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



           2                      CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11



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

           8              Plaintiff,

           9    vs.                                     VOLUME 5

                and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,


          16    PROCEEDINGS:        Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
                                    Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
                CONTENTS:           Testimony of Kennan Dandar.
                DATE:               June 5, 2002.  Afternoon Session.
                PLACE:              Courtroom B, Judicial Building
          20                        St. Petersburg, Florida.

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


511 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR 3 DANDAR & DANDAR 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201 4 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorneys for Plaintiff. 5 6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA 7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B Tampa, FL 33602-4108 8 Attorney for Plaintiff 9 MR. KENDRICK MOXON 10 MOXON & KOBRIN 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 11 Clearwater, FL 33755 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service 12 Organization. 13 MR. LEE FUGATE and 14 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER 15 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602-5147 16 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 17 18 MR. BRUCE HOWIE 5720 Central Avenue 19 St. Petersburg, Florida. Attorney for Robert Minton. 20 21 MR. THOMAS H. MCGOWAN MCGOWAN & SUAREZ, LLP 22 150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 870 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3381 23 Attorney for Stacy Brooks. 24 25
512 1 THE COURT: Okay. I said we would take up in 2 plaintiff's motion to abate dissemination of any 3 portion of the film The Profit. And I was handed 4 shortly before I came into court Stacy Brooks' 5 opposition to motion today. 6 Mr. Howie, are you here for Mr. Minton on this? 7 MR. HOWIE: Yes, your Honor. I have just read 8 the motion to abate. And I'm here on behalf of 9 Mr. Minton, because he's named as a potential 10 injunctee in that case. 11 THE COURT: Okay. I show that you were served. 12 But it may be that they were served by mail, is that 13 right? 14 MR. LIROT: Judge, they should have had a copy 15 faxed to their offices. I haven't been there all 16 day. I wasn't able to check on that. 17 THE COURT: But I see Mr. McGowan is noticed. 18 Yes, Bruce Howie, so I guess it is en route. 19 MR. McGOWAN: I have not seen it until lunch. 20 I -- I have not seen it -- 21 THE COURT: Okay. We'll make this fairly 22 brief. I have read the motion. 23 MR. LIROT: We can, Judge. I think that you 24 are aware -- just to give you a little bit of 25 historical statement here, this issue first came up
513 1 before Judge Beach. 2 There was a subpoena that was issued to 3 Ms. Greenway, who I know you know, and 4 Mr. Alexander, seeking a variety of records and 5 things showing the funding. 6 And what we asserted was privileged trade 7 secret, that was important to ensure the commercial 8 vitality of the film, if you give all of the 9 information out, somebody that doesn't want you to 10 be successful in distributing the film. 11 We filed a motion for protective order. We had 12 a hearing in front of Judge Beach, and Judge Beach 13 issued the order, which I had already attached to a 14 similar request made by Mr. Moxon of Ms. Greenway, 15 that she provide copies of checks that were given to 16 Courage Productions by Mr. Minton for the production 17 of the movie, and a variety of other requests that 18 were made, copy of the movie, and I think that we 19 had provided that to you in camera. 20 I had, after -- 21 THE COURT: I don't think I received anything 22 in camera. 23 MR. LIROT: Well, I just say generally we gave 24 you a copy of the movie. You watched it on your 25 own.
514 1 THE COURT: The movie? I thought you meant the 2 documents. 3 MR. LIROT: No, ma'am. Not at all. 4 THE COURT: The movie? Yes. 5 MR. LIROT: And I think relative to the 6 documents you said what Judge Beach says still 7 stands. 8 Now, what Judge Beach did is he precluded -- 9 and I attached a copy of my order to that particular 10 motion. Essentially what he had done, he just 11 put -- and I'll just read the portion out of his 12 order -- it says: "The Court orders that the 13 subject film not be shown prior to the trial on the 14 complaint," and then he handwrote in, "Or the 15 counterclaim." 16 And what we had done is we filed a motion for 17 rehearing, asking that that be simply the 18 jurisdiction of the State of Florida. We didn't 19 want the whole movie stopped, but we just wanted it 20 stopped for purposes of the State of Florida. 21 Well, that was then. This is now. A whole lot 22 has happened since then. And from our perspective, 23 it looks like the -- 24 THE COURT: I don't know what you are speaking 25 for, the plaintiff in the wrongful death case?
515 1 MR. LIROT: I think Judge Beach's order is for 2 anybody to show the movie. Obviously, the 3 presumption then was that my clients, Courage 4 Productions -- or at least, you know, back when 5 Mr. Minton and Mr. Alexander were still speaking, I 6 suppose, I had appeared on their behalf as a 7 representative of Courage Productions, to try to 8 keep any harm from happening or occurring as it 9 relates to the vitality -- or at least the 10 commercial viability of this movie in the future. 11 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't make myself 12 clear. Today you are appearing as co-counsel for 13 the plaintiff, and this is -- the plaintiff in the 14 motion before me -- 15 MR. LIROT: That is -- 16 THE COURT: -- is the estate of Lisa McPherson. 17 You are appearing for that, for this? 18 MR. LIROT: That is exactly correct. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. LIROT: The reason I say that, it came to 21 our attention that on the Lisa McPherson Trust site 22 a number of so-called snippets of the film -- I 23 think I was given information that about ten minutes 24 of the film had been shown, and there was concern 25 here is a snippet, there is a snippet, eventually
516 1 the whole film is out and the commercial vitality of 2 the film is lost. 3 But the reason I make this motion is as the 4 testimony from Mr. Minton came out last Thursday, I 5 believe, his statement was that -- in answer to a 6 question posed to him, he said: "I funded 7 production of a movie about Scientology, The Profit. 8 I invested 2.5 million to have two anti-Scientology 9 critics produce the movie along with me, Jesse 10 Prince, Stacy Brooks and other LMT staff. 11 Mr. Dandar also had an acting role in the movie. 12 Mr. Dandar played an FBI agent. And then it was 13 Mr. Dandar felt the movie would help generate a 14 negative view of Scientology with potential jurors 15 in the area." 16 Obviously this has become a more critical 17 issue. It seems no good deed goes unpunished in 18 this case. So in an abundance of caution, we would 19 like this Court to eliminate whatever potential -- 20 shall I say -- sword-like effort is utilized by the 21 defendants in this case to say, "You guys let all of 22 this stuff out on the Internet and you have 23 contaminated the jury pool on the eve of trial, 24 we're going to ask for change of venue. Something 25 bad is going to happen if we don't put a stop to
517 1 whatever is being done." 2 Now, it is certainly our position, and we 3 respectfully submit to the Court, that Ms. Brooks 4 and Mr. Minton, while they may be wanting to get out 5 of the anti-Scientology business or whatever their 6 testimony, continuing to put this out doesn't really 7 say that unless what is being put out over the 8 Internet will come back to be used against the 9 estate. And it's our concern that it's not going to 10 be good for the estate. 11 We think that it's within the province of this 12 Court to certainly stop any additional 13 dissemination. 14 The federal suit I filed is for copyright 15 infringement. There was a response filed that since 16 there is an operating agreement that says before you 17 do anything for Courage Productions, the limited 18 liability company, there has to be full agreement of 19 the two members of that company, Mr. Minton and 20 Mr. Alexander. 21 Well, what had happened was once this started 22 to go out into the -- to the public in the way these 23 snippets, as I said, they just add up and up to 24 eventually what we feel will be putting an end to 25 the commercial viability of the film, I filed a
518 1 lawsuit, in an abundance of caution, based on 2 Mr. Alexander's right, and I attached this as an 3 exhibit to my motion. 4 He has the right to act in the best interests 5 of the LLC. He's not trying to do anything to hurt 6 Mr. Minton. He's trying to protect the only asset 7 the LLC has. 8 THE COURT: The LLC is? 9 MR. LIROT: Being Courage Productions. They 10 are the owners of the copyright of the film. 11 THE COURT: LLC? 12 MR. LIROT: Limited liability company. It's a 13 specific -- 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. LIROT: -- entity. And essentially, Judge, 16 if somebody is -- a member of an LLC starts to go 17 off the deep end and do things bad for the LLC, 18 regardless of anything to the contrary, a managing 19 member can take over and say, "I'm going to protect 20 the interests of the LLC." 21 Now, there is an arbitration clause in the 22 operating agreement. The only reason I say that, 23 those are all issues in the federal action. I 24 looked at Mr. McGowan's response. And he alleged 25 what we are trying to do is circumvent or bypass or
519 1 in some way use this Court to buttress what is going 2 on in federal court. 3 That is a separate proceeding. That is a 4 copyright case. We are asking for damages, punitive 5 damages, and all of the remedies available, should 6 we prevail in copyright proceeding. 7 What we want to do here is in the best 8 interests of the estate. It's our position, from 9 the estate standpoint, that there is nothing good 10 that can come from the dissemination of these 11 things, this what I'll call snippets on the 12 Internet. And it looks to us like, rather than try 13 to give an accurate depiction of the movie, it's 14 using materials that are not well produced, I think 15 they are third or fourth generation, they are very 16 bad for whatever future the movie may have. 17 But, most importantly, all they do is fall 18 right into line with what is alleged in the 19 counterclaim. That the movie was produced and uses 20 witnesses and people from the LMT. The snippets are 21 what the general nature of the movie is. You saw 22 it, there is a great number of different actors and 23 actresses in this movie that had nothing to do with 24 the LMT. Well, strangely enough, they don't find 25 their way into the so-called snippets on the LMT
520 1 website. 2 So, basically, it's our position that while it 3 might be some First Amendment fair use issue which 4 we don't think applies, it's our position that the 5 way it's being used right now is to advance the 6 defendant's arguments in the counterclaim to create 7 what we consider is really somewhat of a 8 disingenuous position, because if they are concerned 9 that the movie was made to create some sort of jury 10 contamination or have adverse impact on their 11 ability to obtain a fair trial, why in the heck are 12 people on that side of the camp putting it up on the 13 Internet for? 14 We have spoken with the people at Courage. 15 They have no objection to the entry. And I think 16 that is an important point. We do this in the best 17 interests of the estate. We have -- 18 THE COURT: I'm sorry, people from Courage? 19 MR. LIROT: From Courage. Mr. Alexander. Now, 20 whether Mr. Minton thinks it's a good idea or not, 21 I'm sure he doesn't -- 22 THE COURT: He's the main stockholder of 23 Courage Productions? 24 MR. LIROT: No. They are equal partners. He's 25 the major investor. But with an LLC, you know,
521 1 whether you put in a dime or dollar, Mr. Alexander 2 apparently wrote the script. Contrary to what 3 Mr. Minton might have testified to, I don't think 4 Mr. Minton had any input into the script. Not 5 important. 6 But the bottom line is we don't think anything 7 good can come out of this, we don't think it's a 8 legitimate fair use of anything because the movie 9 has never been finished, it has never been 10 commercially released, other than one test showing, 11 and it's our position that we don't want it to be 12 used against us. 13 If we're the ones who have made the movie or, 14 obviously, the estate, if it was made to create jury 15 contamination, well, we want to prove that is not 16 the case. We -- 17 THE COURT: When you say we're the ones who 18 have made the movie, who is the "we"? 19 MR. LIROT: Well, the allegation by Mr. Minton 20 was that Mr. Dandar and all of this anti-Scientology 21 jihad, as it has been referred to as, everybody got 22 together and said, "Well, we're going after 23 Scientology, plus I'm going to fund this movie which 24 will make Scientology look bad and it will 25 contaminate the jury pool, so anybody who watches
522 1 the film will automatically think that Scientology 2 is a bad thing and enter a verdict in favor of 3 whoever is against Scientology." 4 I'm not saying that we buy into that. We don't 5 want to hear it any more. 6 We would like the Court to issue an order 7 abating any further dissemination of this movie, and 8 I think we're the ones speaking from the strongest 9 First Amendment perspective. 10 The movie belongs to Courage Productions. They 11 are willing to let this court enter an order abating 12 any further dissemination to stop that from becoming 13 an issue. We don't want anybody to say it was out 14 there for purposes of jury contamination. We don't 15 want it to be used as any sort of tool in advancing 16 the counterclaim or motion that is before the Court. 17 And we're willing to sacrifice our rights for the 18 benefit of the estate. 19 THE COURT: "We're willing"? 20 MR. LIROT: Courage Productions and the estate 21 are willing to put their rights aside. 22 THE COURT: Now you are saying "we're" and you 23 are representing Courage Productions and you are 24 here arguing for the estate as co-counsel for the 25 estate.
523 1 This is the very thing I'm going to hear about 2 and have some transcript end up up here about you, 3 Mr. Lirot. 4 MR. LIROT: I'll be more specific. I'll be 5 more specific. The motion is on behalf of the 6 estate. I also represent Courage Productions, 7 subject to whatever objections they have that 8 Mr. Minton hasn't approved of my representation. 9 I think what I have stated is my representation 10 is based on the statutory provisions that allow any 11 operating member of an LLC to take steps that are in 12 the best interests of the LLC. And I would 13 certainly submit that. 14 But the argument before this Court is made on 15 behalf of the estate to prevent any adverse argument 16 made that, A, the film was created to contaminate 17 the jury pool or, B, that it did so. 18 And obviously, Judge, the case law, I think, is 19 pretty clear from your perspective. A trial judge 20 has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize 21 the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. 22 There are many cases that stand for that. 23 THE COURT: Well, I agree with that. The 24 problem is the parties that are listed here as 25 defendant is Church of Scientology Flag Service
524 1 Organization, Janis Johnson, Alain Kartuzinski and 2 David Houghton. They don't have a thing to do with 3 the LMT site, they don't have a thing to do with 4 Courage Productions, they don't have a thing to do 5 with the LLC, and they don't have a thing to do with 6 whatever is going on. 7 I mean, I could enter any order I want to in 8 this case against the Church of Scientology Flag 9 Service Organization. The problem is that isn't the 10 right person. 11 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge -- 12 THE COURT: They have no -- no more authority 13 than I do to tell somebody that is not here, that 14 has not been joined, that is not before this Court, 15 to stop disseminating something. 16 MR. LIROT: Well, Judge, I would respectfully 17 disagree with that. I think it is within your 18 province. For instance, the cases where newspapers 19 on many occasions have sought to circumvent gag 20 orders and engage in disseminating different 21 information that certain judges have felt would be 22 prejudicial to whatever it is that they're trying to 23 do to maintain a fair and equal, impartial 24 proceeding. 25 I don't think that Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks,
525 1 anybody associated with whoever is putting this out 2 on the Internet, I don't think they need to be 3 parties. I think that your discretion to maintain 4 the sanctity of these proceedings allows you to 5 issue a blanket order saying nobody does this 6 anywhere. 7 And, quite honestly, Judge Beach's order says 8 that to some extent. He says nobody can show the 9 movie. Is it not constructively showing the movie 10 if you put in 47 snippets that just happen to be 47 11 scenes from the movie? I think an argument could be 12 made to that effect. 13 So it's our position that you do have the 14 authority to issue whatever order of abatement is 15 appropriate. And we would like to see you do it, in 16 an abundance of caution, so we're not down the road 17 saying, "Oh, all these terrible Internet postings 18 have caused the jury pool to be contaminated, voir 19 dire is affected, now on the eve of trial we have to 20 change venue." 21 Quite potentially, Judge, I see a lot of 22 problems that could come out of this. This seems 23 like the most cautious step to take. And I don't 24 think it is in any way asking for any sacrifice of 25 any First Amendment right that isn't vastly
526 1 outweighed by the protection of these proceedings 2 that I think are appropriate. 3 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 4 What says the Church? 5 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I don't have a dog in this 6 fight, as the Court pointed out, on the one hand. 7 But I do have a concern because there was a 8 comment just made about the disingenuous position of 9 this side of the camp. I'm not sure if that is 10 pointing to us, or this over here. 11 THE COURT: Meaning at the Church, or 12 Ms. Brooks' and Mr. Minton's lawyers? 13 MR. FUGATE: Right. I'm sorry, Judge. 14 THE COURT: Right. 15 MR. FUGATE: But the problem that I have is one 16 I raised earlier on. And that is the appearance of 17 conflict or the appearance of impropriety, because I 18 just went up and looked at Defendant's Exhibit 139, 19 which is the lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Lirot on 20 behalf of Patricia Greenway. I won't go through all 21 of that again. 22 But by my count, Mr. Lirot now files a motion 23 on behalf of the plaintiff who -- he says he 24 represents the estate, he filed a notice of 25 appearance representing Mr. Dandar individually and
527 1 Dandar & Dandar. He sued a witness in this hearing. 2 He cross-examined another witness in this hearing 3 who is the 50 percent owner of the company that he's 4 filed a lawsuit on behalf of. 5 So he's representing -- or attacking four 6 witnesses in this proceeding: Ms. Brooks, 7 Mr. Minton, Mr. Dandar and Peter Alexander. And 8 he's filing lawsuits that -- if I read the pleadings 9 correctly, he's at odds with one of the 50 percent 10 owners of the company. 11 I see this -- the reason I raise it, I see this 12 as a potential conflict. And I don't want that to 13 go unnoticed by the Court or unobjected to by us, 14 because if there is an adverse ruling down the road 15 somewhere, I can imagine Mr. Dandar saying, "Geez, I 16 didn't realize this, and maybe I didn't get fair 17 representation by Mr. Lirot." 18 But Mr. Lirot, by my count, represents a whole 19 host of people who are witnesses, who are 20 plaintiffs, who are people that he's cross-examining 21 in this case in front of this Court. And I think it 22 is inappropriate. 23 I think under Florida Bar Rule 4-1.7 A and B, 24 there is a potential conflict. And I just call that 25 to the Court's attention.
