0159
1
2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
3 CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
4
DELL LIEBREICH, as Personal
5 Representative of the ESTATE OF
LISA McPHERSON,
6
7 Plaintiff,
8 vs. VOLUME 2
9 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS
10 JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI
and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
11
Defendants.
12
_______________________________________/
13
14 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Ominbus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
15
Testimony of Jesse Prince.
16
DATE: July 8, 2002.
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
0160
1 APPEARANCES:
2 MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
3 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
4 Attorney for Plaintiff.
5 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
6 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
7 Attorney for Plaintiff.
8 MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
9 1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
10 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
11
MR. LEE FUGATE and
12 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
13 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
14 Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
15
MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
16 RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
17 New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
18 Organization.
19 MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
20 980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
21 Attorney for Mr. Minton.
22
23
24
25
0161
1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS
2 PAGE LINE
3 Recess 261 18
Recess 327 1
4 Reporter's Certificate 328 1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0162
1 (The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)
2 THE COURT: Good morning.
3 I want to tell you all that I have not thought
4 of you very much since I've been gone. If I had
5 something I was supposed to do, I didn't do it.
6 And I see that the story made the front page
7 yesterday, which reminded me of what we're doing.
8 So in any event, I had a call from Mr. Dandar
9 and then I had a call from the other side, talking
10 about the trial date, and I believe it's been
11 indicated by both sides that nobody really believes
12 that the August trial date is viable, is that true?
13 MR. DANDAR: No, Judge.
14 THE COURT: No, that's not true?
15 MR. DANDAR: No. Not from the plaintiff's
16 side.
17 THE COURT: That's what you told me. Why in
18 the world did you call me on the telephone and tell
19 me that?
20 MR. DANDAR: I told you -- I told you that
21 since this is proceeding and we haven't been able to
22 schedule depositions, becomes more and more
23 unlikely. But I am not requesting a continuance. I
24 said, "Please note I do not request a continuance of
25 the August trial date."
0163
1 THE COURT: Well, then, good. We've got a
2 trial date set. We'll go.
3 MR. DANDAR: But it looks like -- since we
4 can't take depositions, it looks like it's going to
5 be impossible to have an August trial date.
6 THE COURT: Well, then, you are requesting a
7 continuance.
8 MR. DANDAR: No, I'm not.
9 THE COURT: Well, then, we're going.
10 MR. DANDAR: All right.
11 THE COURT: It's just that simple.
12 I mean, I thought he wanted a continuance; said
13 the August date would not work. If that's not so, I
14 don't want to hear any whining about depositions.
15 So you either get them scheduled or you take them
16 the night before they testify. You know, stranger
17 things have been done. But if you don't want a
18 continuance -- I haven't heard the other side ask
19 for one.
20 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, what -- the position
21 we've taken is there shouldn't be a trial date --
22 THE COURT: I know that.
23 MR. WEINBERG: -- until this hearing is over
24 with. August is not realistic. And in light of
25 this thing that happened yesterday, where Mr. Prince
0164
1 is quoted, Mr. Dandar is quoted, saying this is a
2 charade -- and this whole article is -- I say, makes
3 it impossible at this point for -- here, in Pinellas
4 County, right now -- for us to get a fair trial,
5 and --
6 THE COURT: You're absolutely wrong. You're
7 absolutely wrong. And I base that on 20 years'
8 experience, with headlines bigger than that, stories
9 worse than that, all kinds of stuff. You know,
10 that -- that just doesn't fly.
11 We try to pick a jury. If you've got problems,
12 then we worry about it. If you want to file a
13 motion for change of venue, file it. It isn't going
14 to happen until we see whether we can pick a jury.
15 And I guarantee you we can. I guarantee you from
16 all the experience that I've had as a lawyer --
17 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
18 THE COURT: -- and as a judge.
19 MR. WEINBERG: -- what I think does -- is
20 important -- I mean, I think that's important. But
21 I think what's most important is that this hearing
22 be concluded and that your Honor rule on the
23 hearing, because it makes all the difference in the
24 world as to where we go in this case, before we have
25 a trial date.
