0774
1
2
3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
4 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
5
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
6 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
7
8 Plaintiff,
9 vs. VOLUME 7
10 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
11 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
12
Defendants.
13
_______________________________________/
14
15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
16
DATE: May 23, 2002, morning session.
17
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Buiding
18 St. Petersburg, Florida.
19 BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
20
REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR,
21 Notary Public,
State of Florida at large.
22
23
24
25
0775
1 APPEARANCES:
2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4 Attorney for Plaintiff.
5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
7 Attorney for Plaintiff.
8
MR. KENDRICK MOXON
9 MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
10 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
11 Organization.
12 MR. LEE FUGATE and
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and
13 ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
14 Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
15 Organization.
16 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
17 740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
18 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
19
20
APPEARANCES (Continued)
21
ALSO PRESENT:
22
Ms. Donna West
23 Mr. Rick Spector
Ms. Sarah Heller
24 Mr. Ben Shaw
Ms. Joyce Earl
25 Mr. Brian Asay
0776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0777
1
INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
2 PAGE LINE
3 CROSS Mr. Dandar 789 9
Recess 828 18
4 Reporter's Certificate 930 1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0778
1 (The proceedings resumed at 9:03 a.m.)
2 THE COURT: Good morning. I see Mr. Lirot is
3 present today.
4 MR. LIROT: Good morning, your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Good morning.
6 Well, I'm here to announce that since you all
7 didn't give me a whole slew of stuff to read last
8 night, I actually fell asleep earlier, slept late,
9 and I'm feeling like a million dollars.
10 MR. FUGATE: Can I do anything to ruin that,
11 Judge?
12 THE COURT: You probably will.
13 Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad. We'll see
14 how today goes. But in any event, I'm ready.
15 Do we have any legal matters?
16 I've read your memorandum. I'm sure that's a
17 matter to be argued at the appropriate time.
18 MR. FUGATE: And I think -- did I -- did I put
19 up there another courtesy copy of one we filed this
20 morning, maybe with the --
21 THE COURT: You did. It's probably with all
22 the others --
23 Oh, is this it?
24 MR. FUGATE: Yeah. I just filed that, or
25 actually Mr. Lieberman did, your Honor.
0779
1
THE COURT: Okay.
2 MR. FUGATE: But that's obviously for a
3 separate argument.
4 There is --
5 THE COURT: Oh, is that for argument? I'll
6 read it, of course, but I'll take it --
7 MR. FUGATE: There is one matter, Judge, I'd
8 like to bring to the court's attention.
9 THE COURT: All right. Give me --
10 MR. FUGATE: If you'll recall --
11 MR. LIROT: Give me -- if you can give me just
12 a minute.
13 MR. FUGATE: Sure.
14 THE COURT: I'm not sure what to do exactly
15 with these letters from Attorney Dresher and
16 Mr. Franks and -- I mean, do I need to hold these in
17 case there's some issue on this to come up later,
18 maybe?
19 MR. DANDAR: Well, you've already made your
20 decision yesterday, so you don't need it --
21 THE COURT: Well, should I hold them?
22 MR. DANDAR: You can hold it.
23 THE COURT: Stick them somewhere in this pile
24 of stuff.
25 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
0780
1
THE COURT: All right. Let me put this way
2 over on the left-hand side.
3 Okay. I think I'm ready.
4 MR. FUGATE: May it please the court, I do have
5 one matter to bring to the court's attention.
6 THE COURT: Right.
7 MR. FUGATE: I think the court will recall
8 giving me a five-minute clock to establish relevance
9 of the movie The Profit, Courage Productions --
10 THE COURT: True.
11 MR. FUGATE: And at the conclusion of that time
12 clock, I asked for a break, we took a break. And at
13 that break, I noticed at the conclusion of it,
14 Ms. Brooks was -- appeared to be upset. And I asked
15 what had happened, and she said in court that
16 Mr. Emmons ran and had served her with a United
17 States District Court lawsuit on behalf of Courage
18 Productions against her and others for copyright
19 infringement --
20 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Emmons?
21 MR. FUGATE: He's Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot's
22 private investigator.
23 THE COURT: Is this -- are you Mr. Emmons?
24 MR. SPECTOR: No, ma'am.
25 MR. FUGATE: But apparently when we broke, when
0781
1 I asked for the recess, Mr. Emmons served Ms. Brooks
2 with a lawsuit on behalf of Courage Productions,
3 filed in federal court on May 22nd. Mr. Lirot filed
4 it. And I asked if she would give me a copy of it.
5 And the thing that's interesting to me is --
6 and I'll, at the appropriate time, ask to be able to
7 ask Mr. Minton some questions -- obviously, I've not
8 talked to him. But the attached exhibits to the
9 lawsuit show traffic between -- e-mail exhibits,
10 which I'm trying to find one here that I'm looking
11 for -- with Patricia Greenway and filing cc's of her
12 documents which are exhibits in this matter from
13 Patricia Greenway, Courage Productions. And cc'ed
14 to Dandar Law and Lirot Law as an exhibit filed in
15 this lawsuit.
16 And it -- it was served in your courtroom, as I
17 understand it, by their investigator to Ms. Brooks,
18 who is a witness. And it was done on behalf of,
19 apparently, Ms. Greenway, who is, I guess, the agent
20 for Courage.
21 And I think that the court should be aware of
22 that. I think, at the appropriate time, on
23 redirect, I'd like to ask Mr. Minton about it.
24 Because it's interesting -- we didn't get there
25 quite yesterday. It's interesting that in the --
0782
1 the agreement that sets up and incorporates Courage
2 Productions, there are two partners, Peter Alexander
3 and Mr. Minton. He's 50 percent owner, and
4 100 percent, less $200, I think, financier of
5 Courage Productions.
6 And Mr. Lieberman was kind enough in pointing
7 out to me that it appears that before a lawsuit
8 could be filed or legal action could be taken, both
9 of the partners would have to be consulted. And I'm
10 assuming that that didn't happen. In other words,
11 Mr. Minton wasn't asked if he would authorize
12 litigation.
13 And I think frankly, Judge, that it's filed for
14 the purpose of intimidation. And I want to bring it
15 to the court's attention.
16 THE COURT: All right. Let me see it, if you
17 have an extra copy.
18 MR. FUGATE: I do, Judge.
19 THE COURT: I'm not crazy about people serving
20 lawsuits in my courtroom. People are here compelled
21 as a witness -- I don't know if she's compelled or
22 not. But there's some -- there's some old rule,
23 seems to me, that if somebody's in the courtroom
24 pursuant to some compelled attendance, they can't
25 be -- maybe they can't be arrested on a warrant. Is
0783
1 that it? Something from my old criminal law days.
2 MR. HOWIE: It's an arrest matter, but
3 service -- there are certain times when service can
4 be blocked, but I don't think this is one of them.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not crazy about
6 it, for whatever it's worth. I mean, I don't like
7 folks coming to court here and getting served with
8 lawsuits. I mean, at the very least, they can be
9 served outside, not in the courtroom.
10 Anyway, yes, I'll take a look at this. And --
11 and you know, if you think there's something about
12 this now that makes this relevant, why, you can
13 certainly reopen that line of inquiry.
14 MR. FUGATE: Well, I will argue to your Honor
15 that it is. Because again, as I said, the hundred
16 percent funding of it was by Mr. Minton. And it
17 appears that, again, you know, his funds are in use.
18 And in this case, ironically, apparently in use in
19 litigation against him and/or Ms. Brooks.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Howie, you seem to be on your
21 feet for something.
22 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I simply want to
23 communicate with the court that I have been advised
24 of this as well, and we would object to any cross
25 examination on this point until direct -- until
0784
1 Mr. Fugate has an opportunity to perform direct on
2 this.
3 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Till what, now?
4 MR. HOWIE: We ask the court to protect
5 Mr. Minton from inquiry on points raised on this
6 until he has an opportunity to review that and allow
7 Mr. Fugate to perform direct on this before
8 Mr. Minton is cross examined on matters pertaining
9 directly to this lawsuit, since he has not --
10 THE COURT: You're asking me to protect him
11 regarding having to answer --
12 MR. HOWIE: Questions concerning the substance
13 of this lawsuit.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. HOWIE: Until he's had an opportunity to
16 review it.
17 THE COURT: All right. Seems fair to me.
18 But I don't know why we would get into this
19 lawsuit, except as it may be relevant to this
20 inquiry, which would be that somehow this is
21 relevant to the issue here, fraud on the court,
22 lies --
23 But in any event --
24 MR. HOWIE: It's just that from time to time --
25 THE COURT: Just raise your objection if it
0785
1 gets there. I'm not sure exactly where this is
2 going to go.
3 MR. HOWIE: I just want the court to anticipate
4 the possibility --
5 THE COURT: He was not sued, I take it.
6 MR. HOWIE: No, he is not a party. But
7 clearly, he is a witness in this case, and
8 conceivably as a potential codefendant, ultimately.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. HOWIE: We need an opportunity to review
11 that possibility. We knew nothing about this.
12 THE COURT: All right. So can I put this aside
13 for now?
14 MR. FUGATE: Yes, your Honor. I just wanted to
15 bring it to the court's attention. And at the
16 appropriate time, I was going to look at the exhibit
17 list. My recollection is the plaintiffs put in a
18 lawsuit at the beginning of their case -- I think
19 Ms. Brooks' cross examination or -- where there had
20 been a lawsuit produced that they said they needed
21 to have in evidence to show intimidation. I want to
22 check that out. And I think, you know, if that's
23 the case, then I think this one's clearly relevant
24 as well.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll -- I'm going to
0786
1 put it aside and --
2 MR. FUGATE: I didn't mean to take any more
3 time --
4 MR. MOXON: We've served a subpoena to try to
5 get a copy of that film, as you've requested, so you
6 could see it, and we haven't received it. But
7 hopefully, we'll get it and we can give it to you.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
9 Are you ready for cross examination?
10 MR. DANDAR: I think so.
11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Minton, you want to
12 come up here and resume the stand, please?
13 Good morning.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
15 MR. DANDAR: There are two other requests to
16 produce that were served on us by Flag. One is to
17 produce -- and you may have already talked about
18 this -- but they're both dated for today.
19 One is to produce bank checks and bank
20 statements for the estate of Lisa McPherson from
21 January 1st, 2000 to the present, bank statements
22 showing money that Dell Liebreich gave to Ken
23 Dandar, Tom Dandar or Dandar and Dandar, PA, and
24 "bank statements showing deposits of any moneys
25 given to you for any reason by Ken Dandar or Dandar
0787
1 and Dandar or any agent thereof." You may have
2 already addressed that, though. I'm not sure.
3 But this is from the Church of Scientology to
4 Dell Liebreich as a plaintiff/counterdefendant.
5 THE COURT: Let me see it.
6 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar, do you have a copy of
7 that here?
8 MR. DANDAR: No, I don't. This is what you
9 sent me. I'm sure you have a copy.
10 THE COURT: No. I don't think I've addressed
11 this, but I will.
12 Whoever wants to address this --
13 MR. MOXON: Well, can I take a look at a copy
14 of that? We didn't bring that today, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Well, we can address it maybe --
16 MR. MOXON: Yeah. Perhaps at lunchtime.
17 MR. DANDAR: Some other time.
18 THE COURT: Yeah. What else have you got
19 there?
20 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Moxon also filed a request for
21 the estate to produce Patricia Greenway, Dina Holmes
22 and Shirley Wilson to testify today at 9:00.
23 Number one, I have no control over these
24 people. I heard someone call Patricia Greenway my
25 trial consultant. That's a joke. She doesn't work
0788
1 for me at all. She's a person who's just interested
2 in this case. And Dina Holmes lives in Arizona. I
3 have no control over her. And Shirley Wilson, I
4 have no idea where she lives, but it's not in
5 Florida. So I can't produce any of these people.
6 THE COURT: All right. Well, if you folks want
7 to have somebody here, why, go find them and get
8 them here.
9 MR. FUGATE: I --
10 THE COURT: I'm not going to require him to
11 bring these people under these circumstances. He
12 says that they're not parties; they're not
13 witnesses.
14 MR. DANDAR: Okay. Shall we proceed?
15 THE COURT: You may.
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I also add
17 something here?
18 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Why would
19 you -- why would you add something. There's no
20 question before you. If it's a procedural matter,
21 yes, you can, but --
22 THE WITNESS: Well, it's -- it's a further
23 thing that Mr. Howie was not aware of concerning
24 this.