528 1 Whatever you want to do with regard to the 2 movie -- you know, we obviously made our position 3 very clear on The Profit and on Courage Productions. 4 And we don't need to be -- 5 THE COURT: What is your position? 6 MR. FUGATE: Our position -- 7 THE COURT: You would agree. Obviously, if you 8 are consistent, you would agree with them. 9 MR. FUGATE: Oh, I do agree that is what it -- 10 we have addressed it in our motion. 11 THE COURT: You would agree you want it taken 12 off the site, right? 13 MR. FUGATE: I would agree it ought not to be 14 disseminated during the pendency of this proceeding. 15 THE COURT: Period. All right. 16 Mr. McGowan. 17 MR. McGOWAN: Your Honor, on behalf of Stacy 18 Brooks, first of all, she's not party to the 19 lawsuit, as the Court points out. And that raises a 20 host of problems. 21 What this motion really is, is seeking 22 injunctive relief. She hasn't been properly served. 23 There is no allegations of irreparable harm and 24 other allegations necessary for an injunction as to 25 Ms. Brooks. And the motion is unsworn.
529 1 In addition to that, it is the Courage 2 Productions -- or at least under the guise of 3 Courage Productions, this very matter is in the 4 Middle District of Florida. Stacy Brooks is a named 5 defendant in that case for the very same activity, 6 putting these so-called snippets on the Internet. 7 And that lawsuit, which is in the court file -- 8 excuse me, I have a cold -- that lawsuit seeks 9 injunctive relief. 10 So, I mean, what you have got here is you have 11 commercial speech that is protected. There is a 12 fair use defense. There is petition for injunction 13 in the Middle District of Florida. We filed a 14 motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment. 15 And they are in the -- their Rule 11C safe harbor 16 right now. 17 So this is nothing more than an end run to what 18 they are seeking in the middle district. They are 19 seeking this Court to do what they can't get the 20 Middle District to do. 21 If they have copyright problems, then they can 22 go and do what they have to do in federal court. If 23 the estate has a problem with Ms. Brooks and they 24 want to enjoin the speech, then they better serve 25 her and they better do it the right way, because --
530 1 because anything -- anything that get signed and 2 enjoined in speech isn't going to have a lot of 3 force and effect. And there is just no jurisdiction 4 to do this as to Ms. Brooks. 5 And so -- so I hear in some motion, unsworn, 6 just served on me by hand -- 7 THE COURT: You would admit, would you not, 8 Counsel -- you are absolutely right in the 9 presentation you make. 10 But, on the other hand, Ms. Brooks really wants 11 to set the record straight and go in and make a 12 global settlement, and help Mr. Minton make a global 13 settlement with the Church of Scientology. 14 If she doesn't do this at the request of both 15 sides here, the only reason would be somehow or 16 another that she must think there is some benefit to 17 the Church, or she would take it off immediately if 18 she wanted to settle with them. 19 MR. McGOWAN: Well, the fact is it is taken 20 off. It is down. 21 THE COURT: Then you shouldn't have any 22 objection, either, other than the fact you don't 23 want me entering any order. What you ought to be 24 saying is, "That is fine, we're going to shut it 25 down, but you should not be entering any order."
531 1 MR. McGOWAN: That is why it is shut down, and 2 I don't know Ms. Brooks ever put anything up there. 3 But, you know, I think that is something the federal 4 court should be addressing. 5 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Howie? 6 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, Mr. Minton is not a 7 defendant or a named party in the federal action. 8 However, they apparently are thinking to enjoin him 9 here. The Court's jurisdiction over him is as 10 counterdefendant. 11 If this is actually a request for injunction, 12 it fails legally because they failed to cite any 13 irreparable harm, and they failed to cite they have 14 no adequate remedy at law. 15 Obviously, if they have adequate remedy at law, 16 they are trying to exercise it in federal court. If 17 this is a motion for protective order, as was just 18 indicated, this is a situation where the snippets 19 that they're referring to are not part of any 20 evidence or documents produced in this case, they 21 were obtained independently. 22 However, given the fact there is no harm being 23 done because the -- the items have been taken off 24 the website, I don't think they provide the Court 25 with an adequate factual basis, either for
532 1 protective order or for an injunctive order, and we 2 would object to the motion to abate. 3 THE COURT: Okay. I'll ask you the same thing 4 that I -- that I asked counsel for Ms. Brooks. 5 The Church here has joined, in essence, with 6 the plaintiff, stating that it would be in 7 everybody's best interests if this wasn't up and 8 running on some site, in the event some potential 9 juror in this case -- in the event there is a trial, 10 a juror sees this and, somehow, because they have 11 seen it, relate it somehow as an anti-Scientology 12 snippet that would cause them to be prejudiced 13 against the Church of Scientology in a lawsuit. 14 If that is not farfetched -- well, that is what 15 the allegation is. So if it sounds farfetched, it 16 does to me, too. 17 Nonetheless, since Mr. Minton wants to settle 18 and wants to make a global settlement with the 19 Church of Scientology, and since they don't want it 20 up and running, then it would seem to me he would 21 want to accommodate that. 22 So I can't grant your order. I have no 23 jurisdiction to enter this order, as far as I am 24 concerned. 25 But I simply tell counsel for Ms. Brooks and
533 1 counsel for Mr. Minton that if there is any truth to 2 the fact that Mr. Minton wants to enter a global 3 settlement with the Church of Scientology, set the 4 record straight, and all of the things he testified 5 to in this Court, he ought to get that off the web 6 as will she, Ms. Brooks. And, therefore, if it is 7 up and running, I can only assume, if they have any 8 control over that, there is something very strange 9 going on. So I'm not going to say any more than 10 that. I think I made myself clear. 11 MR. HOWIE: I'll pass the communication on. 12 Thank you. 13 THE COURT: So your motion is denied but -- 14 because I don't think I have any authority to enter 15 that. 16 MR. LIROT: Your directives are clear, Judge. 17 Thank you. 18 THE COURT: Now, if I'm done with this, I'm 19 going to throw it in the wastebasket. 20 MR. McGOWAN: Do we need an order? 21 THE COURT: I don't know. I guess I do. I 22 guess -- 23 MR. McGOWAN: I'll do it. 24 THE COURT: I guess what I probably need to say 25 is that the defendants joined with the plaintiffs.
534 1 However, the argument was the Court lacked 2 jurisdiction to enter the order, or whatever. 3 MR. McGOWAN: I'll -- 4 THE COURT: The truth of the matter is there 5 is -- it is better not to have it in the order. Put 6 it is denied or put everything in I just said. 7 MR. McGOWAN: The record speaks for itself. 8 THE COURT: I mean, I do want to make it clear 9 that the credibility here of Mr. Minton and 10 Ms. Brooks is at issue in this case in this hearing 11 before me. 12 There is no question that if they are trying to 13 settle something with the Church, the Church's 14 position ought to be exactly what it is, which is 15 take that stuff off the net. That is what the 16 plaintiff wants, too. 17 So there really would be no reason for them not 18 to do that. That is my point. And that is what my 19 order should state. 20 But as far as ordering them to do that, the 21 suit has been filed in federal court. It needs to 22 be decided over in federal court. Okay? 23 All right. Mr. Dandar. 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Weinberg, are you ready?
535 1 MR. WEINBERG: Almost. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I get tired, too, every now and 4 then. 5 THE COURT: I get tired. My neck gets tired. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I know. 7 MR. DANDAR: At least you are looking down, not 8 up. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, you are sitting. 10 THE COURT: Although, actually, sometimes I 11 wish I were standing. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I sort of go back and forth. I 13 get stiff both ways. 14 THE COURT: Me, too. 15 MR. WEINBERG: I marked four exhibits that we 16 did before but I didn't put them in at the break and 17 I just wanted to offer them. 18 This is -- let me get my glasses -- this we 19 marked as 163A, which was the subpoena to Vaughn 20 Young which we went over. 21 163B, which is Kartuzinski's emergency request 22 for expedited production of documents from expert 23 Vaughn Young. 24 163C, which is Mr. Dandar's January 19, 2000 25 fax transmittal with the interrogatories, and
536 1 those -- I think it was -- eleven letters to 2 Mr. Young. 3 And then 163D, which was excerpts from 4 Mr. Young's deposition, particularly those excerpts 5 which I read of my exchange with Mr. Dandar 6 concerning the production. 7 And I offer 163A, B, C, and D into evidence. 8 THE COURT: Any objection? 9 MR. LIROT: No objection, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: They will be received. I have 11 forgotten, I'm sure it's in my stack here, because I 12 have it right here. I know you mentioned it. What 13 was the letter? What was the exhibit number of 14 this? 15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is 73, I think, but let 16 me -- I have it in my notes here. Hang on a second. 17 THE COURT: It's all right. 18 MR. WEINBERG: No. No. I actually have a 19 weird way of filing this. 20 THE COURT: I just thought you could get it for 21 me quickly. 22 MR. WEINBERG: It is 73. I was right. 23 THE COURT: 73? That is Defendant's 73? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is. 25 THE WITNESS: Judge, if I could just tell you
537 1 something on the record. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 THE WITNESS: During the lunch break I called 4 my office and spoke with my paralegal, Donna West. 5 I said, "Find this letter, May 2, 1997. Look 6 everywhere, correspondence, Mr. Young's file, Stacy 7 Young's files, if there is one for her." 8 And she reported back to me this letter does 9 not exist in my office. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Just look at that letter for a second. 12 A Yes. 13 Q We're talking about the May -- whatever -- 2nd, 14 whatever it was, letter, is that the date? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Is that your signature? 17 A Yes, it appears to be. 18 Q And you sent that letter to Mr. Young on or about 19 May 2, 1997. Right? 20 A I assume I did, yes. 21 Q So you have no explanation for how it is you don't 22 have a copy of that letter at this point? 23 A No explanation. 24 Q Or why you didn't have a copy of it when these 25 requests for productions went out?
538 1 A It's the same explanation. It's not in my office 2 anywhere. Now or then. 3 Q Excuse me? 4 A It's not in my office anywhere now and back then 5 when you asked for it in 2000. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Now I'm going to go to a 7 different subject matter. 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to hand Mr. Dandar, 10 for convenience, the fifth amended complaint which 11 is the January 20th -- the extant one, the one that 12 we're dealing with now. I can give you a copy if 13 you want it. 14 THE COURT: That would be good. 15 MR. WEINBERG: It's in your notebook, but it's 16 easier -- 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I'm going to give Mr. Dandar 19 that, and a copy of Mr. Prince's affidavit, which is 20 August 20, '99. And I'll hand you up a copy of 21 that, too -- I believe it's already in evidence in 22 this case -- because I'll be referring to those two 23 things. That is Mr. Prince's affidavit from August 24 of '99. 25 THE COURT: Okay.
539 1 MR. LIROT: So I have the affidavit of Jesse 2 Prince? 3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. That is it. 4 BY MR. WEINBERG: 5 Q Now, Mr. Dandar, you relied solely on the 6 speculation of Jesse Prince with regard to the allegations 7 contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint. 8 Correct? 9 MR. LIROT: Judge, I object to the 10 characterization. I don't think speculation -- I 11 think affidavit is a good enough example. I don't 12 think speculation is -- 13 THE COURT: I think that is true. I think you 14 may refer to it as speculation. But I think -- I 15 don't think he's going to be able to suggest that it 16 was speculation. So I think you need to change your 17 terminology. 18 MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question again. 19 THE COURT: All right. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q You relied solely on the affidavit, the August 20, 22 1999 affidavit of Jesse Prince, with regard to the 23 allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended 24 complaint? Those are the allegations that include end of 25 cycle -- end cycle and decision to let her die.
540 1 A No. 2 Q In addition to the -- did you rely on the Jesse 3 Prince affidavit back in 1999? 4 A In part, yes, I did. 5 Q Okay. In addition -- for the end cycle 6 allegation, what else, other than Jesse Prince, did you rely 7 on? 8 A I relied upon all of the Scientology-published 9 documents that Mr. Prince refers to, and some he doesn't 10 refer to, in his August '99 affidavit. 11 Q Okay. Anything else? 12 A I relied upon other people, one of which was 13 Vaughn Young, but -- and I know this sounds -- I did see a 14 Scientology dictionary of some kind, some document, that had 15 end cycle. And as the definition of end cycle it said, 16 "To," T-O, "die." 17 Q Anything else? 18 A Right now, I can't remember anything else. 19 Q All right. Now, specifically I'm talking about -- 20 my question is focused on -- Paragraph 34. Have you had a 21 chance to look at that? 22 A Of course. Yes. 23 Q The last sentence of Paragraph 34 says -- 24 THE COURT: When you are asking your question 25 you are specifically referring to that --
541 1 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, Paragraph 34. 2 THE COURT: But the part of 34 that deals with 3 end cycle? I mean, obviously he could tell you a 4 lot of things about the entire paragraph. It is end 5 cycle, right? 6 MR. WEINBERG: I will make myself clear. I was 7 really referring to Paragraph 34 where the 8 allegation was contained where this was an 9 intentional act by the Church and management of the 10 Church to allow her to die. That allegation is -- 11 THE COURT: Read to us exactly what you're 12 talking about. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 14 THE COURT: Because -- in other words, the 15 first sentence says: "The extremist medical 16 condition of Lisa McPherson was obvious to 17 Scientology and all of the individuals --" there is 18 a lot of stuff that I have read in expert 19 depositions that he could refer to about that if he 20 had it. 21 I don't think that is what you're talking 22 about. So I'm trying to say what it is you're 23 talking about. 24 MR. WEINBERG: You're right. 25
542 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q "Yet, the defendants, in total and conscious 3 disregard to the rights of Lisa McPherson, willfully, 4 intentionally, wantonly and maliciously, toward the last 5 days of her life, decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e., 6 end cycle, in Scientology terms, rather than save her life, 7 even though her extremist physical condition was known to be 8 entirely reversible. Scientology has no restrictions on 9 seeking licensed professional medical care. This decision 10 made by Scientology, through the Sea Org by David Miscavige, 11 carried out by Kartuzinski, Johnson and Houghton, was only 12 due to their decision to protect Scientology from bad public 13 relations." 14 That is the allegations that I'm talking about. 15 A That is most of 34. The first thing that comes to 16 my mind is Dr. Werner Spitz, pathologist retained by the 17 estate, who told me, after reviewing all of the information 18 on the medical aspects only, that they simply watched her 19 die. So that is why it is in there like that. That comes 20 from Dr. Spitz. 21 Dr. Bandt -- 22 Q Before you go on, so you mean where it says 23 "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, rather than save her 24 life," that comes from Dr. Spitz? 25 A Right.