0165
1 THE COURT: You should assume that your motion
2 is to be denied. I don't know if it will be or not.
3 I can't wait until I deny a motion and then set a
4 trial date. If I grant a motion, the trial date can
5 be called off. I've got to set a trial date. We've
6 got to have procedures in place to bring in jurors.
7 That's why I --
8 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
9 THE COURT: -- set a trial date when this
10 motion just started.
11 MR. WEINBERG: Well, we -- we just --
12 THE COURT: I mean, you all should not
13 assume -- and you must tell your clients this and
14 have them understand this -- the fact that I set a
15 trial date, reset a trial date, continue a trial
16 date, does not mean I've ruled on this motion. You
17 should assume this motion is to be denied and we're
18 going to trial. If you don't, well, then, you
19 don't. I rule and grant your motion, then it's
20 over.
21 But we can't just crank up a trial the day
22 after I deny a motion, if I deny it. So I've got to
23 set one.
24 MR. WEINBERG: There should not be one set in
25 August.
0166
1 We -- we waited two years to get tapes that
2 were just -- that were -- we have just gotten;
3 e-mails that we haven't gotten yet. We haven't
4 gotten all the tapes yet. And when -- these tapes
5 are incredible. The tapes put a lie to what has
6 been going on from the plaintiff's side throughout
7 this entire hearing here. We should have had this
8 before.
9 And as a result of these tapes, I think it's
10 very clear, if anything, that the counterclaim ought
11 to be tried first. And if not first, ought to be
12 tried with the -- with the main case.
13 Because when you -- when you look at these
14 tapes, when we play them on rebuttal, you're going
15 to see what we've been saying all along or what we
16 suspected all along; is that -- is that there's no
17 difference between the Lisa McPherson Trust and this
18 lawsuit and what's been going on. And that these
19 witnesses, all they do is sit over there and they
20 talk about -- with Mr. Dandar -- talk about
21 picketing and how to picket, and it's all planned
22 and it's all a big joke.
23 And here we are, two years into this -- we
24 didn't even have them to cross examine Peter
25 Alexander and Brian Haney when -- when they were on
0167
1 the stand. But now we're at this two years; we
2 finally get them now, and we're going to have a
3 trial in three weeks or four weeks? It's not right.
4 I mean, A, we should be able to finish this hearing;
5 B, you should be able to -- and brief it. And you
6 should be able to decide, not with the press of a
7 trial date. We should be able to complete the
8 discovery. We should -- and we should be able to
9 have this counterclaim done with the main trial.
10 Because it is absolutely devastating, we -- we
11 believe.
12 We haven't had that opportunity because, what?
13 Mr. Dandar and, you know, Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks --
14 all these people, for two years, you know, after
15 various courts have ordered, have fought not to get
16 this stuff released. And we finally get it.
17 THE COURT: Well --
18 MR. WEINBERG: We don't have it all. We don't
19 even have the e-mails. We've got 400 out of --
20 MR. FUGATE: More than 3,000.
21 MR. WEINBERG: 3,000. We don't have all the
22 tapes yet. Couldn't be privileged. And these are
23 Lisa McPherson Trust tapes.
24 So --
25 THE COURT: The -- from everything you've told
0168
1 me thus far, it sounds like these tapes would affect
2 the counterclaim. For now, the counterclaim has
3 been severed. I've also indicated to you I will
4 hear you on that.
5 Quite frankly, I think your First Amendment
6 argument is going to be different in the wrongful
7 death case and in the trial of the counterclaim. I
8 believe that. I believe that, based on my research.