25 THE COURT: Well, then talk to Mr. Howie about
0789
1 it. You know, I can't --
2 THE WITNESS: All right. I'll do it later.
3 THE COURT: If you want to do it now --
4 THE WITNESS: I'll do it later. That's all
5 right.
6 THE COURT: All right.
7 ___________________________________
8 CROSS EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Good morning, Mr. Minton.
11 A Good morning, Mr. Dandar.
12 Q Mr. Minton, are you on any medications today?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What are they?
15 A Cough drops.
16 Q Have you been, in your lifetime, diagnosed with
17 bipolar disease?
18 A I have not.
19 Q Have you taken any -- any prescription medications
20 in your lifetime -- well, let's just say in the last couple
21 of years -- that have anything to do with any mental
22 condition?
23 A You want to define mental condition?
24 Q Well, anxiety, depression --
25 A Yes.
0790
1 Q -- manic depressive.
2 A Yes. Depression.
3 Q Pardon me?
4 A Yes. Depression.
5 Q What type of medication is that?
6 THE COURT: Why do we need to go there?
7 MR. DANDAR: Well, I just want to ask him these
8 questions to see -- he's supposed to be on these
9 medications, and maybe he's not on these
10 medications.
11 THE COURT: Well, the truth of the matter is,
12 my understanding of the -- of course, this ought to
13 be Mr. Howie's bag and maybe I ought to just mind my
14 own business.
15 Go on ahead.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q What's the name of the medication?
18 A Celexa.
19 Q That's for depression, correct?
20 A It is.
21 Q And when's the last time you took that?
22 A Sometime around -- let me look at my calendar.
23 Q That's fine.
24 A The day after -- the day of Judge Schaeffer's
25 contempt hearing.
0791
1 Q So April 5th of 2001?
2 A Right.
3 Q Okay. Does your prescription permit you to take
4 it whenever you want to, or does it say you need to take it
5 regularly?
6 A Take it as needed.
7 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I'm just going to
8 object to the relevancy of this line of inquiry.
9 THE COURT: Well, I -- I would tend to agree,
10 but I think it's more of a matter for Mr. Howie's
11 objecting, quite frankly.
12 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, I would point out we've
13 not reached matters privileged yet, and in good
14 faith I cannot interpose an objection based on
15 privilege. Not being a party to the motion, I'm
16 not --
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. HOWIE: -- in a position to object to
19 relevance.
20 THE COURT: I understand.
21 Well, then, your relevancy objection -- my
22 understanding is drugs are relevant for a few
23 things. One, if somebody is under the influence of
24 drugs while they're testifying. That's entitled to
25 be known. Two, if somebody is fairly addicted to
0792
1 drugs where this could influence them, and that's
2 relevant. And then three, would be, I think -- I
3 think -- and I may be wrong on this -- regarding the
4 incident in question, whether somebody was on drugs,
5 you know, even if not today and even if not normal,
6 when -- when some incident occurred.
7 So just to start asking somebody about, you
8 know, drugs that they've taken and what have you
9 would seem to have no relevance. Unless you can
10 tell me what it is. You're saying that it may be
11 relevant 'cause if he should be taking it --
12 MR. DANDAR: He should be --
13 THE COURT: How that would influence --
14 Well, it might influence his actions --
15 MR. DANDAR: Right.
16 THE COURT: -- but I don't know how it would
17 influence his actions.
18 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
19 THE COURT: So I'm going to rule that it's
20 irrelevant, at least as to anything I'm -- I've not
21 observed anything unusual in his behavior, and
22 therefore I think it's irrelevant.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Mr. Minton --
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, could I just say one
0793
1 more thing about the depression drugs?
2 THE COURT: Sure.
3 THE WITNESS: Just, you know, my understanding,
4 based on medical advice, is that the three types
5 of -- well, these are called SSRIs, serotonin
6 reuptake inhibitors or something, that adds
7 serotonin to the brain, which is a naturally
8 occurring drug in the body, serotonin.
9 And people who are subject to depressions have
10 periods of time in which their serotonin levels go
11 down. And the Prozac and Zoloft are two types of
12 these drugs which require a constant build-up --
13 well, build-up at the beginning of about two weeks
14 before the serotonin reaches an optimum level.
15 Celexa, which has been in use in Europe for 20 years
16 before Zoloft and Prozac were introduced in this
17 country, is a fast-acting, immediate serotonin
18 increase, as opposed to something that needs to be
19 gradually built up. So that's why Celexa, for
20 example, is something you can take on an as-needed
21 basis as opposed to these others, which you have to
22 be on constantly.
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q In the summer of 2001, were you being treated by a
0794
1 medical doctor at all for any reason?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Who was that?
4 A I don't remember his name. I went into the
5 hospital with pneumonia, as I recall.
6 Q What month was that?
7 A It was August, late August, just before the Labor
8 Day weekend.
9 Other than that doctor, I think the last time that
10 I saw any other doctor was a couple of years before that.
11 Q Okay. In fact, you and I would always talk about
12 you should be getting a checkup, a physical examination.
13 And you were asking me in the years '98, '99, 2000, 2001, to
14 find you a doctor here that would be a good doctor for a
15 physical examination, is that right?
16 A That's not correct.
17 Q Okay. What is correct?
18 A What is correct is after your heart attack, or you
19 know, open heart surgery, the quadruple bypass thing --
20 Q Quintuple.
21 A Okay. You had just gotten very religious on the
22 subject of medical care; suggested that this was something I
23 really needed to do. And you know -- so I think your -- the
24 time period that you talked about went back much further
25 than when you had that operation.
0795
1 Q All right. Now, in the summer of 2001, did you
2 receive any treatment by a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
3 A Not that I remember.
4 Q Okay. In the summer of 2001, were you -- were you
5 being treated by a mental health therapist?
6 A Yes. I had talks with a mental health therapist.
7 Q And what's that person's name?
8 A Diane Palermo.
9 Q When did you talk to Diane Palermo.
10 MR. HOWIE: Objection. Privilege.
11 THE COURT: Is she a psychiatrist, psychologist
12 or a -- someone in that area that allows a
13 privilege, or is she just a -- I mean, I don't even
14 know who she is. Is she a psychiatrist?
15 MR. DANDAR: I think Mr. Minton answered that
16 question.
17 THE COURT: Is she a psychiatrist?
18 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what she is, your
19 Honor. I don't think she's a psychiatrist, though.
20 THE COURT: Is she a psychologist?
21 THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
22 THE COURT: What is she?
23 THE WITNESS: She's a -- she's -- she's a
24 social worker in New York.
25 THE COURT: Social worker. There is no
0796
1 privilege about social work, I don't believe;
2 talking to a social worker.
3 MR. HOWIE: I would -- I am not sure whether
4 the laws of New York would apply in making that
5 decision, your Honor.
6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I don't pretend to
7 speak with knowledge certain, but I do believe that
8 social workers do practice psychotherapy and are
9 covered under the New York privilege. I'm not
10 certain.
11 THE COURT: Well, run up to my library and find
12 out, because I'm certain we have the New York laws
13 up there. This could be relevant. I have already
14 heard about this through Ms. Brooks' testimony.
15 MR. DANDAR: Even if there was a privilege,
16 which I'm sure there is not for this person,
17 Palermo, it's been waived, because this telephone
18 conference was used as Mr. Minton's excuse before
19 Judge Baird under an affidavit by --
20 THE COURT: Ms. Brooks.
21 MR. DANDAR: -- Stacy Brooks, and I believe
22 perhaps even his testimony -- I could be wrong on
23 that part -- that this therapist was the reason why
24 he didn't show up on August 3rd for his deposition
25 last summer.
0797
1 THE COURT: I think that's true. So to -- I
2 mean, I think he can inquire now. As to whether he
3 can inquire as to what was said, I don't know that
4 he's asked that yet.
5 MR. DANDAR: Not yet.
6 THE COURT: So when we get to that, why, we'll
7 determine whether or not there's a privilege.
8 And somebody needs to go up to the library.
9 Because if somebody can't show me that there's a
10 privilege, there is no privilege that I know of in
11 the state of Florida, which is where we are, that
12 deals with a social worker as being a privilege
13 under some psychotherapy privilege, that I'm aware
14 of. I don't deal with this every day, so I may be
15 wrong even under Florida law.
16 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, my response to this
17 waiver of privilege argument is that I do not
18 believe the contents of any communication with Diane
19 Palermo was revealed. Only then would there be a
20 waiver of privilege. Merely to reveal a contact
21 with a therapist is not a waiver of content
22 communication.
23 THE COURT: Thus far I don't think we're into a
24 privileged area, number one. Number two, I'll deal
25 with the waiver and I'll deal with whether there is
0798
1 a privilege if in fact he asks what he talked to her
2 about. He has not asked that. So your objection's
3 overruled.
4 MR. WEINBERG: Could I get Mr. Minton some
5 water?
6 THE COURT: I thought --
7 THE WITNESS: No, I got some from Ms. Brooks.
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: Oh, so she just -- okay.
9 THE WITNESS: She'd like hers back, I believe.
10 She doesn't like that kind of water.
11 Could we switch?
12 MR. WEINBERG: I was just the middleman.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Continue.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Mr. Minton, how did you know Diane Palermo?
17 A She was introduced to me by David Cecere.
18 Q In Clearwater?
19 A I believe so, yeah.
20 Q And she's a former Scientologist, correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And she came to the Lisa McPherson Trust --
23 A Yes. I believe, yes.
24 Q And she came to the Lisa McPherson Trust seeking
25 assistance of some kind, correct?
0799
1 A Not that I know of.
2 Q Okay. Did you meet her in person?
3 A You know, the only time I ever met Diane Palermo
4 was less than two minutes.
5 Q In Clearwater.
6 A I think it was, yes.
7 Q When?
8 A Sometime around one of the annual pickets.
9 Q So was it in --
10 A It was either '99 or 2000.
11 Q Okay.
12 A In December of those years. To the best of my
13 recollection.
14 Q And --
15 A It wasn't both years. It was just one of those
16 years.
17 Q And it was just a brief introduction.
18 A Yes.
19 Q All right.
20 A She was a -- she was introduced to me as, I
21 thought, David Cecere's girlfriend.
22 Q Okay. And David Cecere, was he working for the
23 Lisa McPherson Trust at the time?
24 A I'm not sure. Because if it was at the end of
25 2000, he wouldn't have been. If it was in '99, he would
0800
1 have been. And I don't remember --
2 Q Okay.
3 A -- which year it was.
4 Q And did he -- he or she describe to you what she
5 does for a living?
6 A No.
7 Q Okay. When's the next time you had contact with
8 Diane Palermo?
9 A Sometime in 2001, after she made some post on the
10 Internet.
11 Q And when she made some post on the Internet, you
12 responded to that post in a rather negative fashion, is that
13 right?
14 A No. I responded to that post in a fashion that
15 suggested that if she was going to come out and tell her
16 story, she ought to be telling all of it.
17 Q And how did you know she didn't tell all of it?
18 A Based on what she had told Stacy or Jesse.
19 Q Okay.
20 A Or what David Cecere had told me. I don't
21 remember how. But I knew there was a lot more to the story.
22 Q Okay. And so you responded to her with an e-mail
23 or a posting on ARS? Which one?
24 A I responded with a post on ARS. I might have
25 copied her by e-mail on the post. I don't remember.
0801
1 Q Okay. Now, when people come to the Lisa McPherson
2 Trust to seek help of whatever kind, being a former
3 Scientologist or even a current Scientologist, do they have
4 an understanding that whatever they tell people inside the
5 Lisa McPherson Trust is confidential?
6 A That is understood, I believe. I'm not -- there's
7 no -- there's no document that we sign with anybody and
8 says -- you know, it's no confidentiality agreement entered
9 into, but the idea is that it's confidential.
10 Q And when -- and when someone tells you something
11 in confidence, do you honor that?
12 A Yeah. I'd say so, generally.
13 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, I just found in Earhart
14 the answer that you were looking for in the library.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, we don't need to deal
16 with it unless we get to what they talked about. So
17 you've got it, and that's good.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q All right. So she posted something on ARS,
20 alt.religion.scientology, and you responded with another
21 post, correct?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q All right. And then when is the next time you had
24 contact with her?
25 A We had some e-mail communications after that.
0802
1 Q And what's the general subject matter of those
2 e-mail communications?
3 MR. FUGATE: I'm just going to object to
4 relevance.
5 THE COURT: I think I see the relevance.
6 Overruled. Or I see the potential relevance.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q What was the subject matter?