543 1 Q Okay. What else? 2 THE COURT: Just Dr. Spitz? Or are you -- are 3 you talking about all of the things here? 4 THE WITNESS: No. No. I'm talking about the 5 whole paragraph, but, in particular, the medical 6 part. Dr. Spitz is the one who told me first that 7 his opinion was they watched her die. 8 Dr. Bandt and Dr. Coe also came to the same, 9 independently of all three. They are all acting 10 independently of each other. He came to the same 11 conclusions. 12 Now, Jesse Prince and Vaughn Young contributed 13 to that by bringing in the Scientology thinking 14 about doing everything you can possibly do to 15 protect your seniors, higher-ups, and doing 16 everything you can possibly do to protect the image 17 of Scientology, protect the tech of Scientology, 18 which is the tech never fails anyone. But Lisa 19 McPherson is a prime example it does fail, and so, 20 therefore, in the thinking of Scientology, according 21 to my Scientology experts, and the fact that 22 Scientologists firmly believe that there is 23 reincarnation, you drop your body, meaning you die, 24 you come back later, it's not a big deal. Letting 25 Lisa McPherson die would be the best choice under
544 1 these circumstances, rather than take her back to 2 the emergency room where they had previously 3 promised the ER doctor that they would make sure 4 that she would get better, and if she didn't, they 5 would immediately bring her back, which they didn't 6 do. 7 Now, that is -- this paragraph is a combination 8 of at least three forensic pathologists, plus Jesse 9 Prince, plus Vaughn Young. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Anything else? 12 A It might even be Stacy Brooks. 13 Q Okay, when your allegation -- this is the 14 complaint now, correct? 15 A That's right. 16 Q Okay. When you say the defendants -- 17 THE COURT: Whose machine is that? Sometimes 18 it just gets a little loud. 19 Go ahead. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Sometimes when one 21 concentrates -- I didn't even hear it. But I did 22 when you pointed it out. 23 THE COURT: Right. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q When you say the defendants decided to let Lisa
545 1 McPherson die, you are saying and you are alleging that 2 there was a conscious decision by the management of 3 Scientology, of the Church of Scientology, to allow her to 4 die, correct? That is what the allegation is? 5 A It speaks for itself. 6 Q But am I right? 7 A That is right. 8 Q All right now -- 9 A Somebody made a decision -- 10 Q Well, not just somebody. 11 THE COURT: Not somebody, Mr. Dandar. It says 12 in here that it was -- it was made by Scientology, 13 through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige. 14 THE WITNESS: That is the only one that can 15 make that decision. 16 THE COURT: Well then, what -- the doctors have 17 got absolutely nothing to say about that, they 18 wouldn't know a thing about that. 19 THE WITNESS: That is what I said. I said this 20 is a combination of medical -- 21 THE COURT: Well, who is it that you have that 22 says that? 23 THE WITNESS: On David Miscavige, is Jesse 24 Prince, Vaughn Young and Stacy Brooks. 25
546 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q No other evidence? 3 A Well, there could be other former Scientologists 4 that told me that. 5 THE COURT: Literature? Are you relying on the 6 literature? 7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. 8 THE COURT: I don't know what literature, but 9 he said before the literature. I want to make sure 10 I know what he's talking about. 11 THE WITNESS: There is the RT News. It says 12 PTS Type III has to be immediately reported up the 13 lines to RTC, the command channels of Scientology -- 14 which is the booklet which I now have a complete 15 copy of, by the way -- that talks about reporting up 16 the lines for either PTS Type III or PR problems. 17 And there is some other things that talk about 18 OSA and RTC. Plus the depositions of the OSA 19 members I took in this case that they were 20 immediately on this case as soon as they heard Lisa 21 McPherson took her clothes off and was going to the 22 emergency room, because it was a huge PR flap to 23 Scientology. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q Now, there is not one document, there is not one
547 1 witness that has testified that anyone at the Church of 2 Scientology -- 3 THE COURT: Counselor, if you are getting ready 4 to testify, you're going to have to do it. You 5 can't stand here and say that is -- 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q Do you agree -- 8 THE COURT: All right. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Do you agree -- do you agree -- is there any 11 witness that you're aware of that has testified that David 12 Miscavige or anyone at the Church of Scientology made a 13 conscious decision to let Lisa McPherson die? Anyone? 14 A It would be a high crime of Scientology. They 15 would never testify -- 16 Q Just answer that question. Is there anyone? 17 A Never. No. It is the publications by Scientology 18 that show that. 19 Q Is there any document that you have seen in this 20 case that says that David Miscavige or anyone else in the 21 Church of Scientology made a decision to allow Lisa 22 McPherson to die? 23 A Not specifically that says Lisa McPherson. That's 24 right. 25 Q There is nothing specific that you have in this
548 1 case that indicates that there was any decision made by 2 anyone at the Church of Scientology to allow Lisa McPherson 3 to die, is there? 4 A Well, the medical records say that -- to my 5 experts on the medical side -- that someone let her die. I 6 just told you what Dr. Spitz said. 7 Q Now, on this last sentence here, Paragraph 34, you 8 say, "This decision --" I assume when you say "This 9 decision," that is the decision to let her die, right? 10 A Right, let her die, not do anything, omission. 11 Q But when you say the word "decision," you are 12 saying the decision that was made by, in your allegation, 13 the Church management to permit her to die, that is what you 14 are referring to? 15 A Correct. 16 Q You say, "This decision made by Scientology, 17 through the Sea Org, by David Miscavige, and carried out by" 18 these three individuals, you say, "was only due to their 19 decision to protect Scientology from bad public relations." 20 A Correct. 21 Q Now, what evidence do you have that there was a 22 decision by anyone related to Lisa McPherson to protect -- 23 that had to do with her death to protect Scientology from 24 bad public relations? 25 A The general business practice of the Church of
549 1 Scientology. The publications of the Church of Scientology. 2 The greatest good for the greatest number. The knowing 3 Scientology or keep it working, keep Scientology working by 4 Mr. Hubbard, saying I would rather have you dead than 5 incapable. The introspection rundown. The search and 6 discovery document course that says the psychotics -- 7 sometimes they can't be kept alive. This book, Signs Of 8 Survival, that said if you blow 2.0 on the tone scale, which 9 someone who is psychotic or chronically ill would be, if you 10 can't get them any better, then you let them die quietly and 11 without sorrow. 12 That is the only thing that comes to mind at this 13 time. 14 Q All right. And all that was in your mind when you 15 made this allegation in this complaint that is the extant 16 complaint in this case? 17 A At least that much was in my mind. 18 Q Now, discovery has been going on since February of 19 '97, and it's been ongoing throughout every iteration of the 20 complaint in this case. Right? 21 A Correct. 22 Q And there has been discovery on Paragraph 34 -- 23 the allegation of Paragraph 34, the end cycle, permit her to 24 die, public relations allegation, since the fifth amended 25 complaint was filed. Correct?
550 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. And you have been asked, in discovery, the 3 question, "What evidence do you have," because in these 4 civil lawsuits each of us parties have an obligation to set 5 forth what the evidence is that supports various 6 allegations. Right? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And specifically you were asked -- I'll just pull 9 it out here -- there were interrogatories that were served 10 by Alain Kartuzinski. 11 And amongst other things, there were questions -- 12 there was a question, Question 29, it's an interrogatory -- 13 the first set of interrogatories propounded by 14 Mr. Kartuzinski, served on February 14, 2000, which is right 15 after this extant version of the complaint was filed. 16 And it says, "Identify all evidence, including 17 documents and testimony of witnesses, upon which you rely to 18 support your contention in Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended 19 complaint that the defendants willfully, intentionally, 20 wantonly and maliciously decided to let Lisa McPherson die, 21 specifically including in your response such evidence that 22 demonstrates that Kartuzinski decided to let Lisa McPherson 23 die." 24 And the answer was, "Objection. Work product. 25 Without waiving objection, see Dr. Coe's deposition,
551 1 affidavit of Jesse Prince and affidavit of Dr. Spitz." 2 Now, do you recall that? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you want to look at it? 5 A How long ago was that? 6 Q Excuse me? 7 A Was that in '99? 8 Q No, February of 2000. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach, your Honor? 10 A No. If you say that is what it says, that is 11 fine. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q All right. And since that day, since that 14 production, you -- until this very day, you haven't in any 15 way indicated that there is any other witness, other than 16 Jesse Prince, Dr. Coe and Dr. Spitz, that would support the 17 allegation contained in Paragraph 34, correct? This is it? 18 A I'm not sure. I have answered Mr. Kartuzinski's 19 interrogatories many times, so I'm not sure if there has 20 been amendments to that. If you tell me that is the only 21 answer ever -- 22 THE COURT: Has nobody else ever asked that 23 question? 24 MR. WEINBERG: I believe that in this case we 25 tried not to have the parties ask the same
552 1 questions. So I believe in this situation, 2 Mr. Kartuzinski submitted the interrogatories that 3 specifically addressed those allegations in the 4 extant version of the fifth amended complaint. 5 THE COURT: I would say -- obviously, I don't 6 know that, and I hear you saying you believe, so I 7 assume you don't necessarily know that either, you 8 are assuming, the best you can tell. 9 Obviously, any answer to that response on 10 behalf of any of the defendants would have to be 11 added together, even if -- 12 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. 13 THE COURT: Okay? If there is another 14 interrogatory, and there is more there, then you can 15 kind of add it together. 16 I mean, this defense is being presented fairly 17 unified, which is obvious from the fact there has 18 never been a defendant's lawyer, here from the 19 moment this started, other than the Church's 20 lawyers. 21 MR. WEINBERG: At this hearing? 22 THE COURT: Yes, and at many other hearings. 23 But the truth of the matter is you all are 24 protecting those three defendants most of the time. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, we have -- I mean, the way
553 1 I would put it is we have joint interests. And 2 there is no reason to file five different motions 3 when we can file one on behalf of everybody. That 4 is what we've tried to do in this case. 5 THE COURT: I understand that. And I think you 6 understand what I'm saying. The deal is, is that 7 these people do not have the first lawyer here, 8 Mr. Houghton's lawyer isn't here. Mr. Kartuzinski's 9 lawyer isn't here. And -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: Actually, now Mr. Houghton is 11 represented by Mr. Moxon, as well, because, 12 remember, Bob Pulin moved to Hawaii. 13 THE COURT: I think Ms. Kobrin was representing 14 her. 15 MR. WEINBERG: They are partners. 16 MR. MOXON: We're partners. 17 THE COURT: Then he's not speaking on behalf of 18 the Church then. 19 MR. WEINBERG: But I agree with your point. 20 We're not arguing -- 21 THE COURT: I hope not, because it is very 22 clear to me the lawyers for the Church are 23 representing the interests of these individual 24 defendants. 25 I am simply saying if these individual
554 1 defendants, or the Church, put out interrogatories, 2 as far as I'm going to be concerned, if he responded 3 and he has forgotten to put it one place, so he put 4 it somewhere else, he gets to add it in. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely. I agree. 6 THE COURT: All right. 7 MR. WEINBERG: And if I thought there was 8 something else, I would put it in front of him. I 9 don't think there is, particularly in light of his 10 answer today. 11 THE COURT: All right. 12 MR. WEINBERG: So I'm going to mark this as the 13 next exhibit. We've just gone over it, so we don't 14 need to go over it again. 15 THE COURT: Well, I certainly heard about 16 literature many, many times in response to this end 17 cycle business. I have seen literature many times 18 in response to the end cycle. I have seen, in this 19 hearing, stuff about end cycle. 20 So the idea that the Church of Scientology 21 didn't know that he was relying on Church of 22 Scientology literature, despite the fact he didn't 23 have Alain Kartuzinski's response -- 24 MR. WEINBERG: That isn't my point. I'm going 25 to get to end cycle in a minute.
555 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. WEINBERG: That is not my point at all. 3 I'm really talking witnesses here in the 4 interrogatories. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. WEINBERG: I have marked as Defendant's 7 Exhibit 164 -- it is the response of February 14 of 8 Mr. Dandar. And specifically we will refer to 9 Number 29. 10 BY MR. WEINBERG: 11 Q Just take a look at it. This was something that 12 was sworn to by Dell Liebreich and filed by you in this 13 case, correct? 14 A Yes. The exhibit number again? 15 Q 164. 16 A Okay. 17 Q Is that right? 18 A Yeah. This is the first answer to this first set 19 of interrogatories. I think I have answered this five 20 times, if I'm not mistaken. 21 THE COURT: Answered what five times? 22 THE WITNESS: The first set of interrogatories 23 by Mr. Kartuzinski. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q Not this particular question, because you answered
556 1 it the first time? 2 A Yes. But -- if I had my file I could tell you for 3 sure, but I didn't bring that today. 4 MR. WEINBERG: There were motions to compel 5 with regard to some of the other questions, I 6 believe. But that particular question he answered. 7 I'll put this back. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q All right. Now, you said, in response to both my 10 question and, I believe, something that Judge Schaeffer 11 asked you a few minutes ago, that in addition to Jesse 12 Prince and Vaughn Young, that you may have been relying on 13 Stacy Young, as well, with regard to the allegations in 14 Paragraph 34. Right? Isn't that what you said? 15 A Yes. 16 Q But you certainly weren't relying on her for the 17 end of cycle allegation, were you? 18 A No. 19 Q No? In other words, you agree? 20 A I agree, I was not. She was there -- she had 21 filed -- in our motion to add parties back in September, I 22 had a declaration from the Wollersheim case where she talked 23 about the micro-management of David Miscavige in all 24 Scientology corporations. 25 Q Was it the Wollersheim case, or the Fishman case,
557 1 that you -- 2 A I -- well, I think it's the Wollersheim case. 3 There was no heading on the affidavit or -- or the 4 declaration. 5 Q It was attached to your original motion -- or 6 supplement to your motion? 7 A It was a supplemental additional authority, I 8 believe. Vicki Aznaran talked about it. 9 THE COURT: We all know what it is. 10 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 11 THE COURT: It's in the -- it's in this 12 hearing. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q And you knew, back in 1999 when you filed this 16 Paragraph 34 of the amended complaint, that the one example 17 that Stacy Brooks -- back then Stacy Young -- referred to in 18 her prior affidavit about introspection rundown that she had 19 done, and the one example of the introspection rundown that 20 Jesse Prince had been on and set forth in his affidavit, 21 turned out to be the same woman? You knew that, right? 22 A I knew they did one together. So, yeah, I would 23 have to -- yes, I would have to say yes to that. 24 Q And you interrogated both of them at that time, 25 before you filed this complaint, as to what the
558 1 circumstances were of their one life experience on an 2 introspection rundown? 3 A I don't think I interrogated them. But I did ask 4 them questions. 5 Q You knew back at that time that the woman that 6 they had been on the introspection rundown with did not die? 7 You knew that? 8 A I knew that. 9 Q You knew that there had been no orders from anyone 10 above to let her die or permit her to die or to do what is 11 characterized in the complaint as an end of cycle? You knew 12 that, too, right? 13 A I knew that because Jesse Prince and Stacy Brooks 14 told me that they made every effort they could to get her to 15 drink water. Because had they not, she would have died. 16 Q And you knew, at that time in 1999 when you filed 17 the complaint, that no witness that you had talked to, 18 including Mr. Young, Ms. Young or Jesse Prince, had any 19 experience that the introspection rundown had ever been -- 20 had ever been used to murder someone? You knew that? 21 A Well, if you're going to use the word "murder," I 22 can't answer that question the way you phrased it. 23 Q Okay. Well, let me ask it a different way. You 24 had no evidence -- 25 THE COURT: Asked to let him or her die,
559 1 intentionally let him or her die. That is the way 2 you stated. You didn't use the word "murder" here. 3 MR. WEINBERG: I'll ask the question a 4 different way. 5 THE COURT: I just asked mine. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 7 THE COURT: Let Lisa McPherson die. You said 8 they decided to let Lisa McPherson die. 9 THE WITNESS: Right. They did not put a gun to 10 her head. They didn't do anything -- this is an act 11 of omission. It's like watching somebody bleed to 12 death in front of you. You didn't cause the person 13 to bleed, but you are standing there, or you are 14 walking out of the room, and they are bleeding to 15 death and they can't save themselves. That is an 16 act of omission. 17 That is what my medical doctors said happened 18 in this case. They just didn't do what a first 19 grader would have done. They looked at this woman 20 in a coma-like state and they just virtually 21 abandoned her. And they said that is homicide. And 22 I agree with that. 23 THE COURT: Well, as I read it, they said it is 24 manslaughter, which is kind of a reckless 25 indifference to human life. It certainly does not
560 1 equate, nor is it equatable, with intentional 2 murder. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, no. I agree with you. 4 THE COURT: Your complaint is phrased as if 5 it's an intentional decision by higher-ups to allow 6 her to die intentionally. That is murder. 7 Manslaughter is reckless indifference to human life. 8 THE WITNESS: Well, I do say in -- I believe 9 I'm saying this, Judge, in this Paragraph 34, "Total 10 and conscious disregard for the rights of Lisa 11 McPherson, willfully, intentionally, wantonly and 12 maliciously, rather than save her life, decided to 13 let her die." 14 That is how they told me and that is how it is 15 in the deposition. 16 THE COURT: Whose deposition? 17 THE WITNESS: It's in Dr. Spitz's -- 18 THE COURT: No, it isn't. I read it. It is 19 not. It is not in Dr. Spitz's deposition. It 20 certainly isn't in Dr. Coe's deposition. And it 21 really isn't in Dr. Spitz's deposition like that. 22 I mean, he basically kind of gives you a very 23 clear manslaughter. It's very questionable, to me, 24 as to whether or not he gives you an intentional 25 murder. In fact, I think he specifically said it
561 1 isn't. 2 THE WITNESS: And I'm saying to you I'm 3 agreeing with, of course, what my experts say. I'm 4 telling you -- or I'm suggesting to you that this 5 paragraph comports to what my medical experts told 6 me, which is in their deposition, also, after this 7 complaint was filed, is that no one shot her or 8 intentionally did anything to cause the injury. 9 They simply did not do anything, when it was obvious 10 they should have done something. It is an omission. 11 THE COURT: If you would have phrased it like 12 that, you would be in pretty good shape. That is 13 not how you phrased it. And you can't sit here and 14 pretend that is how you phrased it. 15 You phrased it like there was a conscious 16 decision sent down through channels to these workers 17 that told them, don't give her water, let her die. 18 That is what you said. And you have got no proof. 19 THE WITNESS: If you recall, even Stacy Brooks, 20 in this hearing, told you, Judge, that end cycle and 21 her definition and understanding as a former 22 Scientologist, is if someone has a terminal illness, 23 there are processing, as they call them in 24 Scientology, to help the person die. 25 THE COURT: Well, of course according to your
562 1 expert -- according to your experts and according to 2 everything you would be telling this jury, she did 3 not have a terminal illness. 4 You would be saying, and your experts would be 5 saying, all they had to do is take her to the 6 doctor, hook up the IVs and she would be a living, 7 walking, breathing girl today. 8 THE WITNESS: That is exactly right. 9 THE COURT: So that is right. And I know it. 10 So what you have said in here, and what you're going 11 to try to promote in here, is a decision was made 12 "She's no good to us, we don't want her anymore, let 13 her die." That is what you said. 14 THE WITNESS: That is what I said. 15 THE COURT: And you don't have any proof of it. 16 THE WITNESS: But what I have is the medical 17 evidence of my doctors telling me how in the world 18 can anybody let someone get in this condition and 19 not rush them to the hospital. 20 THE COURT: Because they acted with reckless 21 indifference to human life. It is called 22 manslaughter. And it surely is a far cry from what 23 you put in 34. 24 And what the Church is saying, and what they 25 have been saying, and -- once it became apparent to
563 1 me what they were saying, is this is what brought 2 them so much grief. You said out there, everybody 3 said out there, they murdered Lisa McPherson. You 4 said it, and you don't have any proof of it. You 5 still don't have any proof of it, right, except what 6 Jesse Prince may have said? 7 THE WITNESS: I have -- I have proof of a 8 homicide. 9 THE COURT: You have a proof of a homicide 10 through manslaughter. 11 THE WITNESS: I agree with you. That is -- 12 THE COURT: You have some evidence of that. I 13 shouldn't say you have proof, but you have doctors. 14 THE WITNESS: And that is what I have been 15 saying all along. 16 THE COURT: No, you haven't. 17 THE WITNESS: If I wanted to say they murdered 18 her, Judge, I think I would have used the word 19 "murder." But I didn't. 20 Paragraph 34 is the reckless indifference, it's 21 the total and conscious disregard, which Florida 22 Statutes equates to intentional conduct. It is like 23 running a stop sign totally drunk. 24 THE COURT: Well, I think what he's saying now 25 is basically he doesn't have any proof that David
564 1 Miscavige, from on high, I said that lightly, but, 2 you know, the top dog, so to speak, top banana, head 3 of the Church, said, "Let's see, she's got problems 4 down there, I think she's better off dead than 5 alive," so they chose to step back and let her die. 6 There is no proof of that. And apparently he's 7 saying that is not what he meant for proof. But -- 8 MR. WEINBERG: I can read -- 9 THE COURT: But I offered him the opportunity, 10 at the beginning of the hearing, to tell me 11 differently. And I think he said no. 12 MR. WEINBERG: And I agree with you. And I can 13 read, too. And this is what we've been dealing with 14 since -- since it first appeared in this case in 15 September of '99, and ended up in this extant fifth 16 amended complaint. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q I have one more question for you, Mr. Dandar. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I need to add something to 20 what you said, Judge. 21 I have no document from David Miscavige saying, 22 "End cycle Lisa McPherson." 23 I would never get such a document from this 24 defendant that has, according to the affidavits and 25 declarations from other cases that I have seen --
565 1 they -- they destroy documents all of the time. The 2 last three days of Lisa McPherson's life, those 3 records that did exist are now nonexistent. Those 4 records may have showed us a great deal that was 5 going on. 6 THE COURT: Yes, they might have. And I 7 suppose that is something you might allude to for 8 some sort of reckless conduct or what have you. 9 But it's awfully difficult to allude to 10 something that is not there, to just say, from these 11 little notes that somehow they wrote in there, "Dear 12 Sir," is how they write, "Dear Sir, I got a message 13 from David Miscavige and it told me --" that ain't 14 going to be in those notes. 15 The notes might say, "I thought she needed more 16 water and I thought she was getting dehydrated, we 17 ought to take her to the doctor. And Janis said, 18 'No, you know, she's not that sick yet.'" That is 19 what you might find in those notes. 20 But you wouldn't find anything saying, "David 21 Miscavige gave us a message and it was to let her 22 die." 23 THE WITNESS: Based upon the Scientology 24 business practice of who -- who are the people to 25 get involved in this type of situation to make the
566 1 big decisions, that is not the little people at the 2 little Ft. Harrison Hotel or wherever she was. 3 That is from Los Angeles. That is from the top 4 management people in Scientology where David 5 Miscavige sits at the very top. 6 I have several witnesses, one of whom is going 7 to be Teresa Summers, who used to be a commanding 8 officer -- 9 THE COURT: Well, look, is she one of your 10 witnesses? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Not for Paragraph 34. You didn't 13 mention her. 14 THE WITNESS: I forgot then -- I didn't have 15 her at the time I wrote the paragraph. That is how 16 I was answering the question. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 THE WITNESS: I have discovery of her since 19 then. And she was present in the office when an end 20 cycle order came in for someone who was dying of a 21 terminal disease. 22 And it's true, Lisa McPherson did not have a 23 terminal disease. This should never have happened, 24 if what is published by the Church of Scientology on 25 go to a medical doctor was followed. For some
567 1 reason, they didn't do what they published they 2 would do. They did something totally different. 3 THE COURT: Well, there are two explanations 4 for that, isn't it? 5 Number one, their experts are right and your 6 experts are right. That is what you have juries 7 for. That is the first explanation. 8 And the second explanation is, is that they 9 were negligent. They were grossly negligent. And 10 they didn't realize how sick she was. And they were 11 too slow. They should have been quicker. 12 And that is how you can prevail in the lawsuit 13 and get money for it, for the wrongful death. That 14 isn't what you said. 15 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying -- 16 THE COURT: You tried to say and you tried to 17 imply, and apparently now that I have been through 18 this hearing, you tried to put out there in the 19 community that the Church, through its leader, 20 determined that this woman should die, made a 21 decision that said, "Don't take care of her, let her 22 die." 23 And the truth of the matter is that is a pretty 24 outrageous allegation. And if you have proof of it, 25 it comes from Jesse Prince.
