr. Minton, right? 8 A Right. 9 Q And sometime after that call, Mr. Minton sent you 10 that first check, which is an October, '97 check, right? 11 A Right. 12 Q For a hundred thousand dollars. 13 A Right. 14 Q Now, on October 10th, 1997 -- 15 By the way, let me just pull this check out for 16 a -- for a moment. 17 You recall the first check was dated October 6th, 18 1997? 19 A Correct. 20 Q And do you remember when you received that check 21 approximately? 22 A A few days later. 23 Q And on your list here, do you see an October 10th, 24 1997 call which is 41 minutes long? 25 A Correct.
118 1 Q That's a call -- that's the first call, at least 2 the records show -- or the first lengthy call that you 3 initiated to Mr. Minton, right? 4 A Correct. 5 Q And what did you talk about for 41 minutes with 6 Mr. Minton in that first major phone call, do you know? 7 A Well, probably -- 8 No. I'm just guessing. I have no idea what we 9 talked about. 10 Q Okay. Then -- then you see on 11-9-97 -- 11 A I can just tell what you we didn't talk about. I 12 can't tell you what we talked about. 13 Q So you can remember what you didn't talk about, 14 but you can't remember what you did talk about. 15 A Right. Because I mean -- 41 minutes, for heaven's 16 sakes, in '97 -- I have no idea. 17 Q 41 minutes is a pretty long call, wouldn't you 18 say? 19 A Sure. 20 But we didn't talk about how I was going to run 21 the case, what I was going to do in the case or anything 22 like that. 23 Q Now, on 11-9-97, there's a five-minute call, and 24 then on 11-18-97, there are three calls totalling 10 or 11 25 minutes. Do you see that?
119 1 A No. 2 Q 11-18-97. 3 A Five minutes? 4 Q Three calls. 5 A Five minutes? 6 Q Three plus five plus two. 7 A Oh, I see. You're adding them. All right. 8 Q You see that? 9 A Yes. You're right. 10 Q Three calls at night, that you initiated to 11 Mr. Minton. Do you see that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, do you -- do you remember what those calls 14 had to do with? 15 A No. 16 Q Now, do you -- do you remember that on 17 November 21st, 1997, you filed the motion for leave to file 18 the first amended complaint? 19 A Well, if you say so, I'll say okay. 20 Q All right. 21 A This is 106? 22 Q I think I'm going to mark this as a -- as our next 23 exhibit. 24 THE COURT: What is -- 25 THE CLERK: 144.
120 1 THE COURT: What is it? 2 MR. WEINBERG: This will be 144. 3 THE COURT: I thought this last one was 105. 4 THE WITNESS: It was. 5 MR. WEINBERG: It's already been marked a long 6 time ago. 7 THE COURT: It's already marked a long time 8 ago. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. And what I'm giving you 10 is -- what did we just say? 11 THE CLERK: 144. 12 MR. WEINBERG: 144. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q Now, Exhibit 144 is a motion you filed for leave 15 to file the first amended complaint to add party defendants. 16 And this is what you filed on -- on November 21st, 1997, is 17 that right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And this is -- this is the document that initiated 20 the -- ultimately, the filing a few days later of the -- 21 once it was heard, of a substantially amended, changed, 22 lawsuit from what had been originally a fairly simple 23 one-count wrongful death case, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Now, this is filed on November 21st.
121 1 Did you have any -- of those three calls on 2 November 18th, was there any discussion about the fact that 3 you were going to substantially change the complaint by 4 filing an amended complaint that substantially changed this 5 from a one-count wrongful death case? 6 A No. 7 Q Now, on December the 4th -- I mean -- 8 Do you remember, by the way, that you filed an 9 emergency motion to have this first amended -- motion for 10 leave for first amended complaint to be heard? 11 A Emergency motion? 12 Q Yes. 13 A Well, probably because this wrongful death statute 14 was about to expire so -- I mean, the statute of 15 limitations. So I probably did hurry about to try to get 16 that done, since Thanksgiving was in the way. 17 Q And do you recall that at this time you were also 18 negotiating with the lawyers from the Church of Scientology 19 with regard to whether or not you would or would not add 20 David Miscavige and possibly others as party defendants to 21 the case? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And in fact, you had -- you had told the -- the 24 church, through its lawyers, that you intended to add at 25 least David Miscavige and possibly other entities in this
122 1 first amended complaint, correct? 2 A That's right. 3 Q And what resulted was an agreement, this -- 4 this -- which is the subject now, years later, of the breach 5 of contract case, is what resulted was an agreement that was 6 executed on December 4th, 1997, correct? 7 A Well, that's the -- that's what it's dated. But 8 actually, my client didn't sign it until '98. 9 Q Okay. But it was -- it was agreed to on 10 December 4th, and as a result of the agreement, you did not 11 at that time include David Miscavige and other entities in 12 the first amended complaint. 13 A That's correct. 14 Q You had intended to include them, though, prior to 15 that time. 16 A Yes. 17 Q And -- and -- and on December 4th is when actually 18 the first amended complaint was -- was filed. 19 THE COURT: He may not know. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- 21 THE WITNESS: That's true. 22 THE COURT: Well, we don't need all this stuff 23 in the record. It is what it is, I mean, it's in 24 the record. It's filed. It's part of -- you know, 25 you can pull it up on a --
123 1 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I'm just showing -- 2 THE COURT: I don't want to mark all this 3 stuff. 4 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not going to mark all this 5 stuff. 6 A I remember that. It's okay. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q On December the 4th. 9 A Like I said, when you tell me dates of filing, 10 I'll take you for what you say. 11 THE COURT: Yeah. And what I want to be sure 12 we do, like for example, this says it was served on 13 the 21st day of November. All my orders there show 14 that -- "done on the 3rd." That was yesterday. 15 They were filed today. I mean, you can only assume 16 that most people file something soon after they show 17 certificate of service. But we probably ought to 18 use service dates. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Right. In our case, almost 20 everything has been faxed. 21 THE COURT: Filed -- 22 MR. WEINBERG: Has been faxed. 23 In other words, we -- when -- both sides, when 24 they're filing a pleading, usually on the day they 25 file the pleading, it is faxed to the other side.