9 A Her situation in Scientology.
10 Q Was she still in Scientology?
11 A It was a little bit unclear to me at that time.
12 I'm not sure.
13 Q Okay.
14 A She was still in close communication with somebody
15 who was still in Scientology, and so I'm not sure whether
16 she still was in or not.
17 Q Is that Mr. Carmichael?
18 A That's who I understood it to be.
19 Q And he's still in Scientology, correct?
20 A He is. He's the man who was talked about here in
21 terms of the New York Times article.
22 Q He's in OSA, in New York, correct?
23 A I believe he's in the Office of Special Affairs.
24 He's the public relations head of the Church of Scientology
25 in New York, and that would, to my knowledge, would be an
0803
1 office -- office of Special Affairs job.
2 Q When's the first time you ever talked to
3 Ms. Palermo about yourself?
4 A At about the time of this whole matter regarding
5 Judge Baird.
6 Q That was the first time you talked to her about
7 yourself, correct?
8 A I believe it was.
9 Q And that was the day before your scheduled
10 deposition of August 3rd, 2001 --
11 A Yes.
12 Q -- correct?
13 And you talked to her because --
14 A The day before or the day before that.
15 Q Okay. And you talked to her because you had just
16 seen what Scientology posted about your doctors or your
17 family's and children's doctors up on the Internet, correct?
18 A There weren't anything about doctors. There
19 were -- there was information about a psychologist or
20 psychiatrist that might have been seen by either my children
21 or my wife or me.
22 Q Why do you say might have?
23 A Because they were wrong on one of them.
24 Q Why not -- how many?
25 THE COURT: I'm curious as to why you said they
0804
1 weren't doctors. Psychiatrists and psychologists
2 are doctors, or at least a psychiatrist is an MD,
3 and most psychologists are PhDs and therefore --
4 THE WITNESS: Right.
5 THE COURT: -- have a right to be called
6 doctors.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, because I'm not sure which
8 of the ones who were on there are psychiatrists or
9 psychologists.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 BY MR. DANDAR:
12 Q Were there any --
13 THE COURT: When you said they were not
14 doctors, you were meaning in the term of medical
15 doctors.
16 THE WITNESS: Right. Right.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q All right. So there weren't any medical doctors
20 who practiced medicine, outside of psychiatry.
21 A Or psychology.
22 Q All right. Weren't any pediatricians or family
23 doctors posted, were there?
24 A No.
25 Q How many doctors were posted, or how many names?
0805
1 A You'd have to show me the post. I can't remember.
2 Q Okay. And this caused you great anxiety or
3 depression, correct?
4 A It didn't bring on any bout of depression, but I
5 was not happy about it.
6 Q Okay. And who was the first person that you
7 called?
8 A Well, I think I talked to Stacy Brooks. I talked
9 to John Merrett. I talked to Diane Palermo at some stage.
10 Q You talk to me?
11 A I don't remember whether I talked to you.
12 Q How long did you talk to Diane Palermo?
13 A Probably a couple of hours.
14 Q Okay.
15 A And she subsequently had other conversations with
16 Merrett and Stacy Brooks.
17 Q And did you ask her to write a note or an
18 affidavit so that you could hand it to -- use it in some
19 fashion with Judge Baird to excuse you from the deposition?
20 A I did not.
21 Q Did Stacy Brooks do that?
22 A No.
23 Q Did anyone do that?
24 A I believe John Merrett asked her to.
25 Q You sure it wasn't Stacy Brooks?
0806
1 A I believe it was John Merrett.
2 Q Okay.
3 A You know, I wasn't there. They were in Florida, I
4 was in New Hampshire.
5 Q And did --
6 A And they -- they told me about that they had asked
7 her to do that. And I said, "There's no way you're going to
8 ask her to do that."
9 Q And why is that?
10 A Because she didn't want her name revealed.
11 Q And isn't it also true she wasn't your mental
12 health therapist?
13 A At that moment, she -- she was.
14 Q Did she agree to treat you on the phone as a
15 mental health therapist?
16 A She did it in a fashion that a mental health
17 therapist would do it. And we didn't discuss whether we're
18 going to agree to set up some client relationship. We never
19 discussed that.
20 Q And you --
21 A She had been -- she had been communicating -- just
22 to go back here, there were some people in your stable of
23 friends, Patricia Greenway and Dina Holmes, who took the
24 message -- and Shirley Wilson, the people who were talked
25 about this morning -- who took the post that I made about
0807
1 Diane Palermo and made this as something nasty. A nasty
2 post about Diane Palermo.
3 Well, Diane Palermo and I had numerous e-mail
4 communications on the subject of that post. And she
5 subsequently posted on the Internet that there was no reason
6 for anybody to be upset with me, that she was totally fine
7 with everything that had happened. And then Diane Palermo
8 and I were in close contact by e-mail. And maybe we had
9 talked on the phone once before, I'm not sure. But I think
10 it was just by e-mail.
11 Q Whatever Ms. Palermo was asked to do, she refused
12 to do it, is that correct? In reference to any kind of
13 communication to Judge Baird.
14 A I have no idea, because I wasn't there. But I
15 told them that -- and I told her that -- subsequent to that,
16 that she was not required to do anything, and that I would
17 do everything I could to keep her name out of this.
18 Q Did you talk to any mental health professional,
19 before August 3rd of 2001, about this posting and your --
20 your reaction to it?
21 A Not that I'm -- not besides her.
22 Q So you never talked to Steve Hassan, correct?
23 A I don't believe I did.
24 Q Did someone talk to him on your behalf to request
25 a note from him?
0808
1 A That's possible.
2 Q Who?
3 A Might have been Stacy or John Merrett.
4 Q And he refused as well, correct?
5 A I don't know.
6 Q All right.
7 A You know, just understand that this note was
8 important to John Merrett. It wasn't important to me.
9 Which is why I had nothing to do with it.
10 Q Did you ever receive any information that, when I
11 found about this, I suggested you immediately go to
12 Wellspring and see a real professional in the mental health
13 field?
14 A You made that suggestion to who?
15 Q Either John Merrett or Stacy Brooks or yourself.
16 A Well, you didn't make it to me and nobody
17 communicated that to me.
18 Q All right. Now, Mr. Minton, have you ever
19 experienced any Scientology auditing?
20 A No. Other than a demonstration version of it in
21 the offices of Courage Productions.
22 Q And how long ago was that?
23 A It was either in -- I think it was in the year
24 2000.
25 Q Well, didn't you have experience with that with
0809
1 Stacy Brooks?
2 A Yes. She was the one who was conducting our
3 demonstration.
4 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I would object to the
5 form, then, of the question, because it would not be
6 Scientology auditing if it took place outside of the
7 Church of Scientology by someone who's not a
8 Scientology auditor.
9 THE COURT: I don't know the -- I don't know
10 the rules of Scientology. If it's once an auditor,
11 always an auditor, or what, but Ms. Brooks has
12 testified these was a Scientology auditor.
13 MR. MOXON: No, your Honor, it's not once a
14 auditor, always an auditor. If you lose your
15 certificate to audit, your license, you can't
16 audit --
17 THE COURT: But --
18 MR. MOXON: -- your Honor.
19 THE COURT: But if you've learned to audit as a
20 Scientologist, I don't know why you couldn't do the
21 same thing when you're not a Scientologist. So --
22 MR. MOXON: Well --
23 THE COURT: So I understand your
24 characterization. And I will sustain the objection
25 as to the characterization. Just call it
0810
1 "auditing."
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q Have you visited the Ft. Harrison Hotel, inside
4 the hotel?
5 A I don't think I've ever been inside. I certainly
6 have not been inside anytime recently. I might have stepped
7 in the front door one time in the year 1998 or '9, not
8 more --
9 Q How about --
10 A -- than a foot in --
11 Q -- 2000 ---
12 A -- or something like that.
13 Q How about 2002?
14 A No.
15 Q Okay.
16 A You know, I -- I didn't believe the story about
17 being picked up in a limo and taken to the Ft. Harrison
18 Hotel and have six CR people carry in the baggage.
19 Q Did you see that?
20 A Yeah. That's -- that's -- you know, that's where
21 this question comes from. And you know, if you read -- if
22 you believe everything you see on the Internet --
23 Q Okay.
24 A But I haven't been in there.
25 Q Well, I just had to ask the question.
0811
1 A It was a good question.
2 Q All right. Now, when you got involved with
3 becoming vocal on the Internet about Scientology, that was
4 because you saw Scientology had removed someone's Web site
5 all by themselves, correct? That got you infuriated.
6 A No. That had nothing to do with it.
7 Q Why did you become involved in people who are
8 critical of Scientology?
9 A Well, when I first -- you're not asking a question
10 that's going to get you an answer, but I will give you the
11 answer that you're trying to get to --
12 THE COURT: I don't know, because I -- I've
13 heard why you got annoyed with Scientology, and I
14 thought it had to do with exactly what he just asked
15 you. So I think he's going to get there sooner or
16 later --
17 A Yeah. I'll just help you on this one.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q Go ahead. Tell us.
20 A No. What happened in January of 1995 was that an
21 attorney for the Church of Scientology -- at least this was
22 the way it was portrayed at the time -- tried to illegally
23 cancel a newsgroup called alt.religion.scientology, as
24 opposed to a Web site.
25 Q Okay.
0812
1 A You had asked about Web site.
2 Q All right.
3 A This was Helena Kobrin.
4 You know, a few years later -- actually, I've seen
5 the letter or e-mail that she sent. And it wasn't any
6 illegal attempt to cancel the newsgroup. It was in fact a
7 request to take it down because it was established by
8 somebody who falsely used David Miscavige's name to set it
9 up. And that was the basis for it. But at the time, it was
10 totally portrayed as an illegal attempt to close down this
11 group, where people who came -- who were former
12 Scientologists, by and large, came to talk about their
13 experiences and things related to Scientology.
14 Q Was it -- was it actually taken down for a while?
15 A Not to my knowledge.
16 THE COURT: What's that again? I've seen it a
17 lot of times. Alt Scientology what?
18 THE WITNESS: Alt.religion.scientology. ARS
19 for short.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q You have called -- in the courtroom, you have
23 called FACTNet an anti-Scientology Web site, is that right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And when did you start using the description
0813
1 anti-Scientology?
2 A Well, I've used it a long time.
3 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that FACTNet is simply
4 a clearinghouse of documents?
5 A No. It's absolutely untrue.
6 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, that FACTNet doesn't
7 just deal with Scientology; it deals with other coercive
8 cults?
9 A After Stacy Brooks and I left, because of the
10 prohibitions in terms of the settlement agreement that we
11 had with the Church of Scientology as FACTNet, FACTNet
12 substantially reduced its Scientology -- it's overt
13 Scientology attacks -- because it was focused exclusively on
14 Scientology up until then -- and started putting more stuff
15 on their Web sites, as the LMT has done -- we have stuff
16 about many other organizations besides Scientology on there.
17 And so from the time we settled with Scientology, the
18 content concerning Scientology became a smaller percentage
19 of FACTNet's Web site. But it is still by far the dominant
20 part of what their Web site consists of.
21 Q Is Operation Clambake an anti -- as you say,
22 anti-Scientology Web site?
23 A Yes. I would characterize it that way.
24 Q Well --
25 A I don't see anything on there pro-Scientology.
0814
1 Q Well, don't they simply disclose Scientology's own
2 documents on the Web site?
3 A Well, if they're doing that, then they're
4 violating the copyrights of the Church of Scientology, but
5 because they're in Norway, they're outside of the
6 jurisdiction of the courts and --
7 But by and large, they have some Scientology
8 documents on there, but the vast majority of the material
9 they have is not Scientology documents.
10 THE COURT: Is that what Operation Clambake is,
11 a Web site?
12 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
13 THE COURT: It is not a corporation or a --
14 it's just a site, a Web site.
15 THE WITNESS: It is a corporation.
16 MR. DANDAR: I -- I only know it as --
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. DANDAR: -- as a Web site. I don't know
19 what the --
20 THE WITNESS: It became a corporation in the
21 beginning of 2001 sometime. January, February, or
22 March.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Do you have a financial interest in Operation
25 Clambake?
0815
1 A No.
2 Q I mean have you ever had a financial stake in
3 Operation Clambake?
4 A No.
5 Q Okay. Who does, as far as you know?
6 A I don't think anybody has a financial stake in it.
7 Q All right. So I'm using the wrong word then.
8 A Mr. Heldal-Lund is the person who put together the
9 Web site. I believe he's the sole shareholder of the
10 Operation Clambake, you know, limited company or whatever
11 its equivalent is in Norway.