568 1 THE WITNESS: No, not just Jesse Prince. It 2 comes from Vaughn Young, and there is some coming 3 from Teresa Summers. And I expect there will be 4 some coming now from Bill Franks. 5 THE COURT: All right. Well, then he said he 6 has more evidence. Now, see, I want you to 7 understand this, because we're going to get to this 8 one day. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I know. 10 THE COURT: I gave him this opportunity on day 11 one, because I was kind of confused. 12 Now, listen to me, Mr. Lirot. I don't know 13 what you are sitting back there doing, but listen to 14 this. 15 On the first day of the hearing I made it real 16 clear that I want to know what in the world and 17 where it was you-all were coming from. And I 18 thought you were coming from a theory, I believe I 19 said, of -- some sort of manslaughter theory, 20 reckless display, something like that. 21 Mr. Dandar was very clear to point out to me I 22 was wrong. This was after I pointed out to -- to -- 23 to Mr. Lieberman whatever it was legally. Then I 24 finally said, "We're not going there." He was 25 talking about all this. I said, "We're not going
569 1 there. They're talking about a wrongful death, 2 recklessness, some sort of manslaughter type 3 theory." 4 Then I finally looked at you and said, "Isn't 5 that so?" 6 And very clearly he told me -- Mr. Dandar said, 7 "No, that is not what we're saying. What we're 8 saying is they intentionally -- intentionally --" 9 that is not manslaughter, "intentionally allowed her 10 to die." 11 And I said, "I apologize to Mr. Lieberman." I 12 think the record will reflect that. 13 I went home, I read the complaint, and I came 14 back and I said I was really wrong. I thought we 15 were trying a wrongful death here. I thought it all 16 along. I thought, when we did the Frye hearing, I 17 thought we had two different theories, one would be 18 this, one would be that. 19 I have read the complaint. I have listened to 20 what Mr. Dandar said. And, you're right, that is 21 what they're saying. They corrected me. Nobody 22 said, "No, Judge, you don't get it." 23 So now I'm saying again that what you have said 24 here, as clear as a bell -- it's clear as a bell, 25 you might as well have said murder. It says that
570 1 David Miscavige, the man at the top, made a decision 2 that Lisa McPherson no longer needed to live. And 3 he passed the word down, through his underlings, and 4 it got to the workers, and they stood back and let 5 her die, i.e., end cycle, which is exactly what it 6 says, "decided to let Lisa McPherson die, i.e., end 7 cycle." 8 And I have just -- he's asked you what your 9 proof was. You said what your proof was. And you 10 will have to prove it. I mean, you'll have to come 11 forward with some evidence of that to prove it. 12 But, you know, that is what their point has 13 been all along is you have not talked reckless 14 indifference or manslaughter; you talked intentional 15 acts, and you talked about it from their superior 16 leader. 17 And they take great offense at that because 18 they didn't think you had much proof of that other 19 than Mr. Prince in his affidavit. 20 Anyway, proceed. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q A couple more questions on this point. 24 You don't have any evidence, testimony from 25 anyone, affidavit or testimony, indicating -- saying that
571 1 the introspection rundown has ever had an end of cycle 2 order, as you use it, attached to it? There is no evidence 3 of that, is there? Not in Prince's affidavit, not in Vaughn 4 Young's, not in Stacy Brooks'? 5 A No, there is no evidence, that is right, as of 6 right now. 7 Q And Vaughn Young didn't testify, in his trial 8 testimony that was done by you literally on the day that the 9 final version of the fifth amended complaint was filed, and 10 he didn't indicate in any affidavit that he had any 11 knowledge whatsoever of end of cycle. He doesn't say 12 anything about end of cycle in his testimony, does he? 13 A I don't remember him saying that. I do remember 14 him talking about the public relations aspect of how far the 15 Church of Scientology will go to protect their public 16 relations image. 17 THE COURT: Could I ask a question? 18 MR. WEINBERG: Sure. 19 THE COURT: This is sort of mind-boggling to 20 me. Is it really something that you mean to 21 present, that the Church of Scientology would have 22 worse relations if they had taken Lisa McPherson to 23 the hospital, dehydrated -- let her be dehydrated -- 24 hydrated, I should say, if that is what the problem 25 was, and let her either stay or leave or whatever,
572 1 than it was to let her die and go through this flap? 2 THE WITNESS: It's -- it makes -- outside of 3 the thinking of the Church of Scientology, it 4 boggles the mind, it boggles my mind. 5 But I'll have to rely on my former -- my 6 experts who are former Scientologists, especially 7 Mr. Prince, who talks about other end cycles he has 8 seen. 9 THE COURT: I understand that. And I 10 understand that Mr. Prince may say that. 11 But, I mean, I do understand what you alleged 12 and what you said the Church feels about bad public 13 relations and some of those things. 14 But, I mean, nobody in their right mind would 15 think they would want this woman to die in their 16 care because they thought somehow that would not 17 cause bad public relations. Why, they would know 18 very well that would cause huge public relations, as 19 it, indeed, did here. 20 I mean, these -- these are not stupid people 21 we're dealing with. 22 THE WITNESS: The question is why did they take 23 her fifty minutes away to another hospital to -- and 24 lie to their own public Scientology member, 25 Dr. Minkoff, who said they lied -- Janis Johnson
573 1 lied to him. And he was appalled and shocked about 2 her lies about the condition of Lisa McPherson. 3 THE COURT: Wouldn't you say that is reckless 4 indifference, perhaps? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's a little more 6 than that. 7 THE COURT: Why did she take her at all? Why 8 didn't she kind of bury her in the backyard? How 9 stupid, Mr. Dandar. 10 THE WITNESS: It would be a death -- in this 11 physical condition, either at the Ft. Harrison Hotel 12 or Hacienda, wherever she was, it would be a death 13 that they would -- 14 THE COURT: I'm tired of hearing that. Do you 15 have any proof of that, she was at the Hacienda 16 where there were cockroaches? 17 THE WITNESS: Well, that is where the 18 cockroaches are. 19 THE COURT: I don't know if there are 20 cockroaches there or not. But you have no proof of 21 that, and I'm tired of hearing about it. 22 THE WITNESS: Well, I have eyewitness testimony 23 that there is cockroach -- infestation of 24 cockroaches at the Hacienda. 25 THE COURT: Oh, boy. I just don't think I can
574 1 stand another minute. 2 Do you have any proof of the fact that Lisa 3 McPherson was at the Hacienda instead of at the Ft. 4 Harrison? 5 THE WITNESS: Testimony? No. 6 THE COURT: Do you have any proof? 7 THE WITNESS: No. I have no testimony, no 8 documents. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Well, do you have any proof? 11 A I have cockroaches feeding on Lisa McPherson's 12 body. And if -- if there is none at the hotel, then where 13 is she? 14 THE COURT: No, actually what you have, you 15 have somebody that says there is a 80 percent chance 16 they are consistent with cockroaches. At best you 17 have a 20 percent chance it is not consistent with 18 cockroaches. In your best case you have a doctor 19 that says it is 80 percent consistent with 20 cockroaches. Anybody can look at that and figure 21 there is a 20 percent chance that it isn't 22 consistent with cockroaches. 23 You have a whole bunch of other folks that say 24 it is abrasion. 25 Guess what? With the facts as they are, you
575 1 can look at it and say, well, the 20 percent chance 2 must be the right one here because there is no 3 cockroaches at the Ft. Harrison. 4 THE WITNESS: I -- there is other evidence. 5 Dr. Goff also said, Judge, that based upon his 6 expertise and experience, he can't think of anything 7 else but cockroaches that would have caused those 8 marks. 9 THE COURT: You know, I swear to God I don't 10 think you read the same thing I read. 11 He can't even say it's an insect. He doesn't 12 know if it's an insect or abrasion. He has to look 13 to the medical examiner to tell you whether it's an 14 insect or abrasion. The guy that says it's an 15 insect or abrasion can't tell you he's a 100 percent 16 sure. He can tell you within reasonable degree of 17 medical probability, which is 51 percent. 18 So, guess what? You put all this together, 19 what do you have, a good, smart-thinking lawyer like 20 you? What do you have? 21 THE WITNESS: You have a prima facie case. 22 THE COURT: Well, you have -- what you have got 23 is a good probability, unless you can establish that 24 there are, A, roaches at the Ft. Harrison, or, B, 25 she was at Hacienda.
576 1 What you really have is probably they were 2 abrasions. And that is exactly what they are. And 3 your Dr. Goff wouldn't argue with that because he 4 said he wouldn't even begin to say whether they are 5 insect bites or not. 6 THE WITNESS: Their own entomologist, who is 7 with a master's degree -- I can't remember his name 8 right now but I took his deposition, Judge -- he 9 said this -- based on the pictures he was shown by 10 defense counsel, shows openings in the door which is 11 right adjacent to the public street, and there is a 12 little plant area between the door and the public 13 street. He said those openings in that door are 14 sufficient enough to have roaches or other insects 15 come into that room. And they are attracted by 16 what? There is no lights on in the room and there 17 is feces -- 18 MR. WEINBERG: That is not true. That is not 19 what the testimony was. There were lights on and 20 people in the room. 21 THE COURT: Yes, you just don't really need to 22 go there. I have already entered that order. 23 But I just was trying to say -- you seem to be 24 playing right into -- I hate to tell you this, but 25 you seem to be playing right into their hands here.
577 1 It seems like maybe you haven't read their 2 motions or terminating sanctions. It seems as if 3 everything you want to just continue and continue to 4 say and do, with very little proof of it, kind of 5 shows what you were really out to do is to damn the 6 Church of Scientology. 7 THE WITNESS: That is not true at all. 8 THE COURT: Well, it sure does sound like it. 9 And that is what they're saying. And that is what 10 they're saying in their counterclaim. And that is 11 what they're saying in their motion for terminating 12 sanctions, that -- it goes beyond that. 13 What they are saying is that is exactly what 14 the situation is, and that you knew it, and that you 15 and Mr. Minton were in on it together, and this is 16 what you really had in mind to do, which was to set 17 out to ruin, put down, do away with, cause 18 embarrassment to, on and on, the Church and its 19 members. 20 And, of course, you say, well, that wasn't 21 true. But -- but -- you know, you do understand 22 that is what they're saying? 23 THE WITNESS: I do. This allegation, from my 24 experience in doing personal injury/wrongful death 25 cases for over 20 years, this allegation was an
578 1 allegation that I would make against a really, 2 really, really bad nursing home who let someone in 3 bedsores just sit and suffer and die from the 4 bedsore. Someone who made a decision, "I'm not 5 going to do anything about it. I'm going to do the 6 act of omission," and the person dies from a 7 bedsore. Or the person bleeds to death in bed in a 8 bad, bad nursing home. 9 I could care less about the Church of 10 Scientology. I didn't even know about the Church of 11 Scientology, and I lived in Pinellas County, south 12 county, before I ever got this case. I could care 13 less about the Church of Scientology. 14 I'm not Mr. Minton's puppet. I wasn't on his 15 agenda. I was doing the wrongful death case. 16 And this allegation is above a manslaughter 17 allegation but it's below a murder count. It's in 18 the between now. And it is based on my medical 19 doctors, not Jesse Prince. 20 THE COURT: All right. 21 Continue. 22 BY MR. WEINBERG: 23 Q The fact is that throughout this case you have, in 24 pleadings and in public statements, accused the Church of 25 murder, M-U-R-D-E-R, with regard to Lisa McPherson.
579 1 Correct? 2 A No. 3 Q All right. Well, let me show you -- 4 A I don't believe I ever used -- 5 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I think you have. I 6 think there is already evidence in this record of 7 that. 8 THE WITNESS: Well, it is the way he framed his 9 question. I don't think I ever used the word 10 "murder" in public. 11 I did use "murder" in a brief to the 2d DCA, 12 because I had my pathologist telling me that is what 13 it was. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q Well, I'm going to show you -- it won't take 16 long -- 17 THE COURT: That is where I read it, in several 18 pleadings. 19 MR. WEINBERG: You also heard it on video. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Remember the December 4, 1999 appearance with the 22 media there where the Lisa McPherson Trust was announced, 23 and your opening line was -- and we played it when 24 Ms. Brooks was on the stand -- "Thank you. I'm here to talk 25 about the murder of Lisa McPherson by a cult known as the
580 1 Church of Scientology." 2 Do you remember saying that to the media and to 3 the public on December 4, 1999? 4 A I think I remember the video being played here. 5 Q And you remember saying that. Right? 6 A I don't remember saying it until you showed me the 7 video. 8 Q And do you remember that on -- that on -- 9 A But I thought I was talking about seeing it -- but 10 if you say that is what I said, fine. I thought I was 11 talking about end cycle. 12 Q Well, we just marked it as -- the transcript of 13 your speech. Want to take a look at the transcript and take 14 a look at the opening line? Is that what it says, what I 15 just read to you? 16 A That is what this says, the transcript that I 17 guess somebody at the Church typed up. 18 Q Well, you surely don't want me to play that video 19 clip again when Ms. Brooks was on the stand, but I'll be 20 happy to play it for you. 21 A No. No. It is okay. 22 THE COURT: I mean, if he doesn't remember 23 saying it, you better play it. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Well, let's play that for him. 25 Let's key that up.