124 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 BY MR. WEINBERG: 3 Q I mean, that's your experience -- 4 THE COURT: Well, I don't. I put a date on an 5 order that I do the order. I don't care if you 6 don't get it for six weeks. In other words -- 7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 8 THE COURT: -- I don't do any service date on 9 my orders. It says copies to counsel and -- and 10 so -- I always have trouble whenever I do orders. 11 Because normally what I have when I do orders are 12 things like this so I know when they were -- 13 certificate of service is. I don't necessarily know 14 when they were filed. And every time I, you know, 15 try to combine those two, I get into trouble. 16 So I don't know if we're dealing with service 17 dates or filing dates. 18 THE WITNESS: I think we're dealing with 19 service dates. 20 THE COURT: Service dates is the best thing to 21 deal with. We can assume from what you've told me 22 you all's practice is, is that you filed it and 23 served it almost always on the same date. But my -- 24 THE WITNESS: Not -- 25 THE COURT: You know, something goes in the
125 1 clerk's office late in the afternoon, they may not 2 file it until the next day. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 4 THE WITNESS: The plaintiff did not do that all 5 the time. Sometimes we would fax it over, sometimes 6 we'd mail it over only. So I can't sit here -- 7 THE COURT: You might fax it to them on a 8 certain date and mail it to the clerk which could 9 mean it wouldn't get filed for two or three days, 10 so -- 11 I don't know if that's really a big deal. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I don't think it's a big deal. 13 THE COURT: I don't think it's a big deal. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q The point is, there were three telephone 16 conversations, telephone calls that you initiated to 17 Mr. Minton on November the 18th, one prior to that on 18 November the 9th, and it's your testimony that none of those 19 conversations had anything to do with the motion to file the 20 first amended complaint or with the anticipated filing of 21 the first amended complaint, is that right? 22 A That's right. 23 Q Now, Mr. Minton -- 24 A Those are all in the evening, by the way, so I'm 25 not even at my office, I guess, or I'm on my cell phone in
126 1 the evening hours. 2 Q Well, is that fairly typical that you would call 3 Mr. Minton at evening after hours? 4 A No. There's nothing typical. It just happens 5 when it happens. 6 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Minton testified that you sent him 7 a copy, in draft form, of the first amended complaint before 8 it was ever filed. That's what he testified to. Is that 9 correct? 10 A I think you're correct as what he testified to. 11 Is that factually correct? No. 12 Q No. So you didn't send -- you never sent him 13 drafts of amended complaints before they were filed, is that 14 right? 15 A That's correct. 16 Q Now, on October the 10th -- do you remember that 17 during Mr. Minton's testimony there was a posting that was 18 received in evidence, which was Hearing Exhibit 103, which 19 is an October 10th, 1997 posting, which is right at the time 20 when you were first communicating with Mr. Minton, and 21 happens to be the day of your 41-minute call with 22 Mr. Minton. Do you remember that posting? 23 A No. 24 Q Now, in that posting -- and I'll walk up in a 25 second.
127 1 In this posting, Mr. Minton made it clear -- 2 Well, let me ask you, did Mr. Minton make it clear 3 to you that -- that he -- that he wanted murder allegations 4 to be included in the first amended complaint? 5 A Never. 6 Q And did he -- did you talk to him about murder? 7 A Never. 8 Q All right. Let me just show you this posting. 9 And did -- did you see -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach, your Honor? 11 THE COURT: You may. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q -- Exhibit 103 which is the October 10th, 1997 14 posting -- did -- did you see that posting at the time? 15 A No. 16 Q Where he talks about murder? 17 A No. 18 I mean, where's this posted at? I didn't even 19 know about alt.religion.scientology back then. 20 Q Back in October of '97, you didn't know about 21 alt.religion.scientology? 22 A No. In fact, to this day I don't even know how to 23 access it. 24 Q So you've never accessed it? 25 A No.
128 1 Q And you've never had any conversation, ever, in 2 the five or so years that you had -- that you've known 3 Mr. Minton, about his feelings concerning murder allegations 4 being in -- in any form of your complaints. 5 A That's correct. It was hard for me to ever get 6 Mr. Minton to talk to me about any subject matter for a long 7 period of time on anything. I mean, he was just a very 8 short-phrased, short-sentenced person on the phone. And 9 maybe at dinner he would actually start to open up a little 10 bit and talk about things. But I never talked about 11 anything about what I was going to do, what I was planning 12 to do in this case. 13 Q Is that why you had to initiate 77 calls to 14 Mr. Minton, because it was hard to get Mr. Minton to talk to 15 you? 16 A I have no idea why I initiated these calls. I 17 mean, it just happened. 18 Q And when I say 77, obviously, that's not all of 19 them, because we don't have the list of 1998, is that right? 20 A Yeah. 21 But I have no clue what these were about. I'm 22 sure the one of 41 minutes in October, '97, was trying to 23 figure out who this guy was. 24 Q But you had already figured out and called the bar 25 by October 10th of '97, correct?
129 1 A Yeah. But remember I testified, I believe, 2 previously, either here or before Judge Baird, I thought I 3 was being set up. So I didn't know who this guy was. I 4 mean, who's going to send me a check for a hundred thousand 5 dollars? 6 Q Yeah. 7 But October 10th, you already -- I mean, we can go 8 get this out, but I believe your testimony is that prior to 9 October 10th, you had already received the check and 10 initiated the calls to the bar and determined that this was 11 for real. 12 A No. No. I already sent the -- you know, talked 13 to the bar, talked to my client, sent him a letter -- 14 Even in December of '97, I didn't, you know, know 15 who this guy was. I mean, he claims to be who he claims to 16 be. But you know, I'm still not comfortable with Mr. Minton 17 in '97. 18 Q Well, in December of '97, you met Mr. Minton in 19 Boston, correct? 20 A If there's some record of that, I'll take your -- 21 at your word. But I wasn't up there to meet him. I was up 22 there for something else. 23 Q Do you remember telling Mr. Minton -- do you 24 remember, in Mr. Minton's first letter to you, you know, 25 the -- what you call the Kleenex box, he talks about
130 1 possibly getting together in Boston? 2 A Yeah. So that I may have told him I had a another 3 deposition in another case. That was a cancer case, I 4 believe, in Boston. 5 Q Right. 6 And the fact is, you did get together with him in 7 Boston in December, had discussions with him, and it was at 8 those discussions that this communication back and forth 9 about the proceeds and the bulk of the proceeds first took 10 place, right? 11 A Well, if you're referring to what he testified to 12 in his deposition, I -- that's correct. I mean, that's when 13 everything's fresh in his mind. January, '98 deposition. 14 And so I would think he's pretty accurate about when we got 15 together and had coffee at Starbucks. 16 Q Now, did you do memos of any of your calls, 17 whether initiated by Mr. Minton or initiated by you, memos 18 to the file of any of the conversations that you had with 19 Mr. Minton from October of '97 until now? 20 A No. 21 Q Well, I mean, you said, I think, that you were 22 concerned enough about who this guy was that you called the 23 Florida Bar, right? 24 A Right. 25 Q You didn't feel comfortable with him through
131 1 December of 1997. 2 A Right. 3 Q And wouldn't it have made some sense, given the 4 fact that you didn't feel comfortable with him, that if you 5 had a 41-minute phone call with this guy that you didn't 6 know really who he was and didn't feel comfortable, that you 7 would have done a memo to the file documenting what you had 8 said to him and what he said to you, if you thought that you 9 were being set up? 10 A No. 11 Q And in any event, you didn't do any memos like 12 that. 13 THE COURT: I don't want to get into his office 14 practices right here. If he says no, unless you 15 can -- have some -- unless you can establish that 16 he's not telling the truth, then move on to 17 something else. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I was going to move on. 19 THE COURT: I mean, Lord have mercy, if you 20 want to get into both sides and no memos and no 21 notes and the no this and the no that, then we could 22 have about a six-month hearing on it, because nobody 23 puts things in writing in this case that I can see, 24 except when they file. 25 So that's the deal. He says no, he didn't. As
132 1 to why or what have you or what his office practices 2 is, I'm not going to let this hearing be conducted 3 for that purpose. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, that's essentially 5 what I've done. He said no and I was going on. 6 THE COURT: All right. Well, wouldn't it make 7 sense, if you were concerned and all that -- he said 8 no. I mean, a lot of us practice different kinds of 9 law. Some people put everything in memo form. Some 10 people don't. You know, Lord knows I know about 11 that, having been chief judge and having the Times 12 and public records and what have you; things that I 13 used to do, I changed my practice because of public 14 records. So -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right. But if -- but if 16 he had for example -- 17 THE COURT: Right. 18 MR. WEINBERG: And if he had memos of calls -- 19 THE COURT: He says he didn't. 20 MR. WEINBERG: I know. That's why I asked him. 21 THE COURT: So move on. 22 MR. WEINBERG: That's why I asked him. 23 THE COURT: I don't want to have this "wouldn't 24 it have made sense to --" That's argument. 25 MR. WEINBERG: I'll make that argument.