12 Q Did you ever help him financially to operate the
13 Web site?
14 A No, I didn't.
15 Q Did you ever help him financially to -- as a
16 personal loan or gift or donation?
17 A No.
18 Q Now, you have given money to attorney Dan Leipold,
19 correct?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q And when you gave money to attorney Dan Leipold,
22 did you just send him a check or did you make him sign legal
23 documents?
24 A When we first started, there -- I think you've
25 seen it in evidence here -- there was a loan agreement when
0816
1 he set up his law firm, Leipold Donohue and Shipe.
2 Q And when you sent those checks of the documents
3 that we show, that -- those documents only show a $180,000
4 loan to Mr. Leipold, correct, and his partner?
5 A To Mr. Leipold and his two partners, that's
6 correct.
7 Q And you've given him or loaned him more than that,
8 correct?
9 A Correct.
10 Q All right. Do you have any documents for that?
11 A Other than cancelled checks, no.
12 Q You have any letters?
13 A No.
14 Q And when you sent him more checks over and above
15 the $180,000, is it because he asked you for it?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And is all those checks that you sent included in
18 this contract of 180,000 or is it just a verbal agreement to
19 repay?
20 A I believe that's some sort of privilege involved
21 there.
22 Q Not when you introduced the loan documents.
23 MR. DANDAR: I -- I would object to that and
24 I'd say --
25 THE COURT: Me too. Overruled. If that's an
0817
1 objection coming from him.
2 THE WITNESS: Well --
3 THE COURT: I'm not used to having objections
4 from witnesses, but if it's necessary, I'll overrule
5 it.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, I just was following in
7 Mr. Dandar's -- he objects, and I just assumed it
8 was okay for everybody, but --
9 And I'm not talking about the loan agreement,
10 your Honor, I'm talking about --
11 THE COURT: Sir --
12 THE WITNESS: -- the substance --
13 THE COURT: -- you've got the lawyers here. If
14 there's an objection to be made, it'll be made by
15 them. You're not a lawyer. Answer the question
16 unless I tell you you don't have to.
17 A What was the question?
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q I'll try it --
20 The checks that you sent, over and above the
21 $180,000 to Mr. Leipold, is that based upon a verbal
22 agreement for him to repay those?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Okay. Are you charging interest on that?
25 A I believe our verbal agreement relates to the same
0818
1 interest rate that was on the other loan.
2 Q Okay.
3 A Which I don't remember what it was.
4 Q 10 percent sound right?
5 A I don't remember whether it was 6, 8, 10.
6 Q Okay. Did you loan money to Mr. Wollersheim, who
7 is Mr. Leipold's client?
8 A Yes, I did.
9 Q And how much did you loan him?
10 A Somewhere between 4- and 500,000.
11 Q It's not $750,000?
12 A Well, he owes me $700,000. 697,500.
13 Q And is that interest?
14 A It includes interest and other payments.
15 Q Is there a loan document for that?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Does that loan document reflect the total amount
18 that you just said on the record?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And what's that total amount?
21 A 697,500. I only know that exact figure because it
22 was just -- just had to calculate it a few days ago.
23 Q Oh, okay. I was going to ask you how you
24 remembered that.
25 Now, how much of that is interest?
0819
1 A A couple hundred thousand, approximately. I don't
2 know.
3 Q So it's been a long time since you've sent him
4 money?
5 A Yeah. It was a long time ago when I loaned him
6 this money, right.
7 Q Okay. Did you loan him money --
8 Now, he was in -- he was in -- your partner or
9 co-shareholder in FactNet, right?
10 A There weren't any shareholders in FactNet. And
11 no, he wasn't at that time, because this was in 1996 and
12 1997.
13 Q Okay. Why did you send -- or loan him money?
14 A To enable him to have funds to try and succeed in
15 the strategy that Leipold had come up with to prove alter
16 ego in his case relating to this judgment that he won 20
17 years ago against the Church of Scientology. And there
18 wasn't any money to -- the party that he won the judgment
19 against no longer had any money because it had spent it all
20 in litigation over the years.
21 Q Well, Mr. Wollersheim is not an attorney, correct?
22 A No.
23 Q All right. So why would you --
24 THE COURT: Wait a second, now. That's one of
25 those things where the record is bad.
0820
1 "Mr. Wollersheim is not an attorney, correct."
2 And you said, "No." The real answer to that is,
3 "That is correct," right?
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Wollersheim is
5 not an attorney.
6 MR. DANDAR: Got to watch myself.
7 THE COURT: You have to watch, Counselor,
8 because what happens, the person's answering your
9 question, not that "correct" on the end. That's
10 why, if you start, "isn't it true that," then
11 that -- at least at the end they know what the
12 question is.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Okay. So Mr. Wollersheim's not an attorney. Why
15 would you send him money to pursue collection of his
16 judgment against the Church of Scientology rather than his
17 attorney?
18 A Well, first of all, I didn't know any of his
19 attorneys when this -- you know, I met them all on the
20 phone. All of his attorneys, of which there were umpteen
21 hundreds of them, it seemed to me, who had been involved in
22 this litigation for a long time, we had a conference call
23 that included at least five or six of Mr. Wollersheim's
24 attorneys; Mr. Wollersheim, me and I believe Arnie Lerma was
25 involved in the phone call as well.
0821
1
And you know, Wollersheim -- you know, Wollersheim
2 is a -- sort of a strange individual in many respects, to
3 say the least. And he was introduced to me by Arnie Lerma,
4 who was, in fact, on the board of directors of FACTNet with
5 Wollersheim at that time. And they came up to see me, I
6 think, in the fall of 1996, and I agreed to loan him money
7 to be used for this litigation of -- concerning this
8 strategy of finding an alter ego, so that he had somebody to
9 claim against. Because the Church of Scientology of
10 California didn't have money to pay his judgment.
11 Q Yeah. They bankrupted the mother church after he
12 obtained his judgment, didn't they, so he couldn't collect.
13 A To -- based on knowledge that I've learned since
14 then, no, that's not true.
15 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I object. That's not
16 in evidence, and I object to that characterization.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q At the time you loaned Mr. Wollersheim money, he
20 had not been able to collect on his judgment because the
21 mother church, at that time, in California, had no assets
22 any longer, is that correct?
23 A At the time that he --
24 MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I just would ask for a
25 foundation, if he's --
0822
1
THE COURT: This -- this hearing deals with
2 what's going on with this man --
3 MR. FUGATE: I understand.
4 THE COURT: -- and his state of mind.
5 I'm not -- you'll recall, when Ms. Brooks was
6 testifying, oftentimes I said, "There's a lot of
7 testimony that comes into this hearing that may in
8 fact not be true." But if what's --
9 MR. FUGATE: Judge --
10 THE COURT: -- going on in the heads of these
11 people that are testifying, as to what their motives
12 were, what their motives were then, and what their
13 motives are now, and whether they were lying then or
14 whether they're lying now -- and the only way to get
15 to some of that stuff is to know what was in their
16 mind? What did they think?
17 So I don't have a clue --
18 MR. FUGATE: I recall --
19 THE COURT: -- whether the church has money or
20 whether the church didn't have money or whether they
21 bankrupted itself, and I don't care, quite frankly.
22 What I care about is what did he think, when he
23 was loaning this money, as to how that relates to
24 this? So please, when I overrule your objection,
25 I'm not suggesting that I'm taking this as true.
0823
1 Because I don't think it matters, okay?
2 MR. FUGATE: I appreciate that, Judge, and I
3 will refrain from --
4 THE COURT: And please understand that that's
5 true on a lot of this stuff; you know, that I may
6 not -- there may be stuff that's coming into this
7 hearing that is factually -- I would assume there
8 is -- that is factually incorrect. But it doesn't
9 matter as to this hearing.
10 So --
11 MR. FUGATE: Thank you.
12 THE COURT: -- please remember that.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Wasn't that your understanding as to why
15 Mr. Wollersheim, prevailing against the mother church, could
16 not collect on his judgment, is because the mother church
17 had removed its assets and there was nothing to collect
18 from?
19 A Are you asking me on the basis of what I know now
20 or --
21 THE COURT: No.
22 A -- what I knew then or --
23 THE COURT: No, no. When you loaned the money.
24 A Okay. Well, at the time, Mr. Wollersheim had
25 described to me that -- that there wasn't any money in the
0824
1 Church of Scientology of California, who was the person --
2 who was the entity against which his judgment was entered.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q And his attorneys confirmed that, correct?
5 A I presume that came up. I don't remember exactly.
6 But I presume it did. Yeah. I mean, that was the whole
7 purpose, was to find somebody who had money.
8 So the implication is that the party who was --
9 THE COURT: Some entity within the -- the
10 religious or within the --
11 THE WITNESS: Scientology empire.
12 THE COURT: -- structure.
13 THE WITNESS: Somewhere in the structure.
14 THE COURT: Scientology structure.
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
16 THE COURT: That he could collect his judgment
17 on.
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Anybody who had money
19 because Church of Scientology California didn't.
20 BY MR. DANDAR:
21 Q Okay. And when you loaned Mr. Wollersheim this
22 money, was it one check?
23 A There were -- there were two -- two disbursements,
24 one in '96 and one in '97 sometime.
25 Q And when you loaned him these two checks, did you
0825
1 first have him sign a document, a loan document?
2 A For each -- each amount, there were loan
3 documents.
4 Q What was the first amount?
5 A I believe it was 250,000 or something less, and
6 then the second one was 250 --
7 I'm not a hundred percent sure.
8 Q Okay. And on the loan document, did it describe
9 how the money was to be used?
10 A I believe it did.
11 Q And how -- what did it say about how it would be
12 used?
13 A It said it would be used for this litigation and
14 other personal expenses of Larry Wollersheim.
15 Q Okay. And did the second check -- was that
16 covered by the one loan document?
17 A No. There was a separate loan document for that.
18 Q Did the terms change for the second loan document?
19 A No. It was the same document.
20 Q And did you file a UCC filing form in California
21 to protect your security interest in this loan?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q Okay. When you loaned money to Mr. Leipold, you
24 did tell him to go to Mr. Wollersheim and -- since he had
25 the $500,000, and get the money from him to pay the attorney
0826
1 fees?
2 A You want to --
3 Q Is that a bad question? I'll do it again.
4 A You want to explain that again?
5 Q All right. Did Mr. Leipold use any of that
6 $500,000 that you loaned to Mr. Wollersheim to pay attorney
7 fees and costs, if you know?
8 A No. Mr. -- Mr. Wollersheim did.
9 Q Okay. And was Mr. Leipold his attorney at the
10 time you loaned the money in '96 and '97?
11 A He was one of his attorneys. He was not his main
12 attorney at that time. I believe there was a guy named
13 Craig Stein. And you know, Leipold -- there were several
14 attorneys working for Wollersheim. And you know, I believe
15 they had some sort of joint arrangement. But as I recall, a
16 guy in Colorado, who I think is Craig Stein, was the
17 principal.
18 THE COURT: Can I ask something? Sometimes I
19 write and my brain is listening to what's ahead and
20 I'm trying to write what's behind, and I --
21 Did you indicate that the money you had loaned
22 him in these loan documents, it said that it was be
23 used to help him collect the judgment and for his
24 personal needs or personal use?
25 THE WITNESS: And for other -- I forget what
0827
1 the loan document said, but it also covered some
2 element for the -- his personal --
3 The guy was broke, you know.
4 THE COURT: Personal -- I'm trying to look for
5 the last word you said. Did you say personal needs,
6 personal use --
7 THE WITNESS: Personal needs.
8 THE COURT: Needs.
9 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: The guy was broke. I mean, there
12 wasn't any question about it.
13 THE COURT: I got you.
14 Okay. Thank you.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q So when -- when you loaned money to
17 Mr. Wollersheim, was he already involved in FACTNet?
18 A Yes.
19 And just to clarify here, you know, in the
20 discussions with his attorneys, you know, the attorneys were
21 clearly looking to get this money. I mean, you know, that's
22 what the whole thing was about.
23 THE COURT: Which money? The money --
24 THE WITNESS: The money that I loaned
25 Wollersheim. Because you know, they were -- I mean,
0828
1 the reason they were even taking the time to talk to
2 me on the phone is because they wanted to pursue
3 this litigation or collection of the judgment.