581 1 ______________________________________ 2 (Whereupon, the videotape is played.) 3 "I'm here to talk about the murder of Lisa 4 McPherson by a cult known as the Church of Scientology." 5 (This concludes the playing of the videotape.) 6 ______________________________________ 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q Does that refresh your recollection? 10 A It certainly does. 11 Q And the press was there, there was a microphone 12 sitting there from one of the local TV stations. Correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q You weren't reluctant about accusing the Church, 15 in December of '99, right after you had filed your motion to 16 add David Miscavige under the Sea Org theory, with this 17 Paragraph 34, saying that he had ordered the death of Lisa 18 McPherson; you weren't reluctant to say that to the public 19 on December 4, 1999, that this was murder, were you? 20 A Well, it was prior to the hearing, ten days. 21 Q Prior to the hearing, after the motion was filed? 22 A Okay, did I talk about the motion being filed? I 23 don't think so. 24 Q Well -- 25 THE COURT: Counselor, you two just really need
582 1 to stop. 2 What you wanted to ask him is whether or not he 3 said that Lisa McPherson had been murdered. He 4 couldn't recall it. And now you have shown him one 5 instance. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 7 THE COURT: Do you have more than that to show 8 him? 9 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I do. 10 THE COURT: Well, then go ahead, show him that, 11 then we're going to take a break. 12 BY MR. WEINBERG: 13 Q Let me hand you the answer brief you filed in the 14 2d DCA on August 4, 1999. I will refer you to Page 1, the 15 statement of the case. And I -- in the first paragraph, I 16 want you to read what you said in the last sentence that is 17 yellowed. 18 A "This is a case of murder by an organization 19 calling itself a church." 20 Q That is the second time. You acknowledge you 21 filed that pleading. Right? 22 A Yes. I did. 23 THE COURT: What -- what document is that? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Here. I'm going to mark it. 25 THE WITNESS: The answer brief of an appeal
583 1 brief filed by Bennetta Slaughter and other people 2 who worked for the AMC Publishing Company. 3 THE COURT: I have seen this. This isn't the 4 first time I have seen this. It has been filed 5 somewhere in this case. 6 MR. FUGATE: It's in a number of pleadings, I 7 think, to the Second District, your Honor. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark this as our next 9 exhibit, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: I guess what I'm telling you, this 11 is not the first time that I have seen that 12 allegation in an appellate brief or in an appellate 13 pleading by Mr. Dandar. I don't know if this is 14 where I have seen it before, or if it is in this 15 stack of stuff somewhere. 16 MR. WEINBERG: It's not in the stack of stuff, 17 because we haven't put this document before you. 18 But I think we've referred to it before. 19 THE COURT: All right. What is the number 20 here? 21 THE CLERK: 165. 22 MR. WEINBERG: And I move 165 into evidence, 23 which is the answer brief of appellee filed by 24 Mr. Dandar on August 4, 1999. 25 THE COURT: Any objection?
584 1 MR. LIROT: No. No objection, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: It will be received. 3 BY MR. WEINBERG: 4 Q Okay, now do you remember filing a motion to 5 dismiss the counterclaim with prejudice, motion to strike 6 and motion for sanctions on February 26, 2001? 7 A No. But I'm sure if you have it there, I did. 8 Q Okay. Let me hand that up to you. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Do you have another copy of 10 that? 11 All right, I'm going to hand this to you. And 12 if I could stand by Mr. Dandar, that seems to be my 13 only copy. 14 BY MR. WEINBERG: 15 Q All right, this is a pleading you filed, right, in 16 2001? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And can you read what you have yellowed there? 19 A What you have yellowed? 20 Q What I have yellowed. Correct. 21 A "Redress for the intentional torture and killing 22 of Lisa McPherson." 23 Q Then, at the bottom, you talk about also, same 24 words, "For the killing and torture of Lisa McPherson"? 25 A That's right.
585 1 Q And then, on Page 4, you say, "Scientology 2 maliciously tortured and killed Lisa McPherson"? 3 A That's right. 4 Q And then there are a few other references to -- 5 well, one other reference on Page 10, "The torture and 6 killing of Lisa McPherson"? 7 A Right. 8 Q And in that pleading filed in this case, that was 9 a murder allegation, right, "Intentional torture and 10 killing" is murder, right? 11 A No. It said, "Intentional torture and killing." 12 Q Oh, so intentional didn't modify killing? 13 A No. It modified torture. 14 Q Oh, I see. So the killing was unintentional? 15 A No. The killing rose between murder and above 16 manslaughter. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark that as my next 18 exhibit. 19 A And it didn't say murder. 20 MR. WEINBERG: That, your Honor, is Exhibit 21 166, which is motion to dismiss counterclaim with 22 prejudice, motion to strike and motion for sanctions 23 filed by Mr. Dandar on February 26, 2001. 24 I move that into evidence. 25 THE COURT: What is it? What number?
586 1 MR. WEINBERG: It's 166; Defense 166. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. LIROT: No objection. 4 THE COURT: Thank you. I'll assume, Mr. Lirot, 5 especially on these pleadings, that they're already 6 part of the record. 7 MR. LIROT: Part of the record, Judge. 8 THE COURT: And as I said, basically I'm just 9 going to assume that you don't have an objection 10 unless you say so, so that -- 11 MR. LIROT: Fair enough. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q Now, you do remember that -- 15 THE COURT: What is above a manslaughter and 16 below a murder? 17 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not familiar -- oh, you are 18 asking Mr. Dandar? 19 THE COURT: I'm asking Mr. Dandar. 20 THE WITNESS: Dr. Bandt called it a second 21 degree murder, which -- he also called it homicide. 22 None of my experts would call it murder, first 23 degree, because there was no commission. 24 THE COURT: Well, of course you did. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, I did. And I stand
587 1 corrected by my experts. 2 THE COURT: I mean, you called it a 3 premeditated murder, in essence, by saying it was 4 determined that this is what was going to be done. 5 That is a premeditated act, right? Murder two is 6 something short of premeditation. It is done out of 7 spite, evil -- ill will, evil, this type of thing. 8 That is what murder two is. 9 THE WITNESS: Well -- 10 THE COURT: So to prove spite, evil intent, ill 11 will -- I think a classic example of that, sort of, 12 is when you go -- I go to shoot Mr. Fugate and I 13 point at him and -- no, that would be first degree, 14 that would be transferred intent. 15 MR. FUGATE: Right. 16 THE COURT: I'm trying to think, there is 17 classic example when you -- for murder two. When 18 you don't really premeditate it but your mind is 19 such that, as I said, you are being spiteful, you 20 know, you are operating out of ill will, evil 21 intent. 22 So, you know, that, I suppose, could also fit 23 what you have said here, that would be considered, I 24 suppose, a murder two. 25 But again, we -- well, you have been telling us
588 1 what your proof is. And we'll just have to wait and 2 see what you have. 3 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 4 THE COURT: I have read the affidavit of 5 Mr. Prince, and I have not heard Mr. Prince testify 6 and I have not read his deposition and, quite 7 frankly, if it's a thousand pages, I don't want it. 8 So -- 9 MR. WEINBERG: The last exhibit in this series, 10 your Honor, with regard to the murder. 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q You do remember filing a response to the 13 religiosity motion, which was a 120-page response that you 14 filed on January 18, 2000, along with Ford Greene? Do you 15 remember doing that? 16 A 120 pages? I don't remember doing 120 pages. Is 17 that exhibits? 18 Q Excuse me? 19 A Is that exhibits? 20 Q No. I'm going to show you -- this is my only copy 21 so I'll mark it, it's so long, but -- 22 A If you tell me -- 23 Q If I can approach, I'll show you a few things, if 24 that is okay. 25 A If it is 120, fine.
589 1 Q Is this the religiosity response where the issue 2 was whether or not the Church of Scientology was a church 3 that you and Mr. Greene filed in whatever I said, early 4 2000? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And it's a lot of pages. Right? 7 A Yes, it is. And my argument is the first 8 argument, that there should be no issue in this case to talk 9 about whether or not they are a religion or not. 10 Q In any event, in this response -- 11 A Which Judge Moody agreed with. 12 THE COURT: I'm sorry, your what? 13 THE WITNESS: My response is we don't need to 14 have a circuit court say I declare the Church of 15 Scientology to be a religion. I said that is a red 16 herring. That has nothing to do with this case. 17 And Judge Moody agreed. 18 THE COURT: I don't think anybody disagrees 19 with it, do they? 20 THE WITNESS: There are some courts that cite 21 decisions in this case where -- Judge Kovachevich, 22 for instance, under the Clearwater cases, stated in 23 her opinion she wondered why the City of Clearwater 24 did not challenge the religiosity. 25 And the City of Clearwater did what I did in
590 1 this case, saying we're -- that is not an issue for 2 us, we're not here to challenge that. That is not 3 what this case is about. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q But this whole pleading -- 7 A But they wanted me to admit they are a church and 8 religion. They wanted Judge Moody to say they are a church 9 and religion. And, personally, I don't think I have to do 10 that. And Judge Moody agreed. It's just not an issue. 11 Q No, except in this 120-page document, you attacked 12 the Church of Scientology's practices which you said were 13 not religious practices. Correct? That is what the whole 14 pleading is about? 15 A Right. It is what it is. And I signed it, and 16 Ford Greene. He has more expertise about whether something 17 is a religion or not than I did. 18 Q All right, but that wasn't why I was going to show 19 it to you. 20 A Sorry. 21 Q On the first page, you and Mr. Greene talk 22 about -- you say "killed Lisa McPherson." 23 A Right. 24 Q Right? 25 A Right.
591 1 Q On Page 4, "It," being the Church, "has 2 imprisoned, tortured, killed and lied." 3 A Right. That is all true. If you're asking me if 4 I still stand behind -- 5 THE COURT: I think the term "killed," you have 6 to be real careful with, because a manslaughter, of 7 course, is a killing. I mean, there is a difference 8 in a murder and a manslaughter. They are all forms 9 of killing. 10 And so I'm only interested, really, to tell you 11 the truth, in where he said "murder." 12 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 13 THE COURT: Or "intentionally killed." 14 MR. WEINBERG: This is so voluminous, I think 15 I'll wait until later. 16 THE COURT: All right. And I do think, what 17 he's trying to say, this is not a manslaughter but 18 it's like a murder two. 19 I don't know why in the world you would ever go 20 to the point of trying to establish something like 21 that when it certainly isn't necessary for your 22 wrongful death case. I mean, it just doesn't make 23 any sense. 24 THE WITNESS: Well, I'll move to conform the 25 pleadings to the evidence.
592 1 MR. WEINBERG: Well, excuse me, your Honor, but 2 I think it's a little late for that right now. You 3 gave him that opportunity -- 4 THE COURT: He has an -- he has no opportunity 5 to speak right now. We'll finish with this hearing 6 we are in, which deals exactly with the pleadings as 7 you have filed them and as they have been perceived 8 to be public -- at least how you wanted them to be 9 perceived by the public. 10 And that is part of the issue. And that is why 11 I'm letting him go there, because one part of the 12 issue is this was, as they're perceiving it, sort of 13 the evil intent of the estate, which was to attack 14 the Church and attack the -- not the wrongful death, 15 but to attack the Church and kind of undermine it. 16 THE WITNESS: You know, I didn't once allege in 17 these pleadings, I don't believe -- of course, maybe 18 in the -- since they brought an issue of 19 religiosity, but other than that religiosity motion 20 that was not relevant to this case, I don't believe 21 I have said in my pleadings, especially the 22 complaints, that they are not a religion. 23 THE COURT: You don't get it yet. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't get it. 25 THE COURT: You don't get it.
593 1 THE WITNESS: I never heard of this before 2 so -- 3 THE COURT: When you say the Church murders, 4 you are attacking the Church. You know what I mean? 5 When you say a church stood by because they were 6 afraid of bad press and intentionally allowed a 7 woman to die, you are attacking the Church. 8 And that is -- that is what -- part of what 9 their concern is. And that is really what has 10 happened as far as -- you know, you're right, you 11 stand by your pleadings. Your pleading says what it 12 says. I didn't realize until this hearing exactly 13 what it said. I just assumed we were off on another 14 course. 15 But, in any event, we are on this course now, 16 and my course says it is time for a break, so let's 17 go ahead and be in recess. It is 10 after. We'll 18 be in recess until 3:30. 19 (WHEREUPON, a recess is taken from 3:10 to 3:37 20 p.m.) 21 _______________________________________ 22 THE COURT: Where is that paragraph we've been 23 dealing with? 34? 24 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Here is the definition of
594 1 manslaughter. Murder in the second degree is not 2 going to fit, I don't think. 3 Murder in the second degree is an act that was 4 an unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous 5 to another and demonstrating a depraved mind, 6 without regard to human life. 7 An act is imminently dangerous to another and 8 demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or 9 series of acts that a person of ordinary judgment 10 would know is reasonably certain to kill or do 11 serious bodily injury to another. 12 Here is the problem. Number two, is done from 13 ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent. 14 Three. When done, is of such a nature that the 15 acts themselves indicate an indifference to human 16 life. 17 So ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. 18 But if you get to manslaughter, it does talk 19 about intentional. 20 The victim is dead. That is element number 21 one. 22 Number two. A. The defendant intentionally 23 caused the death of the victim. 24 B. The defendant intentionally procured the 25 death of the victim.
595 1 Or, C, is where most cases I see on 2 manslaughter, is the death of the victim was caused 3 by the culpable negligence of the defendant. 4 Culpable negligence -- I will define it. Each 5 of us has duty to act reasonably toward others. If 6 there is a violation of that duty without any 7 conscious intention to harm, that violation is 8 negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a 9 failure to use ordinary care to another. In order 10 for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and 11 flagrant. 12 I heard those words somewhere. 13 Culpable negligence is a course of conduct 14 showing reckless disregard of human life or the 15 safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, 16 or such an entire want of care to raise a 17 presumption of a conscious indifference to 18 consequences, or would show wantonness or 19 recklessness or a grossly careless disregard for the 20 safety and welfare of the public, or such an 21 indifference to the rights of others as is 22 equivalent to an intentional violation of those 23 rights. 24 So that's murder one, premeditated murder, and 25 murder two and three. Premeditated murder doesn't
596 1 apply. So those are your statutory definitions. 2 THE WITNESS: It fits what you just read. 3 THE COURT: Manslaughter. 4 THE WITNESS: But also fits, the last part, I 5 think, also, of second degree, the very last line 6 you read. 7 THE COURT: Well, second degree says that it is 8 from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. 9 You have to show, when you phrase your thing 10 here, that Mr. Miscavige passed the word down, and 11 apparently it was done from ill will, hatred, spite 12 or evil intent. 13 THE WITNESS: What was that after that, Judge? 14 THE COURT: It is an "and," it has to be one, a 15 person of ordinary judgment would know is certainly 16 reasonable to kill and is done from ill will, 17 hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a 18 nature that the act itself indicates an indifference 19 to human life. 20 The kicker for murder two is the ill will, 21 hatred, spite or evil intent. So it really doesn't 22 fit there, based on anything I know. There are some 23 pretty -- you know, pretty ugly words in 24 manslaughter under the definition of culpable 25 negligence.
597 1 But I wasn't thinking -- manslaughter can be an 2 intentional death. I don't think that is what is -- 3 it's kind of an odd thing that he phrased here. 4 But, in any event, now you know that is what 5 the definitions are. 6 All right, continue on. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, ma'am. 8 BY MR. WEINBERG: 9 Q You mentioned, in the response -- your response to 10 both Judge Schaeffer and I, as to what we might anticipate 11 from other witnesses that could appear. 12 And one of the witnesses you mentioned was Bill 13 Franks. Right? 14 A Right. 15 Q And you said something to the effect that Bill 16 Franks was going to provide evidence that would support the 17 allegation that we're talking about set forth in Paragraph 18 34. Did I hear you correctly? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, yesterday we put in evidence the affidavit of 21 William Drescher, which is Defense 143. And attached to 22 that affidavit was the May 23rd, 2002 letter to Mr. Drescher 23 from Bill Franks. 24 You remember that. Correct? 25 A Yes.