133 1 THE COURT: Challenging his practice. 2 MR. WEINBERG: I'll make that argument to you 3 later. 4 THE COURT: Yeah. You can do that. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 6 THE COURT: But I don't want him to have to 7 testify about that. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Now, in December of '98, Mr. Minton was in 11 Clearwater for the annual vigil and for picketing, correct? 12 A All right. We jumping now to '98? 13 Q Yes. 14 A Okay. Sorry. 15 I believe you're right. 16 Q And that would have been the second annual vigil, 17 the one in December of '98? 18 A Well, I can't say that under oath. I mean, I 19 just -- unless someone can show me we had one -- actually, 20 Jeff Jacobsen organized those. If one was organized for 21 December of '97, then of course December of '98 would be the 22 second one. 23 Q Okay. And you saw Mr. Minton in December of '98 24 during those vigils, correct? 25 A During the vigil, Mr. Minton --
134 1 Q During that period of time, when the vigils 2 were -- were going on. 3 A Well, during the -- yeah. During the period of 4 time I saw him, I'm sure. But whether or not he was 5 actually at the vigil, I can't say under oath. 6 Q Did you have meetings with him at that time about 7 the case? 8 A I don't think I ever had a meeting with him about 9 the case. And in December of '98, if that's one of the 10 times that there was a press conference, there was a -- I 11 guess you could call that a meeting of some sort. But it 12 wasn't with just Mr. Minton. It was just a gathering. 13 So I mean, you need to show me something to tell 14 me that, number one, there was a press conference in 15 December, '98; if Mr. Minton was there -- you know, there's 16 a bunch of people that were picketing, plus there were 17 people that showed up at the vigil. And those are two 18 separate events. 19 Q Do you recall that you got a check from Mr. Minton 20 in -- in November of 1998? 21 A No. But if you have evidence of that, then that 22 evidence would speak for itself. 23 Q Could I just walk up for a second and show you -- 24 THE COURT: Well, it -- 25 THE WITNESS: It speaks for itself.
135 1 THE COURT: Well, here, I can show him. I 2 think it's 93-B. 3 BY MR. WEINBERG: 4 Q November 30th, 1998, hundred thousand dollars? 5 A That's not what it says. 6 THE COURT: That's not it. 7 November 30th, 1998 is 93-C. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 9 THE COURT: I don't know what that is. What's 10 that? 11 THE WITNESS: I can't make it out. 12 MR. WEINBERG: That's February 5th, 1998. 13 THE COURT: I can't either. I'm going to -- 14 this is my copy, isn't it? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 16 THE COURT: 93-B is February 5th? 17 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 18 THE COURT: Okay. I can't read the February. 19 I'm going to write it. 20 A 93-C says November 30th, '98 for a hundred 21 thousand. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q Right. 24 Now, did that -- did Mr. Minton hand you that 25 check while you were in -- while you were -- you know,
136 1 during this vigil time? 2 A Well, November 30th. 3 Q In the fall of '98? 4 A November 30th is not a vigil time. December 5th 5 was. 6 Q Do you remember if this is a check that he gave 7 you or he -- you know, in person? 8 A I don't know if he gave it to me or mailed it to 9 me. 10 Q And do you remember -- 11 A Or had it delivered. 12 Q I'm sorry. 13 Do you remember the circumstances of that -- of 14 that check? 15 A No. 16 Q Now, on -- going back to your telephone log 17 exhibit, on 12-11-98, you initiated a call for almost 10 18 minutes to Mr. Minton. Do you have any recollection of what 19 that call was about? 20 A No. 21 Q Now, this was -- in December of 1998, do you 22 remember that this was when you were -- you were taking 23 various Scientology depositions of Karsten Lorenzen, Gerry 24 Armstrong and Marjorie Wakefield? 25 THE COURT: Who are they?
137 1 THE WITNESS: I think they were before that. 2 THE COURT: Who are they? I don't know. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, let's now -- 4 THE WITNESS: Those are ex-Scientologists, 5 Judge. 6 THE COURT: Oh. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q You actually took those three depositions, right? 9 A Yes. 10 Q You -- for example, Gerry Armstrong was a person 11 who ultimately was affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust, 12 but you actually brought him to Tampa for several days of 13 deposition, right? 14 A False. That's false. I think you know that's 15 false. 16 Q What's false about what I just said? 17 A I did not bring him anywhere. I served him when 18 he got off the airplane at his -- I subpoenaed him for a 19 deposition. 20 Q So he just happened to fly to Tampa, and you 21 served him, and then -- and then you took his deposition for 22 a couple of days? 23 A Well, I knew he was coming. So I wasn't just 24 hanging out at the airport with a process server. 25 Q All right.
138 1 A But I served him for his deposition. 2 Q All right. And this is one of the guys, 3 ultimately, that Mr. Minton gave quite a bit of money to, 4 Mr. Armstrong, right? 5 A Apparently, according to Mr. Minton. 6 Q And Karsten Lorenzen was another Scientologist you 7 took the deposition of, right? 8 A Right. He's from Denmark, I believe. 9 Q And then Marjorie Wakefield is a former 10 Scientologist that at one point you had designated as an 11 expert, or not? 12 A I don't think so. 13 Q But you took her deposition nevertheless. 14 A I subpoenaed her and took her deposition. 15 Q Okay. Let me just show you -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: And I'm not going to mark these, 17 Judge, but three documents that will fix the dates 18 for Mr. Dandar, if I can. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q This is just the deposition pages. You see Gerry 22 Armstrong, December 4th, 1998 -- 23 A Right. That's prior to -- way -- a long time 24 before December 11th phone call. 25 Q Right.