4 THE COURT: And presumably, if you loaned him
5 some money to collect a judgment, that may be one
6 way he could get it, is to give it to lawyers who
7 knew perhaps better how to get it, is that --
8 THE WITNESS: I mean, they were already his
9 lawyers, and you know, they were charging him --
10 charging him --
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 THE WITNESS: -- for doing the work. I mean,
13 these were not --
14 THE COURT: I have an urgent matter that I need
15 to take care of. It's 10:00. We'll take 15
16 minutes, okay?
17
18 (A recess was taken at 10:01 a.m.)
19 (The proceedings were resumed at 10:17 a.m.)
20 BY MR. DANDAR:
21 Q When you loaned the money to Mr. Wollersheim --
22 excuse me -- Mr. Leipold, were there any restrictions on how
23 he used the money?
24 A No. They were loans to he and his two partners.
25 Q Okay. And --
0829
1 A You know, the only restriction was his own self---
2 self-stated goal of what the money was for.
3 Q Was Mr. Leipold representing Mr. Wollersheim at
4 the time you loaned Mr. Wollersheim $180,000 to set up his
5 own law firm?
6 A I'm sorry. I didn't -- I don't think that was --
7 I think you got some names wrong there, so could you ask
8 that again?
9 Q All right. All right. I'll start over again.
10 The money you loaned Mr. Leipold --
11 A Right, right.
12 Q -- $180,000 --
13 A Right.
14 Q -- was that so Mr. Leipold could set up his own
15 law firm?
16 A It was.
17 Q Okay. And was that because Mr. Leipold --
18 Leipold's partners, senior partners were upset with the lack
19 of income he was generating representing Mr. Wollersheim?
20 A I think there were other litigations that he was
21 involved in, involving Scientology, that -- that weren't
22 producing income.
23 Q Okay.
24 A Including Mr. Wollersheim.
25 Q Did part of the money that you loaned to
0830
1 Mr. Wollersheim go to defending FACTNet in the suit brought
2 against FACTNet by RTC?
3 A No.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And how do I know that is because FACTNet had
6 fortuitously purchased a -- an insurance policy to protect
7 them against copyright infringement claims just prior to
8 them infringing Scientology's copyrights and being sued.
9 Q So because of that purchase of the insurance
10 policy by FACTNet, FACTNet's insurance company retained the
11 services of Graham Berry to represent and defend FACTNet by
12 the suit brought by RTC.
13 A I don't know whether Berry was involved in that or
14 not.
15 Q In the FACTNet litigation?
16 A I don't.
17 Q Okay. All right. And --
18 A He wasn't involved in it when I got involved in
19 it.
20 Q Okay. So you don't know about the insurance
21 policy limits being exhausted in the lawsuit brought by RTC
22 against FACTNet and then Mr. Leipold stepped in.
23 A I don't know --
24 Q Okay.
25 A I don't know for sure.
0831
1 Q All right.
2 A I know that there was enough insurance money -- I
3 believe the first case that was litigated in that -- as a
4 result of that copyright infringement at FACTNet was the
5 Lerma case in DC, in front of Judge Brincova (phonetic),
6 that was RTC versus Lerma, maybe Lerma, stroke, FACTNet.
7 I'm not sure. But that was the first case that was
8 litigated. That happened fairly quickly. So they didn't
9 run out of money, for sure, by the end of that one, I'm --
10 Q Okay.
11 A -- reasonably positive.
12 Q Now, Mr. Leipold said that the first loan you gave
13 him and his partners was $20,000, and there's a document
14 that covers only a $20,000 loan. Do you recall that? Is
15 there such a thing?
16 A No.
17 Q Okay. The loan document that's in evidence, is
18 that the only loan document you have with Mr. Leipold and
19 his partners?
20 A As far as I know.
21 Q Okay. Has Mr. Wollersheim paid you back his loan?
22 A The -- as I testified about, I think, yesterday or
23 the day before, the Church of Scientology has paid, I think,
24 roughly $8.7 million into the Los Angeles Superior Court and
25 have filed some sort of interpleader action. And I'm not
0832
1 sure about the terminology, but I know the word
2 "interpleader," which is a kind of a cool word, and I don't
3 understand it yet --
4 They've paid it in and the -- Mr. Wollersheim
5 has -- which -- which is -- the problem as to why
6 Scientology could never settle with Wollersheim is now more
7 apparent and more clear because --
8 THE COURT: Is the answer to the question yes
9 or no? And then you can explain. Is the answer no,
10 you don't have your money back?
11 THE WITNESS: Right. But I'm going to explain
12 the facts, okay, your Honor?
13 THE COURT: But we need an answer. In other
14 words what happens, we get on these big
15 explanations --
16 THE WITNESS: Okay.
17 THE COURT: And the question never gets
18 answered.
19 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, the answer is, I
20 don't have my money back.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 THE WITNESS: But just to continue to explain,
23 Wollersheim, sort of like the movie and the play The
24 Producers, has more creditors than he has judgment.
25 And therefore, the money that's been put into the
0833
1 court by the Church of Scientology of California is
2 to be -- the matter is either to be resolved among
3 the parties, the creditors, or by the court if the
4 parties can't resolve it among themselves.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Do you have any idea whatsoever as to how the
7 defunct mother church, the Church of Scientology of
8 California, which Mr. Wollersheim had a judgment against for
9 over 20 years and couldn't collect on, came up with
10 $8.6 million to put into the registry of the court?
11 A Nobody's ever told me how that happened.
12 Q Did you contribute or promise to contribute any
13 money whatsoever to the payment of the Wollersheim judgment?
14 A Absolutely not. That's another Internet posting,
15 that you just had to ask the question.
16 Q I just had to ask.
17 Did you hear from anyone, who has any connections
18 with the Church of Scientology, as to where that money came
19 from?
20 A No, I didn't.
21 Q All right.
22 A The only knowledge I know about it is -- are the
23 court documents that I've been given.
24 Q Okay. I take it you're still on the Internet
25 every day looking at the postings on ARS?
0834
1 A Not every day. Things are a little busy right
2 now.
3 Q Okay.
4 A I get my e-mail every day. You know, lawyers are
5 sending me documents and stuff from that -- that case out
6 there.
7 Q Okay.
8 THE COURT: Interpleader, for whatever it's
9 worth, is just simply a -- somebody says, "Here.
10 You all figure it out. Just interplead the money,"
11 to be sure that whoever has -- whoever has claims to
12 it.
13 THE WITNESS: Just to sort of get them out of
14 any future problems with it --
15 THE COURT: So that they're not in a problem.
16 They're saying, "This is -- this is the judgment.
17 We're paying it. We're interpleading it into the
18 court. You all either work it out or the court's
19 going to figure it out."
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
21 THE COURT: Sort of. If that makes any sense
22 to you.
23 THE WITNESS: It does.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q All right. Mr. Minton, the first time I ever had
0835
1 any conversation with you was in late September, early
2 October of 1997, is that correct? Yes or no?
3 A It's the first time you ever had any conversation
4 of substance. It's not the first conversation.
5 Q All right. When was our first conversation?
6 A Well, as I've testified at this --
7 THE COURT: Now, understand this. This is
8 cross examination. So just because you've testified
9 about something on direct doesn't mean that he can't
10 ask you about it again.
11 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
12 THE COURT: He's allowed to test your memory.
13 He's allowed to test a lot of things. So you really
14 don't have to say that. Just answer his question.
15 THE WITNESS: Okay.
16 THE COURT: If he asks too many times, I'll
17 jump in.
18 THE WITNESS: Okay.
19 THE COURT: But that's what happens on cross
20 examination.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q So is there -- are you referring to the time in
23 Clearwater at the motel on U.S. 19 when I met Jeff Jacobsen
24 and Larry Wollersheim and some of the other, quote, critics
25 of Scientology, end quote?
0836
1 A I wasn't aware of Jeff Jacobsen, but that was --
2 that was March 9th, 1997. I believe that's a Sunday.
3 Q And you have a recollection that you and I spoke
4 in that motel room?
5 A We did speak.
6 Q What did we say?
7 A We said hello to each other. You know, I thanked
8 you for the bagels and the coffee that you brought. You
9 know, that was about it. That wasn't a conversation of
10 substance.
11 Q Okay.
12 A You just asked me -- it was a conversation.
13 Q All right. And I had --
14 A We also -- we also spoke about that article,
15 the -- I mean -- the article in the New York Times that
16 morning. That's --
17 Q Okay.
18 A It was a big article.
19 Q My conversations of substance was with
20 Mr. Wollersheim, correct?
21 A At that meeting, yes, your -- your principal
22 conversation of substance during that meeting was with
23 Wollersheim.
24 Q And Mr. Wollersheim was also accompanied at that
25 time by a Mr. Lerma, correct?
0837
1 A I don't remember Mr. Lerma being there --
2 Q Okay.
3 A -- but he might have been. I just don't remember.
4 Q And you recall the -- the -- outside in the
5 parking lot was a white van that had a few Scientologists
6 from the Office of Special Affairs in it, with cameras?
7 A I'm not aware that there was one then, but there
8 was one that weekend there that had a person whose name, I
9 believe was David Lee or David Laubagh (phonetic) --
10 Q Okay.
11 A -- who is a private investigator. And he had an
12 Arnie Lerma mask on sometime that afternoon.
13 Q Now, Mr. Minton, the first time you ever talked to
14 me concerning anything of substance was when you telephoned
15 me in September -- late September or early October of '97,
16 is that correct?
17 A That is correct.
18 Q All right. And you telephoned me because
19 Mr. Abelson, the general counsel for the Church of
20 Scientology in California, had called you up and wanted to
21 know if you had given me a hundred thousand dollars.
22 A No. That's not completely accurate.
23 Q All right. Make it accurate.
24 A Mr. Abelson had called me and he said that he
25 understood I was funding the McPherson case.
0838
1 Q Anything else?
2 A About the McPherson case?
3 Q No. Anything else that he said in that call.
4 A You know, he was -- it was generally an
5 intimidation type call, to say that, you know, a guy like
6 you basically shouldn't be getting -- be messing around with
7 things based on information that is totally false. And I
8 think he offered some information about some things that he
9 thought I was misinformed about. You know, I don't remember
10 the specifics of it.
11 But then I believe he accused me -- oh, well, he
12 accused me, obviously, of funding Wollersheim, because he
13 knew about it, I guess, because of the UCC1 filing, that
14 being a public document. You know, anybody has access to
15 that. And he also said that -- that I was funding the
16 McPherson case.
17 Q Did he also threaten you --
18 THE COURT: And you were not, at that time.
19 THE WITNESS: I was not.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Did he also threaten you in that conversation by
23 warning you that if you did, you would be sued for RICO?
24 A That never came up.
25 Q Did he threaten you at all?
0839
1 A Well, you know, I took it as a threat. I mean,
2 you know it wasn't an outright threat, but it was -- there
3 were subtle messages sent that, basically, you know, you
4 shouldn't be getting yourself involved in stuff that could
5 cause you problems.
6 Q Did you feel intimidated by that call?
7 A Well, I think I felt so intimidated that I called
8 you up and asked you if you needed some money.
9 Q In fact, when you called me up, you said, "If
10 Mr. Abelson thinks this is such a bad idea for me to give
11 you money, I'm going to send you money."
12 A No. I said, "It must be a good idea if
13 Mr. Abelson thinks it's -- something wrong with it."
14 Q That's what I meant to say. Thanks.
15 Now, did Mr. Abelson tell you he -- he knew you
16 were in Clearwater in March of '97?
17 A No, he didn't say it.
18 THE COURT: Who is Mr. Abelson? Is he --
19 MR. DANDAR: In-house counsel for --
20 THE COURT: In-house counsel?
21 MR. DANDAR: Yeah.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. MOXON: I object to Mr. Dandar's
24 representation. He's not an in-house counsel.
25 THE COURT: Well, who is he?
0840
1 MR. MOXON: He's an attorney that works for
2 Church of Scientology International.
3 THE COURT: Is he a Scientologist or outside
4 Scientology lawyer?
5 MR. MOXON: He's an outside lawyer.
6 I don't know why that matters.
7 THE COURT: It doesn't. I just thought inside
8 counsel meant a Scientology lawyer as opposed to --
9 MR. MOXON: Mr. Dandar keeps using this term
10 "in-house counsel," but it's not true. He's an
11 outside attorney, and he's an attorney who works for
12 the Scientology International.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MR. DANDAR: I believe that's his only client,
15 but I might be wrong. Mr. Moxon probably knows more
16 than I do about that.
17 MR. MOXON: He's wrong.
18 THE COURT: He is a lawyer who works for the
19 Church of Scientology.
20 MR. MOXON: Yes.
21 THE COURT: All right. Has the authority to
22 make calls on behalf of the Church of Scientology?