9 And I believe that the type of information that
10 you're going to want to exclude --
11 I mean, the truth of the matter is, I sat back
12 one day and figured what's going to happen here is,
13 Dandar's going to want to keep the wrongful death
14 and the other count -- or the counterclaim separate;
15 you're going to want them done together. The truth
16 of the matter is, your opinions should be just the
17 reverse. Your side does not want that counterclaim,
18 and all the stuff that I think is probably going to
19 be admissible in the counterclaim, to be tried at
20 that wrongful death. He should want it. Doesn't
21 surprise me that you'll take the opposite position,
22 because that's just the way things go.
23 But I don't think the First Amendment argument
24 is going to be the same in the counterclaim, where
25 you are acting as the plaintiff, trying to suggest
0169
1 that there is a -- some sort of an improper --
2 MR. WEINBERG: Purpose.
3 THE COURT: -- motive to -- purpose to this.
4 And that's you as the plaintiff. I think your
5 argument's going to be different.
6 So consequently, I think the cases are going to
7 stay separate for lots of reasons. And as I said,
8 so I suspect that when all is said and done, we're
9 going to do a wrongful case and a -- and a --
10 because, as I said, I suspect the rulings on the
11 First Amendment will be different. And I think
12 they're -- because of that, and because of the fact
13 that we may have differences as far as other ruling,
14 that they will be tried separate.
15 So for now -- for now -- all that is set for
16 trial is a wrongful death. And anything you're
17 talking about on those tapes or anything of the
18 sort, as far as I'm concerned, have very little if
19 anything to do with the wrongful death.
20 So right now, he said he doesn't want a
21 continuance. You say you do. I've heard a lot of
22 stuff about this hearing and I've heard a lot of
23 stuff about a wrongful -- about a counterclaim.
24 I've heard very little about a wrongful death except
25 that he hasn't taken expert witnesses' depositions.
0170
1 He doesn't want the continuance. I don't think
2 you have grounds for the continuance.
3 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
4 THE COURT: Presume it's going -- presume it's
5 going as scheduled, and presume for now that it's
6 going to be just a wrongful death.
7 And I'm not going to listen to him move to
8 continue it because of deposition problems.
9 So there you have it.
10 MR. DANDAR: But Judge, on our telephone call,
11 I told you Mr. Weinberg decided to take the week of
12 July 22nd off, on a long-planned family vacation,
13 right in the middle of what we were supposed to have
14 as a trial date --
15 THE COURT: Then you can -- if they're you're
16 depositions, he can send somebody else. He does not
17 have to be there. If he wants to take a vacation
18 instead, those depositions should be set.
19 However, I do know -- and there's no reason in
20 the world why somebody else can't sit through a
21 deposition. You've got a huge trial team over here.
22 If depositions can be set and Mr. Weinberg wants to
23 take a vacation, I have no problem with that, but
24 somebody else can go attend those depositions.
25 MR. WEINBERG: But that is -- that is a
0171
1 problem, the week of July, whatever it is.
2 First of all, we don't even know what's going
3 to be happening in this hearing --
4 THE COURT: I know.
5 MR. WEINBERG: -- that week.
6 Secondly, it took two years, basically, to
7 schedule all his experts' depositions because of
8 their schedules. We're in the summer now. It's
9 very -- it -- it takes at least three weeks to
10 schedule one of these depositions. It's very
11 difficult. I mean, our experts are just as busy as
12 his experts.
13 So to say that he can take -- he wants to take
14 a deposition first; he can't even schedule a
15 deposition right now in July because we're in the
16 middle of a hearing that's been going on for almost
17 two months now. So we're trying to schedule
18 depositions in August, and now he wants an August
19 trial. There's 10 of these things. They're in San
20 Francisco. They're all over the place.
21 So he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
22 THE COURT: I understand that. And I just said
23 I won't allow you to complain, Mr. Dandar, about the
24 depositions. If -- you know, you know your problem.
25 You're the one that called and indicated it looked
0172
1 like it was going to be impossible to set these
2 depositions and be ready for August.
3 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
4 THE COURT: So I expected you to come in here
5 and move to continue.