598 1 Q And you had already had a copy of that letter 2 before we put it into evidence, didn't you? You'd seen that 3 before? 4 A No. You handed it to me that morning. 5 Q But I'm saying had you been sent by Mr. Franks, 6 the person who you subpoenaed, a copy of that letter? 7 A No, because I would have given that to the Judge 8 right away when it talks about threats made by Mr. Drescher 9 not to appear when being subpoenaed. 10 Q What I'm going to focus on is what he said is 11 relevant to what we're talking about, which is Paragraph 34 12 in the fifth amended complaint. 13 What he says, at the bottom of the second page, "I 14 am sorry for this young woman's fate, but there is no way 15 that the Church killed her or participated in her death. I 16 don't know much about this case. But I wonder why someone 17 would try to pull me into such a case when I know that 18 standard Church procedure as I knew it would not have 19 allowed this to happen. And that is all that I would have 20 to say pertinent to this matter." 21 You see that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q It doesn't sound like Mr. Franks is going to come 24 here and tell us about any knowledge that he has that the 25 Church of Scientology has ever permitted, allowed, ordered
599 1 someone to die on introspection rundown, does it? 2 A I guess you'll have to wait to hear from him. 3 Q Well -- 4 A I'm not going to talk about what Mr. Franks may or 5 might not say, nor what he meant by that letter. I have no 6 idea what he meant by that letter. 7 Q Have you -- have you -- is he your expert? 8 A He is an expert. 9 Q No. Is he an expert for the estate of Lisa 10 McPherson in this case? 11 A Well, as much as I can get a person who all I did 12 was subpoena him to come into this courtroom, yes, to talk 13 about Scientology practices, policy, end cycle, I guess, I 14 would hope so. 15 And, no, I haven't subpoenaed him. But I have to 16 pay for his expenses to get here. 17 Q The next question is a yes or no. Have you talked 18 to him about the allegations in Paragraph 34? 19 A I talked to him about the end cycle and I talked 20 to him about deaths in Scientology, and public relations 21 flaps. And -- very briefly, yeah. 22 Q All right. So it's hard for you to understand, 23 explain what he meant when he wrote those words that I just 24 read to you, of Mr. Drescher, about having no experience, 25 from his experience in the church, which I think ended in
600 1 1981? 2 THE COURT: If he's coming, it's kind of 3 irrelevant. 4 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 5 THE COURT: If he doesn't come, then it won't 6 make any difference. So let's just wait and see if 7 he comes. 8 MR. WEINBERG: That is true. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Now, Mr. Dandar, in addition to statements in -- 11 THE COURT: If he comes, I am sure -- and says 12 something different from what is in that letter, 13 then you can impeach him from that letter. 14 MR. WEINBERG: I would suspect that I would. 15 THE COURT: I suspect you would. 16 THE WITNESS: I even agree with that. 17 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me? 18 THE WITNESS: I agree with that, you will. 19 BY MR. WEINBERG: 20 Q Okay. In addition to statements and pleadings in 21 this case regarding the killing, murder, things like that, 22 you have done quite a bit of media with regard to the Lisa 23 McPherson case since the complaint was first filed in 24 February of '97, is that right? 25 A No.
601 1 Q You -- 2 A I have responded -- I responded to what the Church 3 of Scientology has done when the reporters asked me to 4 respond. I did not hold a press conference with my 5 pathologists. And your client did. 6 Q Okay. My question is did you appear, for example, 7 in Court TV Prime Time Justice -- did you do that -- 8 December of 1997, and do an interview with regard to the 9 allegations in the case? 10 A Mmm, is that one show? Or is that two different 11 things? 12 Q One show. 13 A I did something -- I did an interview where your 14 associate, Laura Vaughan, was on, and Mr. Rinder and Elliott 15 Abelson was on, if that is the one with Bryant Gumble, Prime 16 Time. If that is the one, yes. 17 Q You appeared on various news shows, particularly 18 at the time of the criminal charge in this case, talking 19 about the allegations? 20 A It's possible. 21 Q Well, you remember that, don't you? 22 A When you say appear on TV, I mean, if someone 23 comes to my office and asks me a question, and I answer the 24 question, like I'm allowed to do. 25 Q Do you remember Mr. Minton's testimony about your
602 1 conversations between you concerning the German TV show ZDF 2 TV? 3 A No. 4 Q Well, did you -- 5 A I don't think I was on German TV, was I? 6 Q Yes, you were. 7 A Well, if it played in Germany, I didn't get to see 8 it. 9 Q Well, do you remember being interviewed by German 10 television in your office? 11 A Yes. I do remember that. 12 Q And do you remember that -- that when you were 13 interviewed, you said words, in effect, "We're going to try 14 all of Scientology, every enterprise they have, and the one 15 at the top of Scientology, David Miscavige. He's the 16 absolute ruler of Scientology." Do you remember saying 17 that? 18 A No. Are you going to play it? 19 Q Do you want to hear it? 20 A Well, no. I don't remember saying that. That 21 doesn't sound like me. 22 Q What I am going to play, this will take about 23 twenty seconds or thirty seconds, is three clips, one from 24 Prime Time Justice, one from Channel -- Prime Time Justice, 25 December 18, 1997; one from Channel 13 News, November 13,
603 1 1998; and one from Channel 28 News, December 18, 1997. 2 A So you're just going to play my part, and not your 3 client's part? 4 THE COURT: We'll let you play the other parts. 5 I'm sure if there are three of them and one of 6 yours, I'm sure they talked three times more than 7 you did. 8 THE WITNESS: I don't want to. 9 THE COURT: Well, then don't. All right. All 10 right. 11 _______________________________________ 12 (Whereupon, the videotape is played.) 13 "Why would they want her dead? 14 "As bizarre as this sounds, the Church of 15 Scientology will let a member die before they face 16 bad public relations, according to their own 17 copyrighted books on rules and regulations of 18 Scientology. 19 "They killed Lisa McPherson. She's dead. Her 20 entire death was preventable. They chose to let her 21 die. 22 "They killed Lisa McPherson. She's dead. Her 23 entire death was preventable. They chose to let her 24 die in following the dictates of Scientology. 25 "Through an isolation, they were following the
604 1 exact programs authored by the founder of the Church 2 of Scientology, Mr. Hubbard. And as a result of 3 those programs, they killed Lisa McPherson." 4 (This concludes the playing of the videotape.) 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Now, when you said, in December of 1997, which is 7 that first clip that I played -- that we played for you -- 8 that the Church of Scientology will let a member die before 9 they face bad public relations, according to their own 10 copyrighted books on rules and regulations of Scientology, 11 that is before you ever met Jesse Prince, right? It was a 12 year before you met Jesse Prince? 13 A Right. That is from Vaughn Young. 14 Q So Vaughn Young told you that? 15 A Right. He was their public relations person. He 16 knows. 17 Q And what were those copyrighted books and rules 18 that said that you would let somebody die before they would 19 face bad public relations? 20 A Well, I don't have those committed to memory. I'm 21 sure they include the ones I already talked about. 22 THE COURT: I'm sure you'll have what it is you 23 are talking about in your response to motion to 24 summary judgment. 25 THE WITNESS: I most certainly will, Judge.
605 1 THE COURT: Yes. So we'll see those at that 2 time. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Okay, you can turn that off. 4 Let me go to another subject, your Honor. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q Switching gears, going to a completely different 7 subject -- 8 THE COURT: I'm sure it must be about the 9 agreement. 10 MR. WEINBERG: Well, no. 11 THE COURT: When are we going to get to the 12 three things your lawyer indicated were at issue 13 here? 14 MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is part of it. What 15 we just did is part of the three things. 16 THE COURT: How long are you going to spend on 17 this one? 18 MR. WEINBERG: On this one? 19 THE COURT: Yes. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Not that long. But, I mean, 21 it's discussed and has to do with confidential 22 stuff. It's discussed in our brief. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MR. WEINBERG: And our motion. 25 What were you referring to, will I get to the
606 1 agreement? I'm not tracking -- 2 THE COURT: I don't know. There are three 3 things your lawyer said were essential to this 4 matter. One was the agreement between -- between 5 the estate, or Ms. Liebreich, or Ms. Liebreich and 6 her brothers and sisters and Mr. Minton to give the 7 bulk of the money, or substantial part of the money 8 or some part of the money. That I have yet to hear 9 about. 10 So I assume you're going to get to that, or 11 else you're not. And if you don't, we'll just 12 eliminate that. 13 MR. WEINBERG: But -- but -- but I believe -- 14 and I'm looking for -- here it is, for the -- for 15 the first page of our memo, if I could just address 16 this for -- 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. WEINBERG: -- for a moment. We said that 19 we filed this memo seeking various forms of relief 20 based on the extraordinary record of new admissions 21 from Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, showing that, one -- 22 that is why I'm a little confused at the three 23 areas -- showing that, one, plaintiff engaged in 24 perjury and elicited perjury on material matters in 25 this court and in other court proceedings on matters
607 1 relating to the procedures in this case. That is 2 number one. 3 THE COURT: Committed perjury or what? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Or elicited perjury. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Now we're going over his 6 fifth amended complaint, which isn't under oath. 7 MR. WEINBERG: But I'm not there yet. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Two is plaintiff and her counsel 10 knowingly have made false accusations in this case, 11 including accusations that the defendant and 12 Scientology ecclesiastical leadership knowingly and 13 intentionally murdered Lisa McPherson for the 14 purpose of using such allegations to attack the 15 Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. 16 THE COURT: I thought that is what we've been 17 doing? 18 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I thought that -- I mean, 19 I was going to review with you what -- I mean, I'm 20 going to show you what we're doing -- I mean, I'm 21 going to show you the three areas. And I think it 22 will be clear that everything that I have been doing 23 falls within the purview of these three areas. 24 THE COURT: I thought that you said you were 25 done with that and you were going into the third
608 1 area. I thought -- 2 MR. WEINBERG: No. I said another area is what 3 I said. 4 THE COURT: You mean -- 5 MR. WEINBERG: Another subject matter. 6 THE COURT: All right. I thought you were 7 going -- 8 MR. WEINBERG: Another -- 9 THE COURT: One more and you would be done, and 10 I thought perhaps it would be the agreement which 11 your lawyer said when he made his oral presentation 12 was one of three. 13 MR. WEINBERG: All right. I mean -- 14 THE COURT: Continue on -- 15 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 16 THE COURT: -- rather than arguing with me. 17 MR. WEINBERG: I wasn't trying to argue. 18 THE COURT: Move on. It's very slow going. 19 And one of these days I'm going to put limits on you 20 all and tell you you have half a day. I haven't 21 done that yet, but I'm going to if you don't move. 22 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I've tried to move fast. 23 And I -- 24 THE COURT: Don't make excuses. Just keep 25 going.
609 1 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 2 BY MR. WEINBERG: 3 Q You sent E-Mails and other documents in the case 4 to Mr. Minton. Correct? 5 A I asked and answered that yesterday. 6 THE COURT: Yes, you did. But you have a 7 lawyer sitting back there. He may not have been. 8 THE WITNESS: He may not have been. Well, my 9 brother may have been here then. 10 A But, generally speaking, yes. 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q Okay. You remember Mr. Minton's testimony that 13 you E-mailed him the confidential videotaped -- or the 14 transcript of the confidential deposition of Gerald 15 Armstrong? Do you remember his -- his testimony about that? 16 A No. 17 Q Did you? 18 A Not that I recall. 19 Q Is it fair to say you don't recall, one way or 20 another? Or are you denying that you did? 21 A I'm pretty sure I did not. But as I have been 22 saying throughout, if you show me something that is by me to 23 Mr. Minton saying, "Here is the confidential deposition of 24 Gerald Armstrong," I will change my testimony. But as I sit 25 here under oath, I'm pretty sure I can say I did not.
610 1 Q Do you remember Mr. Minton's testimony that he 2 discussed with you the mediation -- the first mediation in 3 1998, and do you remember that he posted a few months later 4 a posting that had to do with that mediation? 5 THE COURT: Here again, I think, Counselor, the 6 problem I have with this, you are trying to ask him 7 about whether what somebody else said is true or 8 not. You need to ask him questions. 9 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- 10 THE COURT: And then, of course, when it is all 11 over, you can say this is what Mr. Minton said, this 12 is what he said. 13 You can't impeach him -- 14 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not trying to impeach him. 15 THE COURT: What are you trying to do? 16 MR. WEINBERG: I asked him a question. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q Did you -- 19 MR. WEINBERG: I was just trying to focus it so 20 we went quicker. 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q Did you discuss the first mediation, which was a 23 confidential mediation, with Mr. Minton? 24 A No. Not that I remember. I don't think I ever 25 discussed a mediation with him, except I may have said we
611 1 had a mediation and they offered something that was 2 extremely insulting to my client. 3 Q Which is essentially what he says in his posting, 4 which is Exhibit 98. 5 So is it correct that you had some discussion with 6 him where you told him it was an insulting offer? 7 A I may have said it was an insulting offer. But I 8 certainly didn't tell him the context of the mediation. 9 Q Did you discuss with Mr. Minton the conversations 10 that you had with Fannie McPherson when you met her for the 11 one and only time, as you called it, on her deathbed? 12 A Well, actually, she was sitting in a chair on 13 oxygen. And I met her -- with her somewhere between three 14 and a half to four hours. 15 THE COURT: The question was -- 16 THE WITNESS: Yes -- 17 THE COURT: Did you discuss that with 18 Mr. Minton? 19 THE WITNESS: I think I told him or a group of 20 people that one statement that Fannie said that 21 still sticks in my mind about, you know, exposing 22 what Scientology did to Lisa McPherson. 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Was that a confidential, privileged communication 25 you were having with Fannie McPherson?
612 1 A Not that time, it wasn't. I had other people in 2 the room when she said that, I believe. 3 Q But other parts of the conversation you raised the 4 privilege to when we sought -- we inquired about it over the 5 five years of this case. Correct? 6 A Correct. 7 THE COURT: I don't know how she could be his 8 client. She's deceased. 9 MR. WEINBERG: He testified that she was his 10 client. 11 THE COURT: Well, he may have thought she was 12 his client. But the truth of the matter is she's 13 dead and it's not her estate. So the truth of the 14 matter is I don't believe she is his client. 15 THE WITNESS: Well -- 16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, in this case -- we'll go 17 over in this case it is one of the allegations we 18 have in the motion. 19 But in this case we sought transcript of part 20 of the initial conversation between Mr. Dandar and 21 Ms. McPherson. It's the transcript that ultimately 22 had been given to the FDLE and the Clearwater Police 23 that was produced by the Clearwater Police and/or 24 the FDLE after the criminal case was nolle prossed. 25 Mr. Dandar, who -- we'll show you this -- said
613 1 this was a privileged document and would not produce 2 it. 3 THE COURT: I don't -- Mr. Dandar continues to 4 say she's his client. Mr. Dandar said his privilege 5 and this and that and the other thing. 6 I'm saying, as matter of law, I don't know how 7 this could be. She's dead. Lisa McPherson is not 8 his client. His client is the estate of Lisa 9 McPherson. That is not -- I mean, that is not 10 Fannie McPherson. And it's not Lisa McPherson. 11 It's the estate of Lisa McPherson. So I think he's 12 wrong. I mean -- 13 MR. WEINBERG: Obviously, I'm not arguing with 14 you about it. It is just what he said. 15 THE WITNESS: But I did get rulings by Judge 16 Moody that said I was right. She did sign the 17 retainer agreement. 18 THE COURT: Well, you know what? You're here 19 now. 20 THE WITNESS: I know. I'm just letting you 21 know I'm just not throwing this up in the air. 22 THE COURT: And I'm sure when she was alive she 23 was your client. But she's not now. 24 Move on. Sorry I brought it up. 25
614 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Did you send the 1995 knowledge report of Brenda 3 Spencer Hubert to Mr. Minton? 4 A I don't know. I don't think so. And I'm pretty 5 sure that wasn't a confidential document, either. 6 Q Well, you do remember Exhibit 99, which was his 7 posting that said he got that? 8 A Yes. I don't think he said he got it from me. He 9 might have gotten it from one of -- his spy. 10 Q Did you -- have you now checked with your office 11 concerning the August 30, 1999 draft of the fifth amended 12 complaint that we looked at yesterday and marked as 13 Exhibit -- 14 A Yes, we did, Exhibit 145 for the defendant. I 15 did. And it does not exist in my office. 16 THE COURT: What is that? 17 THE WITNESS: That is this crazy-looking -- 18 THE COURT: Oh, right. 19 THE WITNESS: -- complaint that someone 20 apparently tried to scan from something. If 21 Mr. Minton had that, I'm sure you would have asked 22 him all kinds of questions about it. But it's not 23 in my office. 24 BY MR. WEINBERG: 25 Q So you don't know who prepared this version of the
615 1 fifth amended complaint? 2 A No. Not based upon this exhibit, I don't. 3 THE COURT: What is the number of that again? 4 THE WITNESS: 145. 5 MR. WEINBERG: It's actually 146. 6 MR. LIROT: There are two different ones. 7 THE WITNESS: No, this one is 145. 8 MR. LIROT: 145 appears to be the one either 9 scanned or is a little rougher text. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. LIROT: And 146, I think, has a date of 12 9/6/99. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q And 146 is a -- is a copy that you have confirmed 15 is -- is a draft of what you did in your office. Right? 16 A No, that is the one that is actually filed. 17 Q 145, I mean -- is it 145? 18 A No. No. This is 145. This is the scanned 19 gobbledygook. That one is not in my office. 20 The one that has September '99 in the top 21 left-hand corner, that is attached to the motion to add 22 parties. So that is in my office. That is a filed 23 document. 24 Q And did you send that document, the September one, 25 by E-Mail to Mr. Minton?
616 1 A No. 2 Q And you -- 3 A Unless -- wait a minute. Wait. Wait. You know, 4 again, if you can show me something that says I did, I can 5 help answer your question. But I didn't -- certainly didn't 6 send him anything before I filed it. It is a record 7 document in the record of the court, so it's a public 8 record. And if he asked for it after it was filed, I had to 9 send it to anybody, send it to the press, send it to whoever 10 asked for it. 11 Q You keep saying -- and you said it a number of 12 times -- if I can show you, you'll agree with it, which is 13 nice. If I could show you, beyond what I have, I would. 14 But I'm asking you really for your best 15 recollection of whether you sent drafts of pleadings before 16 they were filed, or gave drafts of pleadings before they 17 were filed, to Mr. Minton. 18 A No. 19 Q Okay. Now, you filed a motion for sanctions 20 against Mr. Moxon in regard to the Teresa Summers 21 deposition, didn't you? 22 A Yes. 23 Q You allege that he did not notify her, at her 24 deposition, of the confidentiality provision -- the order 25 that Judge Moody had entered several years before. Correct?