23 MR. MOXON: Scientology International.
24 THE COURT: International. Okay.
25
0841
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Church of Scientology International is the mother
3 church, correct, as far as you know, Mr. Minton?
4 A You know, I don't know that.
5 Q Okay. All right. Now --
6 A It might be. I just don't know that.
7 THE COURT: Well, maybe the deal is, is when he
8 called you on the telephone, what did he tell you?
9 Who did he tell you he was calling on behalf of?
10 THE WITNESS: I believe he said he was an
11 attorney for the Church of Scientology.
12 THE COURT: And did you believe that?
13 THE WITNESS: I had no reason to doubt it.
14 THE COURT: Okay. So you --
15 THE WITNESS: And it's --
16 THE COURT: -- assumed he had the authority to
17 make this call and talk to you about whatever he
18 talked to you about.
19 THE WITNESS: Right.
20 And I may have seen his name in connection with
21 Church of Scientology before.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q At that point in time, summer of '97, September of
25 '97, were you already involved with FACTNet?
0842
1 A How do you mean involved? I wasn't on the board
2 or anything like that.
3 Q Had you given any money to FACTNet?
4 A Yes.
5 Q How much?
6 MR. WEINBERG: As of what period of time are we
7 talking about?
8 MR. DANDAR: Summer, September of '97.
9 A You mean up to that time?
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q Right.
12 A You know, I'm not sure. 50,000, 20,000.
13 Somewhere in that kind of range.
14 Q Do you have a loan document for that?
15 A It's a -- it was a 501C3 corporation. It was a
16 donation.
17 Q Do you have a receipt?
18 A I probably did at one stage. I may still have it.
19 I don't know. I haven't looked for it.
20 THE COURT: Was it done by check?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: You have a check?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think it was done by
24 check.
25 THE COURT: That -- for most of us, if we write
0843
1 a check to a 501C3 corporation, that's good enough
2 for a receipt, isn't it?
3 THE WITNESS: Right.
4 But there was a -- you know, there was a change
5 of regulations and they started being required to
6 send out letters.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't know when that started.
9 So I might have the check or I might have a letter
10 or I might have both.
11 THE COURT: Is that why I get -- when I make
12 these little bitty donations --
13 MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
14 MR. DANDAR: I get some --
15 THE COURT: Am I supposed to save those?
16 THE CLERK: Yes.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
18 THE COURT: Oh, thank you all.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: If you ever get audited, they
20 won't accept the check.
21 THE COURT: Well, I just threw something out.
22 "Why are these people writing me? I gave $25 --"
23 I haven't been with the IRS since 1964.
24 MR. WEINBERG: Now, are you knocking on wood
25 right now?
0844
1 THE COURT: I'm not going to worry about it, my
2 little $25 contribution. If they want to challenge
3 it, they can go ahead.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q Mr. Minton, when did you become a -- more involved
6 in FACTNet as a board of director member?
7 A I believe it was December 15th, 1997, when I was
8 officially a board member. The board meeting authorizing it
9 had happened earlier, and so it was with effect from
10 December 15th, I believe.
11 Q And were you --
12 A Wait a minute.
13 Q The only --
14 A Which year did I say?
15 THE COURT: '97.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q '97.
18 A I think that's right.
19 Q Were you the largest supporter of FACTNet
20 financially?
21 A At that time?
22 Q Yes.
23 A Well, up until that time, other than the moneys
24 that I'd given to FACTNet -- you know, I didn't know who
25 else had given moneys to FACTNet. I may have been, I may
0845
1 not have been. I also, you know, sort of did a challenge
2 one time on the Internet, a sort of a matching challenge,
3 where, you know, whatever people would put up, I would match
4 it for FACTNet. And -- so you know, I don't know --
5 Q Okay.
6 A -- for sure.
7 Q And after you sent this hundred thousand dollars
8 to me, are you aware that the Church of Scientology, just
9 prior to that, had sent me interrogatories asking about you
10 and how much money you had given to me?
11 A I was --
12 Q Before you ever even called me up on the phone.
13 A I wasn't aware of that.
14 Q Okay.
15 A But obviously, if Mr. Elliott Abelson thought
16 that, that's probably why they did it.
17 Q Now, Elliott Abelson's out in California. Did he
18 call you up and tell you that he represented the Church of
19 Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. in Clearwater?
20 A As far as I remember, he just said, you know, "I
21 represent the Church of Scientology," you know, without
22 being specific as to which one or anything.
23 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Minton, shortly after you sent
24 that check for a hundred thousand dollars, you were deposed.
25 Do you remember that, in January of '98?
0846
1 A January 13th, '98.
2 Q And you didn't want to be deposed, did you?
3 A Well, I thought it was unusual. That's, you know,
4 based on what my counsel had told me in Boston. But you
5 know, he said, you know, "You don't have much choice,
6 really."
7 Q And I thought it was out of line for them to
8 depose you too, didn't I?
9 A I think you did.
10 Q In fact, I filed a motion to stop it. Do you
11 recall that?
12 A I wouldn't be surprised.
13 Q In your deposition of January of '98, did you tell
14 the truth?
15 A I believe I did.
16 Q Is there anything you want to recant now to this
17 court in your deposition of January, '98?
18 A No.
19 Q I have an excerpt --
20 Well, let me keep going on.
21 May of 2000 was your next deposition, is that
22 correct?
23 A You have the documents. And I'm not sure, but I
24 think there was one in May, 2000. I don't know whether that
25 was the next one or not.
0847
1 Q Okay.
2 A I think that was one -- it was --
3 THE COURT: I'll tell what you what I have,
4 okay? Just to help you out here. Because I've been
5 provided what purports to be all your depositions
6 not only in this case but in sort of the related --
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: -- Clearwater case. Do you know
9 what case I'm talking about?
10 THE WITNESS: The breach case.
11 THE COURT: The breach case.
12 I show you were deposed January 13th of '98,
13 May 24th of 2000; 9-18-01; October the 11th and 12th
14 of 01; and then I have a deposition 4-8-02. If
15 there are more than that, I don't have them. That's
16 what I've got.
17 MR. DANDAR: You're right, Judge.
18 THE COURT: So if that's of any help --
19 THE WITNESS: Okay.
20 THE COURT: You want to write that down?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. I wrote those down.
22 THE COURT: January 13th, '98 --
23 THE WITNESS: May --
24 THE COURT: 24th, 2000.
25 THE WITNESS: 9-18-01 --
0848
1 THE COURT: 9 -- I want to -- I want to make
2 sure, because these tabs are not -- one of them
3 wasn't correct, so let me look on the front of it.
4 September 18th, 2001 --
5 Is that correct?
6 MR. MOXON: Actually, your Honor, the 18th just
7 was the start of the deposition. Went over to the
8 19th. Was primarily on the 19th of September of
9 2001.
10 THE COURT: Okay. And then I have one showing
11 October -- this one shows October 11th and 12th,
12 2001. And then I show one April the 9th of 2002.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I've got it all
14 down here.
15 THE COURT: Like I said, if there are more, I
16 don't have them.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 THE COURT: We'll assume I have them.
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q When you met with the Church of Scientology in
21 2002, Mr. Minton, here in Clearwater, did they -- out of all
22 the documents they brought over for you to look at, did you
23 look at your January, '98 deposition?
24 A You're talking about any time that I met with
25 them.
0849
1 Q Right.
2 A I think the excerpts -- some excerpts from it
3 might have been brought. I don't -- I don't think the whole
4 thing was, but it might have been.
5 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Minton, when you sent the first
6 check for a hundred thousand dollars in October, '97, you
7 accompanied it by the note that -- a handwritten note that
8 the judge has, that I mistakenly refer to as --
9 A As the Kleenex box.
10 Q -- the Kleenex box note.
11 A Right.
12 Q But it was like a hard cover paper?
13 A It was a piece of -- I think -- well, it was a
14 piece of stationery card.
15 Q It was a card, though. It wasn't a piece of
16 paper, right?
17 A Well --
18 THE COURT: It was thick -- it was -- was it
19 something that was more thick than your usual piece
20 of paper?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was thick -- I think it
22 was Crane stationery, if that helps; thick Crane
23 card.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Okay. And it had been torn off on the bottom?
0850
1 A No.
2 Q No?
3 A It hadn't been torn off on the bottom. You know,
4 it -- it -- it's a card that fits into an envelope --
5 Q All right. Had your name printed on the top
6 though, didn't it?
7 A Right. It was engraved.
8 Q Why I said Kleenex box, I'll never know.
9 But anyway, when you first talked to me, you said,
10 "I'll show you I'm for real. I'll send you a check for a
11 hundred thousand dollars." Do you recall that?
12 A I think you were asking if I'm for real, and I
13 said, "You know, you want to find out, you know, cash the
14 check."
15 Q And I told you that first call, I said, you know,
16 I had no recollection of meeting you, correct?
17 A I think you did.
18 Q And you had to remind me --
19 THE COURT: You think he did have a
20 recollection or you think --
21 THE WITNESS: No. I think I did say that --
22 or -- no, I think he did say that he didn't have a
23 recollection of --
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: -- meeting me, is what I meant.
0851
1
MR. DANDAR: My fault again.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q And you reminded me about the meeting inside the
4 U.S. 19 hotel --
5 A The Howard Johnson.
6 Q -- with Wollersheim.
7 A Right.
8 Q Okay. All right. And so you sent the check for a
9 hundred thousand dollars, correct?
10 THE COURT: Is the date on that October 6th?
11 I'm looking.
12 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q And your conditions were there weren't any
17 conditions except -- unless the estate recovered, correct?
18 A You know, you need to characterize what all of the
19 conditions were.
20 Q Okay. It was a nonrecourse, interest-free loan,
21 correct?
22 A The subject of nonrecourse never came up. But it
23 was an interest-free loan to the estate that would only
24 be -- that would only have to be repaid if the estate
25 recovered moneys. So if they didn't recover money in this
0852
1 case, either through settlement or at trial, you know, the
2 estate didn't have to pay it back.
3 Q From the moment you first talked to me on the
4 telephone about sending the hundred-thousand-dollar check,
5 to your deposition in Boston with your two attorneys
6 representing you at that deposition, Mr. Jonas and Kathy
7 Shipe from Mr. Leipold's office, did you and I sit down and
8 prepare you for that deposition in January of '98?
9 A We didn't sit down. I think we talked about it.
10 Q Okay. When did we talk about getting you prepared
11 for your deposition in Boston in January of '98?
12 A Well, we talked about it on the phone sometime
13 before it.
14 Q What did -- what did we discuss?
15 A That, you know, this is not a big deal; this is a
16 pretty routine thing. You know, there's nothing to be
17 concerned about here. You know, I mean, you were just sort
18 of giving general advice as to a deposition, because you had
19 had some experience with depositions involving Scientology
20 at that stage.
21 Q Had you had any experience in any kind of
22 deposition up to that point in time?
23 A I'd never been involved in any litigation before,
24 and had no experience in it.
25 Q How many times did we talk on the phone where I
0853
1 told you, "It's no big deal. They just want to know who you
2 are and why you sent me a hundred thousand dollars"? I
3 mean --
4 A I don't know. We talked several times during that
5 time period. So you know, I don't know particularly how
6 many.
7 Q Was there a vigil in December of '97 before your
8 Boston deposition?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did I go to that?
11 A You know, I don't know for sure. I think you
12 were.
13 Q Did -- did you go to that?
14 A I -- if I was here, I probably did.
15 Q Did Dell Liebreich and her sisters come to that?
16 A I don't think -- I think that was the first sort
17 of anniversary picket, stroke, vigil. I don't think they
18 came to the first one.
19 Q And who organized that?
20 A Jeff Jacobsen from Arizona.
21 Q Okay.
22 THE COURT: So is the answer you believe that
23 you were there, Mr. Dandar was there, but you do not
24 recall that Ms. Liebreich or the sisters were there?
25 THE WITNESS: I don't recall anybody from the
0854
1 family at that first one.
2 THE COURT: But you do recall that you and
3 Mr. Dandar were there.
4 THE WITNESS: Well, I believe Mr. Dandar was
5 there.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q You're not --
8 A I'm not --
9 Q You're not certain about that, are you?
10 A Huh -- no. The thing I remember about that one is
11 that was where -- you know, I remember Gabe Cazares being
12 there, for example; I remember -- I think that was the one
13 where the candles were blown out. I'm a little hazy as to
14 which one.
15 Q And Mr. Minton, did you participate in a picket in
16 the daytime outside of the night vigil?