139 1 Okay. Okay. And that's -- and at that 2 deposition, you were there, right? 3 A Right. 4 Q And then Karsten Lorenzen, which was December 3rd, 5 1998? 6 A Right. I was there. 7 Q Okay. And then December 17th, 1998, which is 8 Marjorie Wakefield, right? 9 A Right. 10 Q Okay. Now, that -- that was -- there was quite a 11 bit of activity in December of '98 -- 12 THE COURT: What were the dates of those again? 13 I'm sorry. 14 MR. WEINBERG: December 3rd, which is 15 Lorenzen -- 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. WEINBERG: -- December 4th of '98, which is 18 Gerry Armstrong -- and that went a couple days, if I 19 remember correctly -- and then December 17th for 20 Marjorie Wakefield. 21 THE COURT: Okay. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q Now, did you -- 24 THE COURT: And you all are telling me -- I 25 don't know what the relevance is but maybe it'll
140 1 become apparent. 2 But I do remember Mr. Armstrong's name coming 3 up. But Wakefield and Lorenzen are 4 ex-Scientologists? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Frankly, I didn't understand the 9 relevance at the time, but Mr. Dandar spent a lot of 10 time asking them about their experiences in 11 Scientology, which is how those depositions went. 12 THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. And the year of 13 that too was -- 14 DEFS COUNSEL: 1998. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q Now, at the same time, in that period in December, 18 1998, you know, when you got the hundred thousand dollars, 19 there were these three depositions taken -- do you remember 20 that that was when Mr. Minton sent Jesse Prince and 21 Ms. Brooks to Tampa, at which time they reviewed the PC 22 folders. Do you remember that, of Lisa McPherson? 23 A If you tell me -- there's all kinds of court 24 records about when I got the original PC folders to review 25 to see which ones we wanted to copy. Ms. Brooks, Mr. Prince
141 1 were in my office doing that, with a Scientology 2 representative outside the conference room. If that 3 happened in December of '98, then that's when it happened. 4 Q I am fairly certain that that was December of '98. 5 A All right. 6 Q And am I correct that prior to December of '98, 7 you didn't know Jesse Prince. 8 A That's correct. I think that's the first time I 9 met him, was when he came to my office to look at the PC 10 folders. 11 Q And am I correct that Mr. Minton was paying Jesse 12 Prince at the time that he came to your office and was 13 looking at Ms. McPherson's PC folders? 14 A I have no knowledge. I mean, that's what 15 Mr. Minton says, so that's up -- 16 Q Well, you didn't pay Mr. Prince. 17 A No. Or Brooks. 18 Q Or Brooks. 19 And -- and am I -- I mean, do you -- do you 20 dispute that Mr. Minton was paying both Mr. Prince and 21 Ms. Brooks at that time, to be in your office, looking at -- 22 THE COURT: Counsel, what he says is if 23 Mr. Minton says so, he has no way to dispute that, 24 but he didn't see the checks. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
142 1 THE COURT: Isn't that what you're saying? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 But I don't even think Mr. Minton said he was 4 paying Mr. Prince. I think FACTNet, if I'm not 5 mistaken, was paying Mr. Prince at that time. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q Do you remember that Mr. Minton said he funded 8 FACTNet? 9 A Yeah. Funding it and -- 10 THE COURT: Well, there's a difference -- 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q -- and therefore -- 13 THE COURT: -- in funding -- 14 You know, of all people, the Church of 15 Scientology understands about corporations and other 16 entities and what have you. It is not the same. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q Let me ask this question. 19 Did you have any discussions with Mr. Minton, in 20 November or December of 1998, about him arranging for Stacy 21 Brooks and Jesse Prince to come to Tampa to work with you 22 with regard to the PC folders? 23 A No. I think -- I think my discussions would have 24 been with Ms. Brooks, who was, in '98, I believe, still 25 called Stacy Young.
143 1 Q But she had not been -- had -- prior to that time, 2 other than a little communication in 1997, you hadn't been 3 dealing with Ms. Brooks or Stacy Young with regard to the 4 case. 5 A No. I'd been dealing with her husband. You're 6 right. 7 But Minton had nothing to do with any of this 8 stuff. It was -- either it was Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, 9 who either talked to me or introduced me to Jesse Prince. 10 Q And they were working out of your office at that 11 time, looking at the PC folders in December of '98. 12 A They were examining the PC folders at my office in 13 December of '98. 14 Q All right. And this 12-11-98 call for about 10 15 minutes on your -- that you initiated to Mr. Minton, it's 16 your testimony that has nothing to do with the PC folders or 17 any of these depositions of the former Scientologists, 18 right? 19 A As long as Mr. Minton is the one that's on the end 20 of the phone talking to me, that's right. If that's Stacy 21 Brooks that I'm talking to at that time, because she happens 22 to be with Mr. Minton -- and I believe in '98 she did not 23 have a cell phone. I think. I mean, I'm not sure about 24 this. But yeah. 25 Q Well, hold on a second.
144 1 A I have no idea who I'm talking to on December 11th 2 of '98. I can tell you I'm not talking to Mr. Minton about 3 PC folders. 4 Q Now, let's go to -- a little further down on this 5 list of calls here, to 11-18-99. 6 THE COURT: I'm confused now. Is -- I'm sorry. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 8 THE COURT: Just a minute. 9 On these phone calls that -- you were asked 10 to -- to give calls that you made to Mr. Minton. 11 Was there a period of time when Ms. Brooks and 12 Mr. Minton were using the same cell phone? 13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. There was a lot of -- 14 well, no. I shouldn't say -- 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 THE WITNESS: There was a lot of times that I 17 called and said, "I can't get ahold of Stacy," and 18 he says, "She's right here," and hands me his phone. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: His phone to her. I mean, I 21 don't know -- I'm guessing -- and tell me -- I can 22 tell you what the phone calls were not about. I 23 can't tell you what they were about 'cause I can't 24 remember. 25
145 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Well, let's go to 1999. And actually, let's go to 3 7-27-99, 10-minute call; 8-18-99, five-minute call; 8-19-99, 4 six-minute call; and two calls on 8-20-99. Do you see 5 those -- 6 A Yes. 7 Q -- calls there? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Now, do you know -- this -- let me just orient you 10 in time: This is the time that there was this Key West 11 meeting. Do you remember? 12 A That was in July of '99, I think. 13 Q July or early -- wasn't it August 9th of '99? 14 A Whatever. You know -- 15 Q Okay. 16 A -- could be. 17 Q Jesse Prince's affidavit was executed on 18 August 20th, '99. Do you remember that? 19 A Yes. I do remember that. 20 Q And he was writing it for several days in your 21 office prior to that time? 22 A Could have been several weeks. 23 Q He was -- he was working in your office, on the 24 affidavit, right? 25 A That's correct.
146 1 Q Now, during this period where you initiated these 2 five calls, 7-27, 8-18, 8-19, 8-20, a couple -- during that 3 period when you initiated five calls to Mr. Minton, do you 4 have any idea how many calls Mr. Minton made to you during 5 that period? 6 A No. 7 Q Now, is it just coincidence that you are talking 8 to Mr. Minton -- you're initiating calls to Mr. Minton 9 during the same time that Mr. Prince is in your office 10 working on the affidavit and you're working on the fifth 11 amended complaint that was first moved to file just a few 12 weeks later? 13 A I'm sure it is. This is the time when I went to 14 Philadelphia to take a doctor's deposition in another case, 15 and that Mr. Minton talked about in court, which I think was 16 the 24th, 25th or 26th of August. So I couldn't tell you 17 what these phone calls are about. But I can tell you it had 18 nothing to do with Mr. Prince and his affidavit. 19 Q So -- so you didn't discuss Mr. Prince's affidavit 20 with Mr. Minton, is that right? 21 A That's right. 22 Q You didn't discuss the motion to add Mr. Miscavige 23 that was filed a few weeks later with Mr. Minton. 24 A That's right. 25 Q And so these calls here that just happened to come
147 1 at that same period of time, are just by coincidence as it 2 relates to those two events in the case, is that right? 3 A Well, I think Mr. Miscavige, the motion to add was 4 in September -- 5 Q Well -- 6 A -- so I don't -- you know, you want to connect 7 this to all these pleadings, I know, but it's not -- it's 8 not there. There was -- it didn't happen that way. 9 Q Well, you -- you did meet with Mr. Dandar -- I 10 mean, you did meet with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton in 11 Philadelphia on August 26th, right? 12 A For dinner, yes, with Rod Keller and this girl 13 that just got out of Scientology, and the -- and the two 14 Scientologists that accosted us at the dinner table. 15 Q We'll go -- we'll get into more detail in the 16 meeting later. 17 But you're denying that there was any discussions 18 at that meeting concerning the fifth amended complaint or 19 Jesse Prince's affidavit, is that right? 20 A Well, there was no meeting. It was dinner. And 21 we didn't discuss anything about the case. We discussed 22 about his personal life and his marriage. 23 Q Okay. And you have no idea why you initiated 24 these five calls to Mr. Minton in July and August of 1999, 25 is that right?