617 1 A Correct. 2 Q You didn't notify her, either, of that at the 3 deposition, did you? 4 A Correct. I wasn't taking her deposition. What 5 was the date of that, by the way? 6 THE COURT: By the way, I don't care about 7 that. 8 MR. WEINBERG: About the -- about the 9 confidentiality provision? 10 THE COURT: I don't care about that, and I 11 don't care whether he filed a motion against 12 Mr. Moxon, and I don't care whether Mr. Moxon told 13 her, and I don't care whether Mr. Dandar told her. 14 MR. WEINBERG: Right. But what I'm going to 15 show Mr. Dandar, if it is okay, is that -- 16 THE COURT: If it is something that is 17 relevant, I'm anxious to hear. But all that, I 18 don't care about it. It sounds like you guys fuss 19 and file a motion, bring things to court, typical of 20 what is happening in this case. 21 MR. WEINBERG: I think it's relevant. And 22 what -- what is -- 23 BY MR. WEINBERG: 24 Q Is it true, Mr. Dandar, that prior to your motion 25 you actually caused the transcript of the Teresa Summers
618 1 deposition to be E-mailed to Mr. Minton? 2 A We've already covered this. 3 Q And the answer is? 4 A Yes. Because they were so worried that this 5 ex-employee -- 6 THE COURT: You've already testified to this. 7 He doesn't have to go over this again. 8 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 9 BY MR. WEINBERG: 10 Q Did you authorize Mr. Prince to E-Mail a draft of 11 the severe sanction motion concerning -- you know, that 12 Judge Schaeffer just issued an order on yesterday concerning 13 Mr. Prince -- to E-Mail a draft of that motion, before it 14 was filed, to Mr. Minton? 15 A No. 16 Q Did you know that Mr. Prince did that? 17 A No. Do you have proof of that? 18 Q Yes. 19 A Okay. Mr. Prince certainly had a copy of that 20 because it concerned him. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Can I approach, your Honor? 22 THE COURT: Save it for Mr. Prince, why don't 23 you? I mean, he -- if he wants to see it, let him 24 see it on his time, not mine. 25 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. That is fine.
619 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Now, you were present at the May 1999 depositions 3 of Dell Liebreich, Ann Carlson, Lee Skelton and Sam Davis 4 that we did in Dallas, right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And at those depositions, each of your clients 7 exercised the confidentiality provision and declared their 8 depositions to be confidential. Right? 9 A Yes. 10 THE COURT: Are all those people your clients? 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Why is that? 13 THE WITNESS: Because they all consider me 14 their attorney, and I consider them my clients. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 THE WITNESS: Am I doing something wrong? 17 THE COURT: Well, I don't know. I don't even 18 see where they're listed on this thing. They are a 19 potential beneficiary. 20 THE WITNESS: It is true they are not parties 21 to this case, nor are they beneficiaries of the Lisa 22 McPherson estate. But they are beneficiaries of the 23 Fannie McPherson estate, which is the sole 24 beneficiary of the Lisa McPherson estate. 25 THE COURT: Well, if Fannie McPherson is dead,
620 1 you'll find if she's the beneficiary she's not going 2 to get much. 3 Go ahead. 4 THE WITNESS: She is dead. Yes. 5 BY MR. WEINBERG: 6 Q And you talked -- during those depositions that 7 were taken in Texas in May of 1999, you had telephone 8 conversations with Mr. Minton, didn't you? 9 A Well, have I testified to that already? Is that 10 what you said? 11 Q No. 12 A Oh? 13 Q I said you had telephone conversations with 14 Mr. Minton about those depositions while those depositions 15 were going on while you were in Texas in May of 1999, didn't 16 you? 17 A It is possible, because that is all you kept 18 asking about is Mr. Minton and Ken Dandar. 19 Q Well, I mean, did you tell him about some of the 20 content of the deposition that had been -- of the 21 depositions that had been deemed, pursuant to Judge Moody's 22 order, to be confidential? 23 A I don't think I gave him the contents. I think I 24 just gave him a general statement. I think he called it on 25 the Internet, to my dismay, a "Bob and Ken Show," or
621 1 something like that. 2 Q Well, this is May of 1999. And we've asked you a 3 number of questions about Mr. Minton. And is there some 4 reason why, while the depositions of your clients -- as you 5 called them -- the beneficiaries in this case, including 6 Dell Liebreich, are being taken, that you are having 7 communications, by telephone, with him about the 8 depositions? 9 A I think I can telephone anybody I want to 10 telephone, Mr. Weinberg. 11 Q I didn't say you couldn't. But you have insisted 12 that Mr. Minton didn't have anything to do with this 13 wrongful death case, right? You said that? 14 A That is right. I still say that. That is still 15 the truth. And it hasn't changed. 16 THE COURT: What were you talking to him about? 17 THE WITNESS: About Mr. Weinberg consistently 18 asking questions about Bob Minton throughout the 19 deposition, instead of asking questions about the 20 estate, the damages to the estate, their 21 relationship with Lisa McPherson, the mother's -- 22 you know, normal -- what you would consider normal 23 questions. 24 THE COURT: And why was it you cared about that 25 when it came to Mr. Minton? He had nothing to do
622 1 with it. 2 THE WITNESS: Because I kept objecting to -- 3 you know, "Why are we wasting our time sitting here 4 talking about Mr. Minton?" 5 THE COURT: I understand. But why did you feel 6 it was necessary to hustle out and call him on the 7 telephone? 8 THE WITNESS: More likely than not, it would 9 have been afterwards, not during the deposition. 10 THE COURT: Continue on. 11 MR. WEINBERG: I'll just get the dates of the 12 deposition if I can. 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q Let me show you what has been marked as -- has 15 been entered as Exhibit 108, Defense 108, which has been 16 admitted in this case, which is Mr. Minton's May 28, 1999 -- 17 1999 posting. 18 And if my memory serves me, the depositions of -- 19 of these parties were being taken on May 25 and May 24 of -- 20 of 1999. Is that right? 21 A That is what it looks like. 22 Q And let me just refer you to this paragraph of 23 Mr. Minton's posting, which is Exhibit 108. 24 And he says, "In any case, the week started out 25 with another hundred thousand dollars to refill the
623 1 McPherson case coffers. The money was deposited Monday into 2 the Dandar & Dandar account while Ken was in Dallas, as the 3 Scieno's deposed Dell Liebreich for seven hours, not to 4 mention 30 minutes for Ann Carlson. 5 "Ken told me on Monday night," Monday night 6 indicating during the deposition, "that it was the 'Bob and 7 Ken Show' for the entire seven-hour intimidation session. 8 They were only interested about her communications with me 9 and what Ken had told her about his communications with me. 10 Not a question about Lisa, I was told. Dell made it real 11 clear to the Scieno side that she wanted everybody to know 12 that Scientology murdered Lisa." 13 Now, does that accurately reflect the 14 conversations that you were having, while these depositions 15 were in progress, in May of 1999 with Mr. Minton? 16 A Well, what is the date of the deposition? Because 17 this doesn't say while the depositions were in progress. 18 Q Well, what he says is, "Ken told me on Monday 19 night." 20 A Yes. What Monday night? 21 Q Well, this is 5/28. 22 A So what -- I can't say that his posting here 23 describes a conversation that took place in the evening 24 while I'm in Dallas, Texas during a deposition. 25 And this does describe what I just said, the Bob
624 1 and Ken Show, seven hours. There is no substance here. 2 Q Tuesday is May 25, 1999. So Monday is May 24, 3 1999. Sam Davis's deposition -- 4 MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach, your Honor? 5 THE COURT: You may. 6 BY MR. WEINBERG: 7 Q -- Tuesday, May 25, 1999. Do you see that? 8 A Whose depo is that? 9 Q Sam Davis's. So Ms. Liebreich's was on May 24, 10 which is Monday. Okay? 11 A Okay. So apparently -- 12 Q Apparently -- 13 A Except this is dated the 28th. 14 Q Right. What he says in here, Monday he had a 15 conversation with you. 16 A Okay. 17 Q That would be after -- after the day's session, 18 possibly during the day's session, with Dell Liebreich, 19 right? 20 A No, it says Monday -- wait a minute, I thought I 21 saw -- yes, Monday night, so it is after the deposition. 22 Q So you called him from the hotel? 23 A Possibly. Sure. 24 Q And -- and you thought that it was -- I mean, he 25 knew you were going to take these depositions. Right?
625 1 A I don't know. 2 Q Well, didn't you tell him in advance? 3 A I don't know. 4 Q Did you tell him you were going to give him 5 briefings on them? 6 A No. This is certainly not a briefing on a 7 deposition. 8 Q You thought it was necessary to fill Mr. Minton in 9 on what had been declared confidential pursuant to Judge 10 Moody's order? You thought that was necessary? 11 A This is -- has no context of the deposition, as 12 far as I'm concerned. 13 Q What do you mean, no context of the deposition? 14 A It's talking about a Bob and Ken Show. It doesn't 15 give them any context of what is going on, what is 16 substantive -- 17 THE COURT: Don't argue with him. Save it for 18 argument. Move on to your next question. 19 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 20 BY MR. WEINBERG: 21 Q Do you remember what else you talked to Mr. Minton 22 about, other than what he describes in this posting? 23 A No. 24 Q And do you know where the record of that phone 25 call is? Because that wasn't part of the records that were
626 1 produced in this case. 2 A No. Do you remember -- wait a minute. Why not? 3 THE COURT: How do you know? Maybe it's a cell 4 phone call. 5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, Mr. Dandar 6 produced -- 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q Well, do you know if you initiated this call or 9 Mr. Minton did? 10 A I have no idea. No idea whatsoever. 11 MR. WEINBERG: What I do know, your Honor, is 12 that at least Mr. Dandar didn't reflect this is a 13 call from his -- from his telephone, either his cell 14 phone or -- obviously it wouldn't be from his office 15 phone, but in his cell phone -- 16 THE COURT: Maybe it was made from the hotel 17 phone. Face it, that is on a hotel bill. You 18 wouldn't expect somebody to check the hotel bills to 19 respond. 20 MR. WEINBERG: No, I didn't. I just -- 21 THE COURT: I mean, I have to assume if he made 22 the call, it came either from a cell phone or call 23 from the hotel phone. 24 MR. WEINBERG: Or Mr. Minton made the call. 25 THE COURT: Or Mr. Minton made the call.
627 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q Now, did you ask for permission, from any of 3 these -- from Ms. Liebreich or the four people, to discuss 4 the details of their confidential deposition with 5 Mr. Minton? 6 A I don't recall. In fact, I don't even know if 7 Dell was on the phone with Mr. Minton. I mean, I don't 8 know -- 9 Q Well, do you think Dell was on the phone with 10 Mr. Minton -- 11 A I don't know. 12 Q -- discussing this case? 13 A I don't know. 14 Q Well, did Ms. Liebreich have conversations with 15 Mr. Minton during the course of this case? 16 A Not -- 17 Q About the case? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q Did you discuss the strategy with regard to what 20 your clients, Ms. Liebreich and the other siblings, were 21 going to say during their depositions, prior to going there 22 with Mr. Minton? 23 A Absolutely not. That I'm positive of. 24 Q Now, you have a website for your firm. Correct? 25 A Yes.
628 1 Q And that website was established for you by 2 Mr. Minton? 3 A No. 4 Q It was registered by Mr. Minton? 5 A No. 6 Q Registered in his name? 7 A No. 8 Q Well, what -- what does Mr. Minton have to do 9 about your website -- about the establishment of your 10 website? 11 A Nothing. What Mr. Minton did, at his suggestion, 12 since I didn't know how to do this, is that he registered 13 the name Dandarlaw.com and another one, which I can't 14 remember right now. 15 And all it is, is like a business card on the 16 Internet. You type in Dandarlaw.com, at the time he did 17 this, and it brings up a little business card and gives your 18 name, address and phone number. 19 Then my brother's secretary was knowledgeable 20 about websites, and so I had her develop a website. And I 21 started to use Dandarlaw@AOL as my E-Mail address to get 22 messages. 23 And I was trying to get Dandarlaw.com to bring up 24 my website, instead of this little business card, which 25 didn't do anything except give you name, address and phone
629 1 number. And then Mr. Minton gave me the codes -- because he 2 had no interest in this, he was just doing me a favor -- to 3 connect Dandarlaw.com to my real website, which is 4 Dandarlawyers.com, which is the way it is today. 5 Q So if I understand what you just said, Mr. Minton 6 registered Dandarlaw.com, the domain name Dandarlaw.com? 7 A He registered it, right. He paid for, I think -- 8 I think you have to buy it in like a 2- or 3-year interval. 9 Q He did this on November 4, 1999? 10 A I believe that is right. 11 Q It's Exhibit 96, if you want to look at it or -- 12 A No. I'm sure that is right. 13 Q And -- and this was just a favor that he was doing 14 for you, much like the favors that you did for him, like 15 incorporating the Lisa McPherson Trust? 16 A Well, he -- he thought -- no -- well, maybe. I 17 guess you could say that, sure. He thought it was crazy 18 that I didn't know how to do this myself. He's a lot more 19 computer and Internet savvy than I was. 20 Q Do you have any idea how much he had to spend in 21 order to register the Dandarlaw.com? 22 A No. I can guess it's about $200. 23 Q A year? Is that the way it works? 24 A It's from '99 -- I think it expires this November, 25 so it will be interesting to see what happens, if I can get
630 1 that, or the Church of Scientology gets it. 2 Q Now, you alleged, at the beginning of the case, 3 and it's still in the fifth amended complaint, that Lisa 4 McPherson was leaving the Church. Correct? 5 A That is correct. That is a truthful statement. 6 Q A truthful statement that that was your 7 allegation? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Mmm -- 10 A It's also the truth. 11 Q Now, that allegation that Lisa McPherson was 12 leaving the Church is a central element to making this an 13 anti-Scientology complaint, isn't that right? 14 A No. You know, this is not an anti-Scientology 15 complaint. It's a wrongful death complaint. 16 Q If you go to the fifth amended complaint -- you 17 still have that in front of you? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Paragraph 31A on Page 11, you say, "The above 20 actions of the defendants were the result of persisting in 21 their attempt to subdue the will of Lisa McPherson because, 22 A, she had expressed that Scientology was not working for 23 her and she desired to leave Scientology." 24 Do you see that? 25 A That is right.
631 1 THE COURT: Tell me what the relevance of that 2 has to do with this hearing. There is a dispute 3 here. I mean, I read through it. 4 MR. WEINBERG: No, there is a -- in our motion 5 we have made two allegations with regard to 6 misconduct with regard to two issues that relate to 7 this allegation. 8 One has to do with the Fannie McPherson tape 9 and what happened with regard to it. 10 THE COURT: There is no dispute about that, is 11 there? 12 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 13 THE COURT: Oh. Okay. 14 MR. WEINBERG: And, secondly, the diary, and 15 what happened to the diary. 16 And what we'll show you and review with 17 Mr. Dandar is that Mr. Dandar made a bunch of 18 allegations throughout this case against us to 19 various judges, starting with Judge Moody, and in 20 order to prevent -- in order to sustain this 21 suggestion that Lisa McPherson was -- had said that 22 she was leaving the Church of Scientology and to 23 prevent us from getting two essential documents, one 24 of which is the Fannie McPherson tape in which she 25 said no such thing, which he knew from -- from --
632 1 from the first day he met her, and, secondly, was 2 the 1995 diary, which the testimony now is that his 3 clients had, and somehow it -- it is no longer 4 around. 5 Both of those documents there was lots of 6 litigation over. And that is what he's going to 7 have to prove. And it's very much -- 8 THE COURT: Well, that has some bearing on 9 whether he lied, committed perjury, suborned 10 perjury? 11 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I mean, it's -- it's 14 briefed in some detail in the -- 15 THE COURT: I remember some of the things that 16 you put in there, quite frankly, aren't relevant, 17 will not be relevant, and I will not consider them 18 relevant. I tried to give you-all clues here and 19 there, but you don't want to take them. 20 Put on your evidence. Keep going. 21 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 22 THE COURT: As far as I know, this business -- 23 I mean -- about what you have alleged in here about 24 what he did about the Fannie McPherson tape, is 25 accurate. I mean, is there any dispute over it?
633 1 Have you read it, Mr. Dandar? 2 THE WITNESS: About their accusations about 3 what I did with the tape? 4 THE COURT: No. About the fact that you 5 didn't -- Mmm, you didn't give it to them right 6 away, and you made certain allegations about what 7 was on it, and then they finally got it and it's not 8 on it? 9 THE WITNESS: No. I don't think I made any 10 incorrect allegations. 11 THE COURT: Then you better go through it. 12 THE WITNESS: See, I was with Fannie McPherson, 13 I said, almost four hours. 14 THE COURT: She said a -- 15 THE WITNESS: She said a lot of things to me. 16 THE COURT: That aren't on the tape? 17 THE WITNESS: That aren't on the tape. 18 THE COURT: I knew we would go there. 19 THE WITNESS: But that is true, Judge. 20 THE COURT: I said I don't know where we're 21 going here but we're going to get through it. 22 THE WITNESS: This allegation about 31A, she 23 wanted to leave the Church and wasn't working -- it 24 wasn't working for her, that is in her PC folders. 25
634 1 BY MR. WEINBERG: 2 Q You -- 3 THE COURT: It also has to do with an 4 allegation -- that is why I say this will not get 5 you anywhere. 6 This also has to do with a dispute, the 7 disagreement, of what the testimony of his friend 8 meant when she called. 9 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not getting to the 10 allegation about the friend when she called. I'm -- 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 MR. WEINBERG: I'm focusing on -- 13 BY MR. WEINBERG: 14 Q Mr. Dandar, you told the Court, earlier on, there 15 had been a phone call from Lisa McPherson to her mother, and 16 you'd been told about that call by Fannie McPherson where 17 Lisa McPherson said she was either coming home for good or 18 leaving the Church. Right? 19 A Right. 20 Q But Fannie McPherson didn't say that, did she? 21 A Yes, she did. 22 Q Now, you were aware that Fannie McPherson was -- 23 did an interview with the Clearwater Police Department? 24 A I became aware she did an interview with the 25 Clearwater Police Department.