17 A Well, if I was here for the picketing, I'm sure I
18 did.
19 Q Did I participate in a picket Mr. --
20 A No. Wait a minute, Mr. Dandar. You know, I'm not
21 sure. There was a -- I think the -- the first picket here
22 was March, '96. The next picket was March, '97. And I
23 believe the first picket that was focused on Lisa McPherson
24 was December, '97. You know --
25 Q I think you're right. I don't know.
0855
1 A I mean -- that's what I -- that's what my
2 recollection is.
3 Q I certainly don't know --
4 A I mean, if I was here, you know, I was
5 undoubtedly, at some stage, participating in the pickets.
6 Q Okay. Did I participate in the picket with you or
7 anyone in December of '97?
8 A If you were there --
9 Well, I don't know whether you participated in a
10 picket.
11 Q Okay.
12 A I don't --
13 Q Okay.
14 A -- know whether you were even there.
15 Well, in fact, you probably would have been there.
16 Because I remember at that time -- that was the time that
17 Dennis Ehrlich came -- maybe -- I think it is the time that
18 Dennis Ehrlich came. And there was a -- although I could be
19 confusing that with the March, '97. But a time that Dennis
20 Ehrlich came, you were there to represent him because you
21 were concerned -- you and Dennis Ehrlich were concerned
22 about him being served some injunction. And there was a
23 time -- there were a couple of times he was there. And he
24 had to stay a hundred feet away from various Scientology
25 buildings, including the Ft. Harrison and --
0856
1 THE COURT: Seems like this is way beyond --
2 MR. DANDAR: Yeah, it is.
3 THE COURT: -- where we need to be.
4 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to stop.
5 THE COURT: Move on.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to see --
7 THE COURT: The question was, was he there;
8 were you there? And if you know, you've told us.
9 And if you don't, you don't.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay.
11 THE COURT: And that probably isn't important.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q Outside of the -- outside of your note that
14 accompanied your first check of a hundred thousand dollars,
15 did you, back then, ever tell me, "Oh, by the way, I'm
16 sending you this money and you've got to run the lawsuit the
17 way I tell you to run it?
18 A No, I didn't.
19 Q In fact, isn't it true I told you that you
20 couldn't have any involvement in running the lawsuit, nor
21 would you be able to get any confidential information that's
22 between my client and myself?
23 A You -- I don't think you ever said that. What you
24 said was what you said in your letter.
25 I mean, at that stage you were, contrary to what
0857
1 you had said, you might have been suspicious. I don't know.
2 But you were very happy to find somebody who could give you
3 some money. And you put in the letter, based on what you
4 talked to the Florida Bar about, what you understood that
5 the Florida Bar required.
6 Q Okay. Now, those letters, which are already in
7 evidence used the word "donation" rather than "loan,"
8 correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And did you ever write a letter back and say,
11 "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't what my understanding is;
12 this is what my understanding is"?
13 A No, I didn't.
14 Q Did you ever write a letter to me and say,
15 "Come -- you know, you have to do a legal document like you
16 did for Wollersheim"? Did you ever do that?
17 A No, I didn't.
18 Q Or the kind you had Mr. Leipold create for his
19 loans?
20 A You know, at the time, I didn't think you were as
21 sane as Wollersheim was, and I didn't require it.
22 Q As sane or insane?
23 A Insane.
24 Q Okay.
25 Now, since I just talked to you generally about
0858
1 your upcoming deposition in January, '98, you did meet,
2 however, with your personal attorney, Mr. Jonas, to prepare
3 for your deposition, correct?
4 A I did.
5 Q And you also met with Kathy Shipe to prepare for
6 your deposition?
7 A Very briefly before the deposition.
8 Q Now, you paid her to fly all the way from
9 California to Boston for your deposition, right?
10 A Yes. I paid, you know, the firm that she was
11 with.
12 Q And that's because she was familiar with
13 litigating with Scientology.
14 A Well, clearly at that time, you weren't.
15 Q No. She --
16 A She was, yeah. Yeah.
17 Q Yeah. I wasn't. Right?
18 A That's right.
19 Q Okay. And certainly, Mr. Jonas had no prior
20 experience --
21 A No, he hadn't.
22 Q Are you aware, as of January, '98, how many
23 depositions I had participated in taking in the Lisa
24 McPherson case?
25 A I'm not aware.
0859
1 Q Okay.
2 THE COURT: So Mr. -- if I understand this
3 correctly -- as we're going through here I might
4 stop --
5 But at that particular deposition, that early
6 January deposition, Mr. Jonas -- neither Mr. Jonas
7 nor Mr. Dandar had Scientology litigation experience
8 up to that time, but Ms. Shipe did, and therefore
9 you asked her to come just in case there was some
10 need for her --
11 THE WITNESS: Well --
12 THE COURT: -- assistance?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, Mr. Dandar
14 obviously had some experience in Scientology
15 litigation, because the suit had been filed, you
16 know, earlier that year; you know, earlier the year
17 before.
18 THE COURT: Depositions. If -- if he was
19 familiar --
20 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know whether --
21 THE COURT: Why did you --
22 Well, let's put it this way. Why did you
23 invite Ms. Shipe to come if you already had two
24 lawyers there?
25 MR. HOWIE: Your Honor, that may touch on
0860
1 privilege.
2 THE COURT: Well, it may, but I'm asking him
3 his mental process, not what he told the lawyer.
4 MR. HOWIE: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, because clearly -- well,
6 actually, I wanted Dan Leipold to be there, but he
7 was going to be in trial or something that period of
8 time. And so Kathy Shipe, who also had substantial
9 experience with Mr. Leipold vis-a-vis Scientology --
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: -- was the person who came.
12 THE COURT: So you didn't think Mr. Dandar had
13 significant experience in Scientology litigation, I
14 guess.
15 THE WITNESS: Well --
16 THE COURT: Or did you want your own lawyer?
17 I don't know why you asked this lady when
18 Mr. Dandar was there and when Mr. Jonas was there.
19 Was it because you felt like she could better
20 protect you or could better advise you --
21 THE WITNESS: Well, because she knew more about
22 Scientology, the whole -- I mean, she'd been through
23 lots of Scientology depositions.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: And you know, based on, you know,
0861
1 what -- what I believed at the time about
2 Scientology, you know that all kinds of tricky stuff
3 could come up in a deposition, you know -- I just
4 didn't know. But I wanted to make sure that there
5 was somebody there who at least had some experience
6 in this. And Jonas didn't have any experience.
7 It wasn't a question of whether Mr. Dandar had
8 any experience in it or not. But I wanted somebody
9 there who had experience that was --
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: -- that was, you know, that was
12 sitting on my side of the table, representing me.
13 THE COURT: I got you.
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q And I was not representing you at that deposition,
16 correct?
17 A That's right. You weren't.
18 Q Now, when you sent the first check for a hundred
19 thousand dollars, isn't it true that you had no restrictions
20 placed on that check as to how --
21 A You mean --
22 Q -- that it could be spent?
23 A -- the bank didn't place any restrictions how it
24 could be spent?
25 Q No. You.
0862
1 A Yes, there were restrictions.
2 Q What were the restrictions?
3 A It was for this case, the wrongful death case.
4 The cost and expenses of the wrongful death case.
5 Q Do you have your deposition of January, '98 with
6 you?
7 A Not unless it's one of these documents.
8 MR. DANDAR: Judge, if I could, I'd like to use
9 the Elmo. That way --
10 THE COURT: You may.
11 MR. DANDAR: -- he can see it and I can see it.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q On page 43 -- this is your January, '98
14 deposition -- as soon as I bring it into focus -- page 43,
15 beginning at line 12, the question was, "Are there any
16 restrictions on how the funds should be used?"
17 And your answer is, "Well they're to be used on
18 the McPherson case.
19 "Question: For example --
20 "Answer: And there are no restrictions put on by
21 me."
22 Was that a truthful statement?
23 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I really do object. I
24 mean, I know what happens after this, since I was
25 the one asking the questions. There's all kinds of
0863
1 stuff that goes on.
2 MR. DANDAR: I'm not finished.
3 THE COURT: Well, you know what? That's a
4 problem in this case. And that is done by both
5 sides. That is done by your side too, which is why
6 I've had to ask for the depositions. So you know
7 what? You play by those rules, you get those rules
8 in return.
9 MR. WEINBERG: I want --
10 THE COURT: So your objection is overruled.
11 You can bring it up --
12 I don't like it, but I don't like it when you
13 all do it. But you all do it with great regularity.
14 So it's -- now it's going to hit you in the face,
15 and you're not going to like it.
16 And is it right? No, it really isn't.
17 MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm not done. I mean -- I'm
18 going on to the next page as well.
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q And then they say, "Question: Could Mr. Dandar
21 buy a car with them?"
22 And you answered, "That would hardly facilitate
23 the Lisa McPherson case.
24 "Question: I'm not being facetious. I'm asking a
25 question that I would ask you to answer.
0864
1 "Can these funds be used by Mr. Dandar for
2 himself? Yes or no?
3 "Answer: No."
4 So far, Mr. Minton, these are all truthful answers
5 to the questions, right?
6 A Well, when it says up there, "And there are no
7 restrictions put on me," you have to -- what is that?
8 Q By me.
9 A Oh. No restrictions put on me -- talking about
10 me, right?
11 Q Right.
12 A Yes. These are truthful answers.
13 Q Okay.
14 A They're to be used for the Lisa McPherson case.
15 They're not to be used for Mr. Dandar's personal use.
16 Q Right. Okay.
17 And then on line 24 -- and we'll continue on page
18 44, at the bottom of line -- of 43, "Question: Can these
19 funds be used by Mr. Dandar for personal use of Mr. Dandar?
20 "Answer: Can I perhaps ask you to re-ask the
21 question before, which was are these funds to be used in the
22 Lisa McPherson case?
23 "Question," and he says, "It'll go quicker if you
24 just let me ask the question."
25 The answer, "No. They're not to be used by
0865
1 Mr. Dandar for his personal use. That's nothing to do with
2 it."
3 That's a truthful answer by you, correct?
4 A That's right.
5 Q Okay. And then line 15, "Is there anything in
6 writing that says that?
7 "Answer: Anything other than what's on my check
8 or the letter? No."
9 That's -- that's true too, isn't it, Mr. Minton?
10 Your check and that letter. That was it.
11 A In writing, yes, that's right.
12 Q Okay. "Question: There's no legal agreement that
13 has been drawn up, is that correct?"
14 Your answer, "Correct. This would be as close to
15 it as you would get.
16 "Question: Did you have any communication with
17 the family of Lisa McPherson?
18 "Answer: No."
19 January, '98, that's a truthful statement,
20 correct?
21 A Yes.
22 You know, I relied on what you said you had
23 discussed with the family about these checks, about this
24 money, the first money.
25 THE COURT: You're being asked a specific
0866
1 question about your deposition and whether they're
2 truthful answers or not. If you would restrict
3 yourself to that, that's fine. They'll have their
4 turn.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q Page 45, line 19, do you remember this question
8 and this answer?
9 "Question: Did you ask for an accounting as to
10 how the funds were used?
11 "Answer: No."
12 Is that a correct answer, Mr. Minton?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q In fact as you sit here today, Mr. Minton, you
15 have never asked for an accounting, have you?
16 A Not yet.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he goes on,
18 could -- this doesn't appear to be impeachment. I
19 mean, Mr. Dandar asked --
20 THE COURT: I agree.
21 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, so I don't understand
22 what the exercise --
23 THE COURT: Well, there isn't. The only thing
24 I could remotely see that's impeachment is the
25 "there are no restrictions put on by me."
0867
1 MR. WEINBERG: But I mean, I think -- it just
2 seems to me that's exactly -- what he's done is
3 exactly corroborated the questions that he'd already
4 asked Mr. Minton on the stand.
5 THE COURT: I think that's true.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q Now, Mr. Minton, the reason why you never asked
8 for an accounting from me is because you trusted me,
9 correct?
10 A I used to, Mr. Dandar.
11 Q Well, in January, '98, you trusted me, correct?
12 A Yes.
13 Q In June of 2001 you trusted me, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now, Mr. Minton, isn't it true that the money you
16 had sent to me up till January of '98 was a loan or a
17 donation to me, not to the estate.
18 A That's not correct.
19 Q Well, let's turn to page 46 of your deposition of
20 January, '98.
21 Do you recall this question, beginning at line 20?
22 "Question: My question is, was this hundred
23 thousand dollars a loan to Mr. Dandar?