148 1 A That's right. 2 Q Now, look at November on here; November 18th, 3 1999. 4 A Right. 5 Q Five minutes and 80 seconds. 6 A Right. 7 Q And the first November 18th -- these are evening 8 calls again. One is at 7:38 and one's at 8:08. Eight 9 minutes of calls. Any recollection what you talked to him 10 about there? 11 A No. But the fact that they're in the evening, I 12 can speculate that I was returning a voicemail or something 13 like that. 14 Q You mean he had called you. 15 A Yeah. I mean, I -- I don't know. But I can 16 speculate. I have no idea what they're about. 17 Q All right. And then right after 11-18, it says 18 11-9. You think that's a misprint and it's really 11-19? 19 There was a five-minute, 40-second call. 20 A Yeah. Could be. 21 Q Could you check on that at some point -- 22 A All right. 23 Q -- to see if that's a mistake there? 24 In any event, do you remember that Jesse Prince's 25 deposition was taken on November the 18th?
149 1 A No. But I'll take you at your word. 2 Q Well, let me just -- 3 A I mean, you don't have to go look it up. 4 THE COURT: Don't pull it out. He says he'll 5 take you at your word. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q Okay. And do you remember that Ms. Brooks was at 8 that deposition? 9 A Part of it. 10 Q And do you remember that the motion to add David 11 Miscavige as -- this is the second time you tried this -- 12 the motion to add David Miscavige, but as the head of the 13 Sea Organization, was filed on -- on -- on November the 14 19th? Do you remember that? 15 A If you say so. Okay. That's fine. 16 Q Of 1999? 17 A Okay. 18 THE COURT: Again, are you -- are you telling 19 me that it was filed or are you telling me that 20 that's a certificate of service? 21 MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me just -- you know 22 what? I need to pull it out and take a look at it, 23 because this was a rather big thing. 24 THE COURT: Your motion isn't going to tell you 25 when it was filed unless it's got a clerk's stamp on
150 1 it. 2 THE WITNESS: He just reminded me that we need 3 to -- 4 MR. WEINBERG: November 19th, 1999 certificate 5 of service, motion for leave to file fifth amended 6 complaint and to add party defendant, which is to 7 add David Miscavige as the head of the Sea Org. 8 Okay. So it was -- 9 THE COURT: So I'm going to assume in this 10 record that anytime anybody's saying motion was 11 filed, what they're really talking about is 12 certificate of service. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Except in this case it says 14 hand-delivery. 15 So can I just approach -- 16 THE COURT: It just means it was delivered to 17 you. Doesn't have a thing to do when it was filed. 18 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 19 20 THE COURT: You keep -- as I said, I only know 21 this because I get myself into trouble all the time. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Why don't I just ask Mr. Dandar? 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q When you -- 25 THE COURT: Well, it doesn't matter. It's when
151 1 he wrote the thing that counts. That's when he 2 served it. That's when he wrote it. So that's 3 what's important. I'm just simply trying to tell 4 you, don't try to make a record -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: Right. 6 THE COURT: -- of when something was filed. 7 You don't know when it was filed. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'm -- I'm too slow on the take. 9 I understand what you're -- 10 THE COURT: You're very slow on the take on 11 that. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I understand what you're 13 talking -- 14 THE COURT: It -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: I understand what you're 16 talking -- 17 THE COURT: Could -- 18 (simultaneous speakers.) 19 MR. WEINBERG: It's -- 20 THE COURT: -- get lost in the clerk office and 21 sit there three months. 22 MR. WEINBERG: It's -- it's -- it's my -- it's 23 my question. Let me put the question differently. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q The motion to add David Miscavige, you know,
152 1 after -- after Judge Moody had not allowed it earlier, in 2 September -- the motion to add him under the Sea Org theory 3 was served on us by hand on November the 19th, 1999, right? 4 A No. What -- what Judge Moody said is he was going 5 to enforce the stipulation, and I was free to breach it. 6 And we decided not to breach it, which is now the subject of 7 a breach case before Judge Baird. And then Judge Moody 8 granted this motion to add him on as the Sea Org captain 9 because he wasn't covered by the agreement. And that was 10 apparently served and hand-delivered on November 19th of 11 1999. 12 Q All right. And my -- 13 A Does it have anything to do with the phone calls? 14 No. 15 Q It's just coincidence that there were these series 16 of calls: Two on the 18th, and I think what you're going to 17 find is one on the 19th. 18 A Since you tell me that Jesse Prince's deposition 19 was going on and it was multiple days, I'm sure I was 20 talking about maybe Jesse Prince. Maybe your use of the 21 word Epiphany during the deposition. I mean, I don't know. 22 I'm just speculating. 23 Q Well, so are you -- but -- is there a -- was there 24 a reason why you would be initiating calls to Mr. Minton 25 about Jesse Prince's deposition as it was going on?
153 1 A No. I think you upset Jesse Prince quite a bit 2 and Mr. Rinder upset him quite a bit by laughing at him 3 during his deposition, if I recall correctly. 4 Q Okay. But -- 5 A No. I mean, I don't know. I'm just guessing. I 6 shouldn't be guessing. As a lawyer, I should know better. 7 But I'm just guessing again, so I don't know. 8 Q But so -- so the record is clear, you absolutely 9 are sure, even though you can't remember what the phone call 10 was about, that you initiated, you're absolutely sure it 11 didn't have to do with the motion to add David Miscavige 12 which was served on us on November 19th, right? 13 A Right. 14 THE COURT: I don't even mind if you use the 15 word "filed." It's okay. Because we use it a lot. 16 But what we -- and that's okay. It's just that the 17 record doesn't reflect that. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I know. 19 THE COURT: You know what I'm saying? So keep 20 using the word "filed" if you like. We all 21 understand when you use that word, "filed," you're 22 really talking about "served." 23 MR. WEINBERG: Yeah. I'm not trying to make -- 24 I'm really not trying to make a record as to filed 25 or served. In my mind it doesn't make a lot of
154 1 difference. But -- 2 THE COURT: I understand. 3 MR. WEINBERG: -- it's the dates -- 4 THE COURT: Trust me, when you're a judge and 5 you deal with all kind of time limits and rules and 6 speedy trial and all kinds of things, you do care 7 about when something's filed. That's why people 8 hand-file things, because they say, "I want it 9 stamped and I want copies of that." 10 A There's no guarantee that any of those calls had 11 Mr. Minton at the other end. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Why is that? 14 A Because -- I mean, Stacy Brooks could have been at 15 the other end of the phone. Sometimes Jesse Prince was at 16 the other end of the phone. Sometimes Minton was at the 17 other end of the phone. 18 Q Well, during Jesse Prince's deposition, both 19 Mr. Prince and Ms. Brooks were in the room when I was taking 20 his deposition, right? 21 A Sure. But these are 8:00 at night. And you know, 22 the deposition was not going on at 8:00 at night. 23 Q So why did you then -- if that's the case, are you 24 suggesting that this filing is wrong? Because what the 25 filing says --
155 1 A No, no, no, no. 2 Q Hold on. Let me finish. 3 What the filing says, Exhibit 105, is that these 4 are calls made by you to Mr. Minton from January 1, '97 to 5 present. Are you now saying that these aren't really calls 6 made by you to Mr. Minton; that they're made to somebody 7 else? 8 A Technically they're calls made to his phone 9 numbers. That's -- if -- I mean, otherwise -- 10 I mean, I have no recollection. I would assume 11 that most of them are Mr. Minton. But technically, it's 12 just to his phone numbers, based upon what's in the phone 13 bill. It's not from any memos in the file. So it's just a 14 phone bill saying, "This is the number we called." 15 Q Well, were you on the phone to Mr. Minton after or 16 during Mr. Prince's deposition, talking to Mr. Minton about 17 what was going on in the deposition? 18 A I have no idea. I can't say one way or the other 19 under oath. 20 The other thing is I may not be the one talking to 21 Mr. Minton. That may be Jesse Prince talking to Mr. Minton 22 for all I know. So I'm just speculating wildly. And I 23 shouldn't do that. 24 Q So Jesse Prince is using your cell phone to call 25 Mr. Minton.