635 1 Q Excuse me? 2 A At a certain point in time, I became aware she did 3 an interview. 4 Q Okay. Now, this was turned over as a public 5 record after the criminal charges were nolle prossed by the 6 State? 7 THE COURT: Which was in what year? 8 THE WITNESS: June 2000. 9 MR. FUGATE: June of 2000. 10 MR. WEINBERG: June of 2000. 11 THE COURT: So as of June of 2000 you all had 12 this in your hands? 13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 15 BY MR. WEINBERG: 16 Q And this is an interview that was done by Ron 17 Sudler, who is a detective that you know, don't you, 18 Mr. Dandar? 19 A No, I don't know him. 20 Q Of the Clearwater Police Department? And Fannie 21 McPherson. 22 And in this interview she's asked a number of 23 questions. But particularly on Page 7 she tells 24 Mr. Sudler -- I think he's Detective Sudler -- the 25 following.
636 1 "Question: Were you aware of any projects that 2 your daughter was working on? 3 "Answer: No, I wasn't. Lisa called me, it was 4 either the first or second week in November. And we were 5 kind of talking about Christmas. She was planning to come 6 home. We were joking, and she was telling me what she 7 wanted on her -- on her shopping list. And that was the 8 last time I talked to her. I did not know she had the 9 accident until I got to Florida. I did not know she had 10 cracked up or been sick. I knew nothing. They didn't call 11 me about anything." 12 Then later in the interview she talks about -- on 13 Page 10 -- the stress that she was feeling in her job. 14 You know she worked for AMC Publishing, right? 15 A She worked for AMC Publishing, that is correct. 16 She felt stress at work, according to the statement. 17 Q Right. And then on Line 3 of 5 or 6 he says, "In 18 fact --" she said, "In fact, she didn't tell me but it was 19 in her diary, and I could kinda tell from the way I talked 20 to her she was just real uptight, never got through work. 21 "Did she just have too much work to do? Or -- 22 "Answer: I think she did. Of course, they never 23 think that they do. 24 "Detective Sudler: And you just found this out 25 from her diary -- from reading her diary?
637 1 "Uh-huh." 2 My question is -- is when you met with Fannie 3 McPherson in whatever the day was in January 1997, which is, 4 what, a month or so after this -- this -- no, several -- 5 eleven months before this -- after this interview, did she 6 tell you that when she got the call from Lisa McPherson, 7 that Lisa said she was just coming home for Christmas? 8 A No. And that statement doesn't say just for 9 Christmas that you just read. 10 Q Well, I mean, when you look at that interview, it 11 certainly doesn't indicate that Lisa McPherson was 12 dissatisfied with Scientology -- 13 THE COURT: You-all are arguing with each 14 other. You can argue it to me, or to a jury, or 15 both. 16 MR. WEINBERG: That is fine. 17 BY MR. WEINBERG: 18 Q Now, then there came a time when we, that is, the 19 Church of Scientology, made a request for the -- for the 20 recorded statement that you had done -- that you had 21 announced publicly that you had done of Fannie McPherson. 22 Correct? 23 A I don't believe I announced publicly. 24 Q Well, you said in some hearing, because we knew 25 about it, that you had recorded a statement of Fannie
638 1 McPherson, you had a recorded statement? 2 A No. What happened is you, the Church of 3 Scientology, requested a copy of the transcribed statement I 4 had of Fannie McPherson, which I never published to anybody 5 that I had one. 6 And that is when I answered, "Yes, I have one. 7 How did you know," more or less, and "I'm not giving you a 8 copy because it is work product and privileged." 9 Q Right, what you said, on January 15, 1998, in 10 response to the third request for production, "No video nor 11 affidavits of Fannie McPherson exist, to plaintiff's 12 knowledge. Plaintiff is in possession of a recorded 13 statement of Fannie McPherson which is work product." 14 That is what you said in January of 1998. 15 Correct? 16 A That is right. 17 Q And you remember that thereafter, there was 18 litigation over whether or not this was really work product. 19 Do you remember that? 20 A There were a couple hearings -- 21 THE COURT: I guess I'm just real confused 22 about this. I mean, that is in dispute. You can -- 23 you could make a claim that it was work product or 24 not. Different judges would rule different ways on 25 that. What difference does it make?
639 1 MR. WEINBERG: Well, here is what the 2 difference is, your Honor. After the -- the -- 3 THE COURT: If I'm not going to get you to stop 4 your questions, just ask your next question and 5 we'll save it for another day. Go on ahead. 6 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q There came a point in time in or about mid-2000 9 when -- when there was a public records act production by 10 the Clearwater Police, and there came a point in time where 11 we obtained a copy, from the public records act, of a 12 transcript of this recording that you had done of Fannie 13 McPherson. 14 Do you remember that? 15 A I remember some of that, that I can agree with. 16 Fannie McPherson's transcribed statement of my interview 17 with her was never a public record. 18 Q Do you remember that there was a hearing in front 19 of Judge Quesada on April 4, 2001 in which we sought, as a 20 result of that public records act -- we said, "Hey, they 21 can't be a public records act -- they can't be a work 22 product because he already turned it over to the Clearwater 23 Police. Therefore, we want the original tape." 24 Do you remember that? 25 A Oh, I certainly do remember that.
640 1 Q Right. And at that proceeding, you told Judge 2 Quesada that apparently you had inadvertently disclosed 3 that -- that you had given it to the Clearwater Police but 4 you didn't intend for them to keep it. Do you remember 5 that? 6 A I remember telling Judge Quesada I don't remember 7 ever turning it over to the Clearwater Police or FDLE, but 8 there was an FDLE Bates stamp on it. And, my goodness, 9 they -- 10 THE COURT: (To the audience) All right, who 11 has what on? Turn it off. 12 All right, go ahead. 13 A And he convinced me -- Judge Quesada convinced me 14 the FDLE Bates number was on there, that means FDLE had it, 15 that means I must have turned it over to them sometime. 16 Then he said, "Are you accusing the FDLE of 17 stealing this document out of your office?" 18 I said no. I just -- I was just standing there 19 embarrassed, before Judge Quesada. I couldn't figure out 20 what to say. 21 I said, "Well, if I gave it to them, I expected 22 them to keep it private and give it back to me." 23 He laughed. You guys laughed. But not one person 24 from your table stood up and said, "Oh, Judge, we put the 25 FDLE numbers and letters on that document, it's our Bates
641 1 number." 2 So he and I were both there thinking that FDLE did 3 that. And the next -- that night I called up FDLE, Lee 4 Strope, and I called up Wayne Andrews, because I thought I 5 was going crazy. 6 And they said, "You never gave us that document." 7 BY MR. WEINBERG: 8 Q Let me refer you to Page 107 of the transcript of 9 April 4, 2001. And -- 10 MR. WEINBERG: Do you have another copy? 11 BY MR. WEINBERG: 12 Q Do you see where you say, "This document was 13 given, I believe, by me to FDLE with the expectation --" 14 And then Judge Quesada interrupts: "That party is 15 over, isn't it? You voluntarily gave it to the FDLE." 16 "Mr. Dandar: I believe so. Yes. 17 "Judge Quesada: The party is over. They didn't 18 come into your office, steal it. You didn't leave it on a 19 bus and they picked it up inadvertently. 20 "Mr. Dandar: Actually, they did come to my office 21 but I'm not saying they stole it. 22 "The Court: All right." 23 As a result of that hearing, Judge Quesada ordered 24 the production of that original tape. Correct? 25 A Well, wait a minute. Is this the hearing where
642 1 the officers testified? 2 Q No. 3 A Right, he did order it on this, and then we had a 4 subsequent hearing. 5 But on Page 105 of what you handed me, it said, 6 "Have you looked at this transcript that starts out 7 'Statement of McPherson, January 1997' Bates stamped by the 8 Florida Department of Law Enforcement 327, 328, 329"? 9 And that is what started that downhill spiral. 10 THE COURT: That is another thing you can put 11 on your list when you call one of them to the 12 witness stand to ask them how they got it. 13 THE WITNESS: We did, Judge. Oh, I'm sorry, we 14 called the FDLE. 15 THE COURT: I said, if you want to make a 16 record in this case, you can call and ask them how 17 they got the letters of Lisa McPherson they already 18 had, and you can ask them about this. 19 THE WITNESS: All right. 20 THE COURT: Then we'll have answers. 21 BY MR. WEINBERG: 22 Q Well, but we had a hearing on this because what 23 you did is you filed a motion, after this, accusing the 24 Church and the lawyers for the Church of stealing this 25 document from your office and planting it -- planting it --
643 1 in the FDLE or Clearwater Police Department records. 2 Correct? 3 A You would have to show me where I accused the 4 lawyers. 5 Q Okay, you -- you accused the client? 6 A I mean, even Mr. Fugate said I accused him. I 7 don't think that is correct. I accused the client, because 8 the client has a history of doing this. 9 Q Okay. But you didn't have a shred of evidence 10 that anybody had broken into your office, stole this 11 document and then planted it in the FDLE files which they 12 had, then turned around, in June of 2000, and produced to 13 the public? 14 A I had -- I have -- I had evidence that it 15 happened. And I presented that evidence to Judge Quesada. 16 He chose to believe the person from OSA over two law 17 enforcement officers. 18 Q Well, those two -- 19 A And that is his decision and I will not agree with 20 that decision, and I'm sure not asking you to agree with it. 21 But he was entitled to make the decision as he saw it. He's 22 the judge. 23 THE COURT: We really aren't going over this. 24 And I'm going to ask you to move to whatever it is 25 you want to get from that tape. I mean, obviously
644 1 to this day he believes that is exactly what 2 happened. 3 MR. WEINBERG: Our point was, your Honor, is 4 that Judge Quesada made a finding that this was 5 completely incredible. 6 THE COURT: I understand that. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Our point -- 8 THE COURT: I mean, I'm going to make findings 9 in this case. And I'm going to find what a lot of 10 folks are saying is incredible. It doesn't mean it 11 is true, and it doesn't mean some other judge might 12 find a perfectly logical explanation for it. 13 You know, that doesn't mean Mr. Dandar didn't 14 believe that somebody from the Church stole it. 15 MR. WEINBERG: The point was he didn't have any 16 evidence of it. It was a false accusation. There 17 has been a pattern of that throughout this case. 18 That is part of what we pled. That is part of what 19 the termination of sanctions is concerning. And 20 that is certainly part of our motion to disqualify 21 Mr. Dandar. 22 THE COURT: All right. 23 MR. WEINBERG: All right, I'll go to the next 24 issue. 25 THE COURT: And you say that on this same thing
645 1 is the Church's Bates number? 2 THE WITNESS: They typed it on there, "FDLE." 3 THE COURT: Who did? 4 THE WITNESS: The Church of Scientology did, 5 after Judge Quesada and I believed it was from the 6 FDLE. 7 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, all of the discovery 8 had Bates labels on it. We went over that with 9 counsel for the plaintiff. They had Bates -- 10 THE COURT: My point has been made. The mere 11 fact that Judge Quesada ruled does not alter this 12 man's belief in what he reasonably believes to be 13 true. He believes it. You thought it was 14 ludicrous. Judge Quesada thought it was ludicrous. 15 I might think it was true. 16 None of that really matters. The idea is this 17 man wasn't intentionally lying. He thought it was 18 true, and he still thinks it is true. 19 MR. WEINBERG: Right. But what was important, 20 when we got this transcript, however we got it, 21 which we did get it from a public records request, 22 when we got the transcript which he tried so hard 23 for us not to get, on the transcript, what -- what 24 the transcript says and what Fannie McPherson told 25 Ken Dandar on January 27, 1997, was:
646 1 "Ken Dandar: And can you tell me when the last 2 time you talked to her? 3 "Fannie McPherson: It was between Halloween 4 and November 18th, just a few weeks before she died. 5 "Ken Dandar: What was the conversation about? 6 "Fannie McPherson: Well, it was about her 7 coming home for Christmas for two weeks, which she 8 never planned to stay that long before. 9 "Ken Dandar: This time she was going to stay 10 longer? 11 "She was going to stay two weeks this time. 12 "And what was the conversation about? 13 "Fannie McPherson: Mostly Christmas shopping 14 and the fun we were going to have. And she couldn't 15 hardly wait to get her," et cetera. 16 And it goes on. And it says nothing in this 17 statement, as indicated by Mr. Dandar to the Court, 18 that Fannie McPherson got a telephone call from Lisa 19 a few weeks before she went to the Ft. Harrison 20 Hotel and said she was leaving Scientology. And 21 that was the point, and that is what was 22 significant, and that is why it is so essential to 23 Paragraph 31A in this case. 24 And I will mark as the -- as our next exhibit 25 the transcript of that conversation.
647 1 THE COURT: I'm sure it's already in, isn't it? 2 MR. WEINBERG: Actually, I don't think it is. 3 THE COURT: All right, well, then mark it. If 4 he didn't make it an exhibit, I would be 5 flabbergasted. 6 MR. WEINBERG: Well -- 7 THE COURT: I have seen it and read it. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'll mark two exhibits. Also 9 there is a March 27, 2001 letter from the FDLE to 10 Mr. Mansell at the Church of Scientology which -- 11 which responds to a public records request with 12 regard to this statement that had been turned over 13 in the public records. And I'll read it. 14 "This correspondence was provided to 15 acknowledge that our department --" that is the FDLE 16 " -- is in receipt of your March 16, 2001 17 correspondence regarding the above-identified public 18 record request and is hereby furnishing, in response 19 to that request, this particular transcript," which 20 is attached, which is this version of the -- of the 21 statement, of Fannie McPherson "-- this particular 22 transcript (your letter identified saying it's a 23 statement of Fannie McPherson from CL-01-002;1A:8." 24 It's a police number. 25 THE COURT: Why are you reading this to me? Is
648 1 it I can't read? Or you think it is real important 2 to be on the record? Or what? Are you planning on 3 introducing it? 4 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. It just says they produced 5 this document in the public records. 6 THE COURT: I -- I have no doubt about that. 7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. 8 THE COURT: I see that. I know it. He still 9 thinks you stole it. It's just that simple. 10 MR. WEINBERG: All right. 11 THE COURT: Don't you? 12 THE WITNESS: I do. 100 percent. 13 THE COURT: And there is no question about it. 14 So you don't disagree on this. 15 MR. WEINBERG: Okay. We'll mark the transcript 16 as 167. 17 And the March 27, 2001 letter from the FDLE to 18 Mr. Mansell, with the attachment -- actually, that 19 is Defendant's Exhibit 53, so that is already in. 20 THE COURT: I kind of told you it was. 21 MR. WEINBERG: The transcript is not, though, 22 your Honor. That is 167. 23 MR. FUGATE: It's 52. 24 THE COURT: The transcript is 52? 25 MR. FUGATE: It's 52, and the letter is 53,
649 1 Judge. 2 MR. WEINBERG: But is it the one that is 3 readable? Okay, I apologize, I was wrong. We won't 4 mark it. 5 THE COURT: I hope we won't go over stuff that 6 has already been introduced already in the record. 7 You can argue about it, you can do all kinds of 8 stuff you want. 9 THE WITNESS: Judge, I'm not asking to 10 terminate for the day, but could we take a restroom 11 break? 12 THE COURT: Sure. But if it's 20 minutes to 13 five, I'll not take a break and go back and work ten 14 minutes. 15 THE WITNESS: Three minutes? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Why don't we just stop for the 17 day? 18 THE WITNESS: You know me. I want to go -- 19 THE COURT: I know you do. But the deal is -- 20 THE WITNESS: All right, then keep going until 21 you -- 22 THE COURT: We're not going to go. We're not 23 going to take a little break. I'm tired. That is 24 it. 9 o'clock. 25 Why don't you try to finish up with him
650 1 tomorrow? 2 THE WITNESS: Are you going to be finished 3 tomorrow? 4 MR. WEINBERG: I'll do my best. 5 THE COURT: I'm going to start really telling 6 you you can't go over stuff you have gone over. I 7 knew this was in the record. I mean, I knew it. 8 MR. WEINBERG: I'm not trying to -- are we off 9 the record? Are -- 10 THE COURT: It was there. I'm not going over 11 stuff I have been over. 12 MR. WEINBERG: But -- 13 THE COURT: We'll get to that agreement 14 tomorrow, or you're going to stop and I'm going to 15 assume it is not important, which I kind of 16 suggested all along it wasn't very important, 17 because it wasn't. But if you want to get to it, 18 you better get to it. We can't drag this on 19 forever. 20 MR. WEINBERG: I'll get to it. I'm not trying 21 to drag it out. 22 THE COURT: Everybody is dragging it on 23 forever. That is both sides. And, yes, you are 24 dragging it on. And you know -- 25 MR. WEINBERG: Are we off the record now?
651 1 THE COURT: Yes. 2 (Whereupon, Court stands adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
652 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) 5 I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically 6 report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 I further certify that I am not a relative, 8 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 9 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 10 11 DATED this 5th day of June, 2002. 12 13 14 ______________________________ LYNNE J. IDE, RMR 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To Dandar Disqualification Hearing Documents index