24 "Answer: It was."
25 A I see that.
0868
1 Q Was that a truthful, correct statement,
2 Mr. Minton?
3 A It's true to the extent that you said that you
4 were the attorney for the estate and you would handle the
5 estate's funds for this -- for this purpose of this case.
6 Q Well, let's continue on. Line 23.
7 "Question: Or a gift to Mr. Dandar?
8 "Answer: It requires a little bit of thought,
9 because it could be either, depending on what happens in the
10 case.
11 "Question: Can you explain that?
12 "Answer: What I have said and what he has said is
13 that if they -- they, being the estate of Lisa McPherson --
14 are successful in getting money back over and above their
15 legal expense in this case, and they had a hundred thousand
16 dollars left to pay me, I would get paid back my hundred
17 thousand dollars. If they do not succeed in this case,
18 they're under no obligation to pay me back."
19 A Yeah.
20 Q "From my standpoint, there would be a question of
21 whether it's a gift or a loan."
22 A Yeah. The question is whether it's a gift or a
23 loan to the estate --
24 Q All right.
25 A -- if they don't pay it back.
0869
1 Q Here, on the prior page that we just read, page
2 46, you certainly had an opportunity, when asked a question
3 if it was a loan to Mr. Dandar, you said it was -- you could
4 have and you certainly had the opportunity, did you not, to
5 explain, well, it's not really to Mr. Dandar; it's to the
6 estate through Mr. Dandar.
7 A As I said, there was no muzzle. That's the answer
8 I gave.
9 Q All right. Let's just stay on this subject
10 matter, if we could.
11 Now --
12 A Just to make note, I'm taking some more
13 medication.
14 Q Cough drop?
15 A Yup.
16 Q I'll take a sip of water, then.
17 Now, Mr. Minton, the next deposition was May 24th
18 of 2000, correct?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And this time, Mr. Moxon had entered the picture,
21 correct? He was now deposing you rather than Mr. Weinberg.
22 A Right.
23 Q How many lies did you tell in your May 24th, 2000
24 deposition?
25 A I don't know.
0870
1 Q Did you tell any lies?
2 A I don't know.
3 Q Isn't it true, sir, that you did not lie in your
4 May 24th, 2000 deposition?
5 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object. Shouldn't
6 he at least show him the deposition so that he can
7 orient himself? I mean --
8 THE COURT: I think he should if Mr. Minton
9 says he needs it. For all I know, he's been through
10 it and can tell us 2, 4, 10 or none. Or if he can't
11 says, "I want to see it," and then certainly he
12 would have to show it to him.
13 I don't know what preparation he's done for
14 this, is what I'm suggesting.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Simple question. Isn't it true, Mr. Minton, just
17 like your January, '98 deposition and your May 24, 2000
18 deposition, you did not lie under oath?
19 A The only -- the reason I have a doubt is because
20 if there is a question about money at that stage -- you
21 know, there had already been the $500,000 check, so --
22 THE COURT: Is that -- I believe that's the
23 deposition where it's -- it's alleged that he did
24 not disclose the $500,000.
25 MR. DANDAR: That's where it is alleged.
0871
1 THE COURT: Well, yes. But I mean -- so
2 that -- for your information, I believe -- that's
3 why I asked you all to give me a piece of paper.
4 Nobody has yet. Thank you very much --
5 MR. LIEBERMAN: It's coming this afternoon,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay. But remember, I said I
8 can't -- don't know where it is Mr. Minton has said
9 about these moneys. I've read these depositions.
10 There's probably one question in the midst of
11 thousands of pages, and could you help me out here?
12 Nobody has, but thank you.
13 But I think what they're saying is that in
14 the -- I think -- in the May deposition, which was
15 May 24th of 2000, you had given the 500,000 and
16 didn't disclose it.
17 THE WITNESS: Well --
18 THE COURT: So that I presume was what you're
19 saying is -- according to your affidavit, is a lie
20 in that deposition.
21 THE WITNESS: Right.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q In that deposition, you were represented by John
24 Merrett, correct, the May 24th, 2000?
25 A Is that the one where we had to -- Mr. Moxon might
0872
1 be able to help you. Was this the one where we had to leave
2 early because Stacy Brooks and I were flying to Europe?
3 Q Yes.
4 A Yeah. That was Mr. Merrett.
5 Q And Mr. Merrett -- when did you retain Mr. Merrett
6 to represent you?
7 A I don't know.
8 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I'm going to hand you
9 excerpts, and I'm handing to counsel, of
10 Mr. Minton's depositions that I'm going to be
11 addressing.
12 THE COURT: All right. But to tell you the
13 truth, if you'll just tell me page and line, I have
14 that book up here --
15 MR. DANDAR: Oh.
16 THE COURT: -- so I could probably get to it.
17 MR. DANDAR: Want to just keep that just for
18 ready reference.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. DANDAR: All right.
21 THE COURT: You want to give it to Mr. Minton?
22 MR. DANDAR: Well, I'm going to show him on the
23 Elmo, but we can do that too. I don't care.
24 THE WITNESS: It'll be easier to look on this.
25 MR. DANDAR: All right. Whatever's easier.
0873
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q So -- I'm sorry -- how far in advance of the
3 May 24th deposition did you --
4 THE COURT: Don't read them until he gets to
5 it, please.
6 THE WITNESS: All right.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q How far in advance of the May 24th deposition did
9 you retain Mr. Merrett to represent you?
10 A I don't know.
11 Q Was it a week? A day? A month? Just a ballpark.
12 A Well, you see, Mr. Merrett was working with the
13 LMT. And I mean, you know, there was never any specific
14 retainer arrangement between me and Mr. Merrett. But -- and
15 I don't know when he started working at the LMT, but it was
16 sometime in 2000.
17 Q Okay. Now, you found Mr. Merrett through a
18 referral from Patricia Greenway, correct?
19 A Yes. I had previously had communication with
20 Mr. Merrett before that.
21 Q Okay. Mr. Merrett had no prior litigation
22 experience with the Church of Scientology, correct?
23 A No. But he was very familiar with the whole --
24 MR. DANDAR: I did it again.
25
0874
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q All right. Isn't it true that Mr. Merrett had no
3 prior litigation experience as a lawyer in a case with the
4 Church of Scientology? Yes or no?
5 A How about I don't know?
6 Q That's okay. All right.
7 A You know, at the time --
8 Well, next question.
9 Q All right. Now, did you prepare for your
10 May 24th, 2000 deposition with Mr. Merrett?
11 A I doubt it.
12 Q Okay. Did you confer with me to get together with
13 me to prepare you for your May 24th, 2000 deposition?
14 A Well, with regards to the money, yes, because we
15 had already discussed that.
16 Q You talking about this UBS check for $500,000?
17 A Right.
18 Q Did we discuss anything else?
19 A About that $500,000?
20 Q No. About any other subject matter, to get you
21 ready and prepared for your deposition in May of 2000.
22 A Mr. Dandar, there was a time period when we were
23 meeting regularly, and this was part of that time period.
24 You know, I don't know.
25 Q What do you mean by that? You and I were meeting
0875
1 regularly? When?
2 A If you have a problem understanding that or --
3 Q It's too vague for me, Mr. Minton. Tell me what
4 you mean by that.
5 A Well, you know, from '99, when we were down here
6 setting up the LMT, through 2000, yes, we met regularly.
7 Q How often would we meet, Mr. Minton?
8 A You know, I can't say. It was three times a week
9 or two times a week. But regularly.
10 Q Was it as -- as much as one time a month?
11 A It was more than that.
12 Q So every month since, what, October of '99, when
13 the corporation papers were filed for the Lisa McPherson
14 Trust, until you -- until, what, May of 2000, you and I met
15 more than one time a month?
16 A Absolutely.
17 Q Do you have any way of --
18 A I mean, you were -- you know, when I came down
19 here -- when I started coming down here a lot, as far as I
20 was concerned, you were like a duck on a June bug when I was
21 around. You know, you wanted to meet at Ruth's Chris
22 Steakhouse or meet at your office or --
23 THE COURT: How does a duck get on a June bug?
24 THE WITNESS: Oh, you know what --
25 THE COURT: A June bug on a duck?
0876
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 THE COURT: I don't know what a June bug is.
3 Is that a big bug?
4 THE WITNESS: It's -- I thought you -- I don't
5 know whether they have them in Florida, but where I
6 grew up in Nashville, they're just sort of bugs that
7 appear in -- around June time. They're sort of
8 silvery looking -- well, not silvery, but blackish
9 in colorish on the top. They have sort of a hard
10 shell. A little bit like a cockroach, except more
11 football-shaped, so to speak.
12 And there's an expression, you know, at least
13 where I grew up in Nashville, a duck on a June bug.
14 You know, somebody who's real close.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm not familiar with
16 that expression, so --
17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, your Honor.
18 THE COURT: -- tell me what it was. I had a
19 vision of some June bug being squashed by a duck.
20 MR. DANDAR: I think -- do they eat -- do the
21 ducks eat June bugs?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether they do.
23 MR. WEINBERG: I'll tell you one thing, the
24 fish like them. I grew up in Chattanooga --
25 THE COURT: Oh.
0877
1 THE WITNESS: We used to use them for bass
2 fishing.
3 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
4 THE COURT: Oh, okay. Well, now I know what
5 you meant. You and he were very close when he was
6 around, was what you were alleging.
7 THE WITNESS: Right.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Okay. Mr. Minton, I'm going to -- the excerpts
11 that are in front of you -- I'm going to turn to page 212 --
12 Well, let me ask you this before you do that.
13 So the only thing that you and I talked about, as
14 you say, to prepare you for your May 24th, 2000 deposition,
15 was this UBS check.
16 A That's all I can remember at the moment.
17 Q And it's your testimony under oath before this
18 judge that I told you to lie in your deposition about the
19 source or even receiving this check. Is that what your
20 testimony is?
21 A Absolutely.
22 Q And is it your testimony, Mr. Minton, that when
23 you handed me this check at the Bombay Bicycle Club
24 Restaurant, that you told me that this was your money?
25 A That is my testimony.
0878
1 Q Is that the truth?
2 A Yes, it is. And you were acting like you were
3 fully aware of it. I mean, you -- you specified --
4 Q I just asked you, was it the truth. I didn't ask
5 you any other question.
6 A Yeah.
7 Q So then I take it, Mr. Minton, that all the other
8 questions in your deposition of May 24th, 2000 were truthful
9 except for this check from UBS, correct?
10 A I think you better ask me whether the answers were
11 truthful, not the questions.
12 Q So as you sit here today, you're not sure if you
13 lied about other things in your May 24th deposition?
14 A You know, I don't know. I don't know.
15 THE COURT: Well, let's establish this. My
16 recollection is alive. And I believe I looked at
17 this deposition and asked some questions about it
18 yesterday.
19 MR. FUGATE: You did, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Yeah.
21 My recollection from your testimony yesterday
22 is, it is your testimony that Mr. Dandar and you --
23 Mr. Dandar made this suggestion about this
24 problem -- let me see if I can get this right -- the
25 problem with the agreement between you and the --
0879
1 and the estate -- this is the agreement to give the
2 bulk of or substantial portion of --
3 Do you remember that?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
5 THE COURT: That -- okay. The discussion about
6 that came before -- soon before the affidavit was
7 sent to you --
8 THE WITNESS: You mean --
9 THE COURT: -- which --
10 THE WITNESS: -- the discussion about
11 backtracking?
12 THE COURT: Yeah. The discussion about
13 backtracking.
14 THE WITNESS: No. The discussion about
15 backtracking happened sometime in the May/June
16 period. That's what I testified to.
17 THE COURT: May/June of 2000 and what?
18 THE WITNESS: 2000.
19 THE COURT: May/June of 2000.
20 Okay.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Okay. Mr. Minton, if you would, the excerpts in
23 front of you on this particular deposition starts on page
24 212.
25 A So I just open it up to 2000, here?
0880
1 Q Yes.
2 Am I correct? Is there a -- you see page 212?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay. Line 11 says, "Question --"
5 Well, let's start -- yeah.
6 "Question: Have you given Mr. Dandar any money
7 since January 13th of 1998?"
8 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Where are you? 'Cause
9 I can't find it.
10 MR. DANDAR: 212.
11 THE COURT: 212. Thank you.
12 MR. DANDAR: Line 11.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q "Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since
15 January 13th, 1998?"
16 Your answer was, "Yes."
17 Is that a truthful answer?
18 A Absolutely correct.
19 Q "Question: Tell me all the amounts that you h