156 1 A It's quite possible. Jesse Prince has used my 2 cell phone quite a bit. 3 Q So what -- 4 A All kinds of people use my cell phone, if I'm the 5 one that has the cell phone. 6 Q So we shouldn't put much stock in this pleading 7 that you executed on -- 8 THE COURT: Counsel, argue that to me, would 9 you? Just move on to the next area that you want 10 to -- 11 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 12 THE COURT: -- get into. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q Do you remember the Exhibit 94-D, which was the 15 November 18th, 1999 posting that Mr. Minton made at this 16 same time, about the Jesse Prince depo? 17 A No. Of course not. 18 Q This is the one where Mr. Prince refers to me and 19 Mr. Hertzberg as juden rats (phonetic). 20 But at the beginning of the -- of the posting, he 21 talks about how I just finished -- I being me -- "two days 22 of deposing my dear friend Jesse Prince, and I want to say 23 something about these legal whores," he says, "who sleep 24 with Scientology." 25 Does that refresh your recollection that you may
157 1 well have been having conversations with Mr. Minton about 2 the depo? 3 A No. Not at all. Sounds like Mr. Prince may have 4 had a conversation with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks. "The spy" 5 may have had a conversation with Mr. Minton. Certainly 6 doesn't attribute any of this to me. 7 Q There must have been a compelling reason to call 8 him twice on the evening of November 18th, however, right? 9 A Not by me. 10 Q Now, if you go to your -- your sheet, you'll see 11 in December of '99 there are eight phone calls that are 12 initiated by you to Mr. Minton between 12-9-99 and 12-28-99, 13 one of which is a 14-minute call on 12-13 and one of which 14 is a 20-minute call on 12-17. Do you -- do you see those 15 calls? 16 A Yes. 17 But you know, all it is is from my number to his 18 number. That's as far as I can go, on who's at either end. 19 Q Now, do you remember that on 12-14-99, you and me 20 and various other people, including Ms. Brooks and 21 Mr. Prince, appeared before Judge Moody, in which the 22 argument took place where you argued your motion to add 23 David Miscavige as a party defendant under the Sea Org 24 theory? Do you remember that? 25 A I remember that hearing, yes.
158 1 THE COURT: What was the date again? 2 MR. WEINBERG: 12-14-99. 3 THE COURT: Thank you. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q And you remember that was a big deal in this case, 6 correct? At least to the Church of Scientology. 7 A Yeah. Only to the Church of Scientology. 8 Q It wasn't a big deal to you that you were going to 9 add David Miscavige as a party defendant to the case? 10 A No. Never was. 11 Q Now, on 12-13-99, you show an afternoon phone 12 call -- several afternoon phone calls, but one for 14 13 minutes. Probably only one call -- 14 A Yeah. 15 Q -- for 14 minutes. 16 A I think that was -- I think -- 17 THE COURT: I have a question. If it wasn't 18 such a big deal, why in the world did you do it? I 19 mean, I'm having a lot of harangue and a lot of 20 stuff and a lot of stuff going on about this 21 addition. If it wasn't a big deal, why in the world 22 did you do it? 23 THE WITNESS: I did it because I was, believe 24 it or not, following the dictates of my client, 25 Fannie McPherson. She said, "I want you to sue
159 1 everybody that had anything to do with this." 2 THE COURT: Is she still alive? 3 THE WITNESS: No. That was the one time only I 4 met her and talked to her. 5 THE COURT: So you're -- you're trying to tell 6 me that it just dawned on you here in 1999, 7 something your client said a long time ago, to add 8 somebody, cause all this trouble and all this 9 trouble to Scientology, but it didn't make one whit 10 of difference to you. 11 THE WITNESS: No. The difference in '99, 12 Judge, was that I had better testimony and -- with 13 Jesse Prince being so personally connected to the -- 14 Mr. Miscavige and his personal experience. I didn't 15 have that before. 16 THE COURT: Well, everything I've heard from 17 your witness, Ms. Brooks, or -- Ms. Brooks, about 18 who was your consultant, was that there was a better 19 chance of settling if you'd get Miscavige added as a 20 party. I presume that might be. It might make 21 sense to me too if I were a lawyer. He could be 22 deposed. And this is like bringing in the pope of 23 the Catholic Church, as far as the Church of 24 Scientology was concerned, that that might bring 25 them to the table, might make better settlement,
160 1 might make them more anxious to settle. It makes 2 sense to me. 3 Are you telling me that that's -- never went 4 through your head? 5 THE WITNESS: No. That was never a 6 consideration. I'm not even -- 7 THE COURT: Why did you do it? You're telling 8 me that you did this because some lady that's now 9 deceased told you way back then to sue everybody who 10 was connected. 11 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q In any event, 12-14 is the big hearing on David 15 Miscavige. And you've got a 14-minute call with Mr. -- that 16 you initiated with Mr. Minton on 12-13. 17 I'm asking you, are you telling us that at no 18 point during that telephone call did you discuss the hearing 19 that was going to take place the next day with David 20 Miscavige -- you were going to try to seek to add him as a 21 party defendant in the case? 22 A No. I did not discuss anything with Mr. Minton on 23 adding parties, including Mr. Miscavige. That again is a 24 call from my phone number to his phone number. He might 25 have been in Clearwater at the time I talked to him on the
161 1 cell phone. That might have been Brooks at the other end. 2 It could have been Jesse at the other end. I mean, I don't 3 know. I can't say under oath who was at the other end. I 4 can't even say it's me on the phone. It's a phone bill. 5 That's all this is. 6 Q Well, somebody was talking for 14 minutes between 7 your number and his number. 8 THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. I mean, 9 you can argue that to me. 10 MR. WEINBERG: I will. 11 THE COURT: We've got to move on in this 12 hearing. 13 MR. WEINBERG: I -- I'm going. I'm trying to 14 go fairly quickly. 15 THE COURT: I don't need that either, Counsel. 16 MR. WEINBERG: I know. 17 THE COURT: I mean, I get the privilege and the 18 right -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: You're right. 20 THE COURT: -- because of what I do. 21 MR. WEINBERG: You're right. 22 THE COURT: And don't do it again. 23 MR. WEINBERG: I won't. I won't. I'm sorry. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q 12-17-99, 20-minute call. Nothing about the case,
162 1 is that right? 2 A I have no idea. I doubt it. 3 Q Let's go to May of 2000. You see you got a call 4 there for 10 minutes on May 11th, another call on May 11th 5 for two minutes, and a call on May 12th for 11 minutes, and 6 you got a call on May 16th as well. Do you see those calls? 7 A I see them. 8 Q Now, May of 2000 is the month that you received 9 the $500,000 UBS check from Mr. Minton, correct? 10 A If you say so. 11 Q I mean, that's a May 1, 2000 check. 12 A Okay. 13 Q And May of 2000, May 24th of 2000 is when 14 Mr. Minton was deposed, where he says that he lied about the 15 amount of money that he gave you, correct? 16 A Well, he says now he lied about it, yeah. 17 Q But that's it. I'm trying to orient you in time. 18 May 24th of 2000 was -- 19 A Yeah. That's his deposition. 20 Q -- where that deposition took place. 21 Now, did you have any conversations, any of these 22 four that you initiated, or any -- any that Mr. Minton 23 initiated, in May of 2000, prior to his deposition, with 24 Mr. Minton about his deposition, about what he was going to 25 testify to in his deposition?
163 1 A No. 2 Q So again you have no idea what these four calls 3 that you initiated in May of 2000 were about, is that right? 4 A I can tell you it wasn't about money. I can tell 5 you that for sure. And it wasn't about preparing him for 6 his deposition, 'cause he had John Merrett for that. So I 7 have no idea what it was about, if I'm talking to 8 Mr. Minton. 9 Q Well, how do you know it was not about money? 10 A 'Cause I know it wasn't. I mean, the check, you 11 said, is dated May 1st, 2000. So you know -- it's certainly 12 not about his deposition. 13 Q 12-9, 2000. There's two calls, 12-13 -- 14 Well, hold on. I'm sorry. I have that wrong. 15 On 12-9-2000, there are two calls for six or seven 16 minutes, and on 12-20 and 12-23 of 2000 there are a couple 17 of more calls. Do you see -- see that on your list? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Now, Mr. Minton's affidavit that was executed in 20 this case, which is Exhibit 111, was executed on 12-13-2000. 21 Do you -- do you remember that or do you want to look at it? 22 A Nope. I'll take you at your word. 23 Q Okay. Did you have any conversation with 24 Mr. Minton -- and I mean, including these two calls on 25 12-9-2000, or any that were initiated by him to you,
164 1 concerning that affidavit that he executed on 12-13, 2000? 2 A No. Not that I can recall. 3 THE COURT: Please, Counselor, would you be 4 professional here? "Nope" is not an appropriate 5 answer. 6 THE WITNESS: I thought I said "no." I'm 7 sorry. 8 THE COURT: Well, if you did -- 9 THE WITNESS: I correct myself. I'm sorry. 10 THE COURT: What did he say? 11 THE WITNESS: If I did, I correct it. I'm 12 sorry. 13 THE REPORTER: I have "nope," your Honor. 14 THE COURT: That's what I heard and I've heard 15 it over and over. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 17 THE COURT: And I want you to stop. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge. 19 BY MR. WEINBERG: 20 Q Do you deny having anything to do with the 21 preparation or execution of Mr. Minton's December, 2000 22 affidavit? 23 A That's a broad question, so let me tell you what I 24 had to do, if anything. 25 I discussed the abusive discovery by Scientology,
165 1 Mr. Moxon. This was his area of the case, with the LMT, 2 Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton. I discussed that with them and with 3 John Merrett. They were just outraged by all of this. And 4 so, sure, I had some discussions, all right? 5 Contrary to Ms. Brooks' testimony in this case, 6 this hearing, and Mr. Minton's testimony at this hearing, I 7 had nothing to do with the preparation of their affidavits 8 of December, 2000. John Merrett did all of that. He's the 9 one that typed it up; he's the one that formulated the 10 language; he's the one that had it delivered -- signed, 11 sealed and delivered. And I think, as I recall, he 12 hand-delivered those affidavits to my office. 13 Q And then you filed them. 14 A And then we filed them. Right. 15 Q Okay. And did you discuss -- my question was -- I 16 thought it was not that broad, but let me ask it again. 17 Did you have discussions with Mr. Minton about the 18 content of his affidavit? 19 A No. 20 Q Did you have discussions with Mr. Merrett about 21 what should be in the affidavit, if he is the one that 22 drafted it? 23 A No. 24 Q Now, in addition, you prepared at the same period 25 of time the affidavit of Dell Liebreich, is that right,
166 1 which is the Exhibit 112. But let me just pull it out 2 because we haven't looked at that for a while. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Can I approach, your Honor? 4 THE COURT: You may. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q This is Exhibit 112. You prepared that, correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And the date of that -- 9 A December the 20th of 2000. 10 Q So -- 11 A And I believe that's signed in Texas. Right. 12 Q So this was prepared -- was this coordinated with 13 Mr. Merrett, then; that at the same time or same period of 14 time that -- that Mr. -- Mr. Minton was executing an 15 affidavit that Ms. Liebreich was going to execute an 16 affidavit on the same subject matter? 17 A Well, since they're dated 17 days apart, I don't 18 think that was much coordination. 19 I don't recall saying, "I'm going to go get Dell 20 Liebreich and see what she has to say about this." 21 Q It's seven days. 22 A Pardon me? 23 Q It's seven days. 24 A It is? Okay. 25 Q Yeah. One is executed on the 13th and one is
167 1 executed on the 20th. 2 A Okay. I had no coordination as far as what my 3 client may say. 4 Q But when you filed them, both Mr. -- you filed 5 both Mr. Minton's and Ms. Liebreich's at the same time -- 6 A I believe so. 7 Q -- in the same pleading. 8 A Right. 9 THE COURT: You're not suggesting this is 10 happenstance, are you? This is what you wanted to 11 file in the case, Merrett prepared his, you prepared 12 yours, and you took them in and prepared them 13 together? 14 THE WITNESS: That's correct. I'm not saying 15 it's happenstance. I said I talked to Mr. Merrett 16 and Mr. Minton about it, and Mr. Merrett went on his 17 way and did whatever he thought he had to do, and I 18 went and talked to my client and prepared this 19 affidavit for her. 20 THE COURT: So when you say you discussed it 21 with Mr. Merrett and you discussed it with 22 Mr. Minton, neither of which were privileged 23 conversations, or with Mr. -- you said, "Look, I 24 have a need for this. If he could sign this 25 affidavit -- sign it; get it prepared? I'm going to
168 1 get my client to sign one. I need to file something 2 like this," or words to that effect, right? 3 THE WITNESS: Words to that effect. 4 I think there was a need from both Mr. Minton 5 and from the estate. We were both -- 6 THE COURT: So this was coordinated between 7 lawyers representing these individual parties, and 8 filed together. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 THE COURT: All right. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Now, if you'll turn to the last page of your 14 Exhibit 105, which is the phone calls that you initiated to 15 Mr. Minton, and look at 5-21-2001, you'll see that there are 16 two calls, one at 5:02 in the afternoon for 32 minutes and 17 one at 8:59 at night for five minutes. Do you see that? 18 A Yes. But I -- you know, these are the phone 19 records between -- 20 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What dates are you 21 looking at? 22 MR. WEINBERG: May 21st, 2001. There are two 23 calls -- 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. WEINBERG: -- one in the late afternoon and
169 1 one in the evening, totalling 37 minutes. 2 BY MR. WEINBERG: 3 Q Now, do you recall that on May -- on or about 4 May 25th of 2001, 93-H, Mr. Minton gave you a -- a check 5 dated May 25th, 2001 for $250,000? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q All right. Do you -- this call for 32 minutes 8 must have been a fairly important call. That's a fairly 9 long time. Do you remember what it's about? 10 A No. Length of time has nothing to do with 11 importance. And I don't remember what it was about. 12 Q Did it -- do you think it had to do anything with 13 this $250,000 check made out to you, that you got a few days 14 later? 15 A It -- I don't think so. I mean, there's always -- 16 could be. I don't know. 17 But you said that it was May 25th of 2001? 18 Q Yes. 19 A Okay. That was the last check I got from him. 20 Q What do you mean it's the last check you got from 21 him? 22 A That was the last check I got from him, which is 23 what I mean by what I just said. 24 Q Well, but you don't mean that. I mean, he handed 25 you the $500,000 check in May -- in May of 2000, and he
170 1 handed you the $250,000 Swiss check, or he sent to you in 2 the mail, the $250,000 Swiss check in March of 2002, 3 correct? 4 A Yeah. This is the last check -- 5 THE COURT: Counselor, whatever he got, the 6 $500,000 check is before that. Listen to what he 7 said. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Said it's the last check you got from him, I 11 think, was his -- was your words, right? 12 A Yes. This is the last check I got from Robert 13 Minton. 14 Q All right. Now, he -- you got the $250,000 check 15 dated May 7, 2002 from Robert Minton. You got it from him, 16 didn't you? 17 A March 7th, 2002, he sent me by mail a bank check, 18 yes, without his name on it, telling me it was from the fat 19 man. 20 Q Okay. Now, do you remember that -- that the 21 church's counterclaim was served on May 4th, 2001? This is 22 the counterclaim that, you know, has all the allegations 23 about Mr. Minton and the abuse of process. 24 A Okay. 25 Q Do you remember that, Mr. Dandar?
171 1 A I remember the counterclaim. I'll take your word 2 of when it was served. 3 Q Okay. 4 A So May 4th of 2001. 5 Q May 4th of 2001. 6 A All right. 7 Q And at that time, the defendant of the 8 counterclaim was the estate, is that right? 9 A That's right. 10 Q Now, did you -- in any of these phone 11 conversations in May of 2001, did you go over the 12 accusations or allegations in the counterclaim either by 13 calls that you initiated to Mr. Minton or calls from him to 14 you with Mr. Minton? 15 A It's quite possible, sure. They had his name 16 throughout. You had -- you, your client, had his name 17 throughout the counterclaim. It was pretty outrageous. So 18 I'm sure I talked to him about it many times. 19 Q Well, what kind of conversations did you have with 20 Mr. Minton about the counterclaim? 21 A How false it was. Outrageous. How to me it's an 22 absolute sign of desperation by the Church of Scientology. 23 I mean, you want me to go on? I'll -- 24 Q Well, did you talk to him, for example, about any 25 problems that you and he might have if -- if it was
172 1 disclosed that -- that he had given you, in May of 2000, a 2 Swiss -- a $500,000 UBS check? Did you talk to him about 3 this? 4 A I've never talked to him about that check. 5 What do you mean, talk? Are what -- are you 6 connecting this to the counterclaim somehow? I'm sorry. I 7 misunderstand. 8 Q What I'm saying is -- 9 A I didn't understand. 10 Q -- is that there are a lot of accusations in the 11 counterclaim about Mr. Minton, Mr. Minton's money and 12 Mr. Minton's involvement and participation in the lawsuit, 13 correct? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q And you just said, I think, that you had 16 conversations with Mr. Minton about the counterclaim, right? 17 A Correct. 18 Q And what I'm saying is, in those conversations 19 that you had with Mr. Minton about -- in the counterclaim, 20 did you happen to talk to Mr. Minton about that which had 21 not been disclosed yet, which was the $500,000 check, the 22 UBS check from May of 2000? 23 A No. Those -- those two things had nothing to do 24 with each other. No. 25 The thing that you allege in the counterclaim is
173 1 that, I got paid to get the PC folders of Lisa McPherson, 2 which is incredible. But that's probably the only thing I 3 have that -- 4 THE COURT: I think you've answered the 5 question. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 7 And Judge, I'm trying so hard not to say 8 "nope," but it's a western Pennsylvania thing, and I 9 keep trying to correct myself. 10 THE COURT: I don't know about a western 11 Pennsylvania thing, 'cause that's where I come from. 12 So I don't know about it being a western 13 Pennsylvania thing. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. Then -- 15 THE COURT: In fact, I'm right outside of 16 Pittsburgh. I don't know where you're from, but -- 17 THE WITNESS: Right outside of Pittsburgh. 18 THE COURT: That is not something in my 19 vocabulary that I use regularly, and I certainly 20 wouldn't if I were testifying in court. 21 THE WITNESS: And I'm being mindful of that. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q All right. If you'll go to August 27th on your 24 list, there are two calls that you initiated to 25 Mr. Minton --
174 1 THE COURT: Although -- 2 Excuse me. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. 4 THE COURT: -- I do find myself occasionally 5 reading a record, like, "We're not going to -- give 6 me a screwed up one -- we won't screw up again --" I 7 say, "Gee, I wonder why I said that." 8 THE WITNESS: Well, at least we don't say 9 you-uns. 10 THE COURT: That's true. 11 Go ahead. I'm sorry. 12 MR. WEINBERG: That's okay. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q 8-27, 2001, two calls, one for six minutes, one 15 for 10 minutes, and 8-29, 2001, a call for -- for eight 16 minutes and 53 seconds. Do you see those? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q Now, these calls you had with Mr. Minton after -- 19 after you had been notified by Mr. Minton that he was 20 cutting off funding, is that right? 21 A Well, my phone records reflect a connection 22 between these two numbers on that date. I assume it's with 23 Mr. Minton and myself. And it's after he cut off funding 24 for the case. I can't be certain as to who's on both ends 25 of the telephone line.
175 1 Q Well, I mean, all we can do is go by your pleading 2 which just says your calls to Mr. Minton. 3 A Well, I'm sorry. Then the pleading needs to be 4 corrected to reflect these are the phone records, which is 5 what I thought you asked to be produced. 6 Q Okay. Well, right now I'm focusing more on the 7 dates. 8 But let me show you what's already in evidence as 9 Exhibit 49. But rather than dig it out, this is -- 10 THE COURT: I'm familiar with that. I don't 11 need a copy of it. 12 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 13 THE COURT: I think I am. If I need one, I'll 14 ask you. 15 A Right. That's August 24th. 16 BY MR. WEINBERG: 17 Q This is Mr. Merrett's e-mail to you saying, "The 18 short -- short version is the well is dry as far as money 19 goes." And then he says, "Jesse's withdrawing as an expert 20 witness," right? 21 A Yeah. And -- 22 Q You see that? 23 A -- I agree I met with him and Stacy this weekend 24 but not Bob Minton, apparently. So I see that, yes. 25 Q Now -- and you -- I think you said -- I think you
176 1 said the other day at some point that after Mr. Minton cut 2 you off, there were -- there were few if any occasions for 3 you to be talking to Mr. Minton. Do you remember that? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q And yet if we look on your sheet here, after 6 August 24th, which is the date of this e-mail, from 7 August 24th through November 29th -- I guess we don't have 8 the December bills -- you see nine calls, right? 9 A Right. 10 Q Do you remember what you were talking to 11 Mr. Minton about, initiating calls, after you learned that 12 he was cutting off and Jesse was withdrawing from the case? 13 A I have no idea what these -- any of these records 14 are. I have no idea. I don't know if they're with 15 Mr. Minton or not. I assume they are. But I don't know. 16 Q Well, once Jesse Prince withdrew from the case, he 17 wasn't making phone calls from your phones anymore, was he? 18 A I can't say that either. I mean, just because, 19 you know, Jesse Prince decided he wasn't going to be a 20 witness back then, I can't say he was not making a phone 21 call once in a while from my phone. 22 Q Well, he did withdraw from the case, correct? 23 A Oh, most definitely. 24 Q And he did notify you in some written form in or 25 about August 24th that he was withdrawing from the case?
177 1 A I'm not sure about that. He told me for sure, but 2 I don't know if he did it in written form. 3 Q Okay. October 18th -- 4 THE COURT: I think we've been going for about 5 an hour and a half, and I can see my court reporter 6 looking at me longingly, and it's about lunch time, 7 and I'm longing for that. And so we're going to be 8 in recess till 1:00. 9 (A recess was taken at 11:46 p.m.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
178 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 5 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 6 I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 7 proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 8 I further certify that I am not a relative, 9 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or 10 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 11 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of June, 13 2002. 14 15 ______________________________ DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25