6 Now, if you don't want to do that, then you're
7 the one with the problem. It certainly isn't my
8 problem if this hearing is over, and it really isn't
9 they're problem. It's your problem.
10 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I -- I beg to differ.
11 THE COURT: Well --
12 MR. DANDAR: I --
13 THE COURT: -- you can beg to differ all day.
14 MR. DANDAR: We had -- they cancelled all these
15 depositions we had set. My brother was available to
16 go on these depositions, and they said, "No way
17 we're going to have a deposition while this hearing
18 is going on."
19 THE COURT: Well, I didn't hear you bring a
20 motion in front of me to compel the depositions.
21 MR. DANDAR: No. I just advised you of that
22 and --
23 THE COURT: You know, advising me is --
24 MR. DANDAR: Well --
25 THE COURT: -- is nothing. You need to file
0173
1 motions. I rule on motions.
2 MR. DANDAR: All right. But I told you last
3 week, I said --
4 THE COURT: I'm still waiting, for heaven's
5 sake's, for a response to (sic) you for something
6 that's been going on for two months, that I suppose
7 you're still working on diligently at nighttime and
8 on weekends.
9 MR. DANDAR: I am.
10 THE COURT: Well, you had 10 days. Where is
11 it?
12 MR. DANDAR: It's near 50 pages now.
13 THE COURT: Well, where is it?
14 MR. DANDAR: It's right on my computer.
15 THE COURT: Well, get it to me.
16 MR. DANDAR: I will.
17 THE COURT: All right. Now, either you want a
18 continuance or you don't. And if you don't, by God,
19 I don't want to hear anything; I don't want to hear
20 any whining or complaining. You know very well,
21 those depositions are not going to be set. I'm
22 telling you now, those are the kinds of experts that
23 are not going to be available just 'cause you want
24 them.
25 MR. DANDAR: Well, then, they shouldn't be
0174
1 allowed to call them.
2 THE COURT: Well, no, that's not going to
3 happen. That is not going to happen. I told you I
4 will grant you a continuance if you want it. You
5 either want it or you don't.
6 MR. DANDAR: Till when?
7 THE COURT: I have no idea.
8 MR. DANDAR: Till the third week of September?
9 THE COURT: I don't know, Mr. Dandar. You make
10 your motion. If it's granted, then we talk about a
11 reset date.
12 MR. DANDAR: Well, based upon the fact that I
13 haven't been able to take these 10 or 12 depositions
14 that were previously scheduled, because of this
15 hearing, I would request a continuance so I can take
16 these depositions, but not to let Mr. Weinberg go on
17 a family vacation.
18 MR. WEINBERG: You know, you can just -- I --
19 THE COURT: Well, I don't want to hear it,
20 Mr. Weinberg. I don't need it here.
21 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
22 THE COURT: I've already stated, if Mr.
23 Weinberg wants to go on a vacation, there ought to
24 be somebody else that can take the deposition.
25 I don't know whether those people will be ready
0175
1 that week. Obviously, I took a week and a half off
2 and nothing got done, so I presume that people
3 weren't available or they'd have been deposed.
4 MR. WEINBERG: We --
5 THE COURT: We --
6 MR. WEINBERG: We offered a San Francisco
7 deposition, and he said he wouldn't do it, and
8 couldn't do it.
9 THE COURT: Well, there --
10 MR. WEINBERG: So --
11 THE COURT: -- you have it.
12 MR. WEINBERG: So there you go.
13 MR. DANDAR: Yeah, excuse me. It was
14 June 26th. It was a few days before the deposition.
15 To make sure that I would spend the full fare to fly
16 to San Francisco to take one, and then have to come
17 back to San Francisco and take the second
18 deposition, when we previously had both San
19 Francisco depositions set up back to back.
20 THE COURT: Well --
21 MR. DANDAR: And all the other doctors are
22 going to fly into Tampa for their deposition, but
23 these two, because of their teaching load, insisted
24 on being in San Francisco. That's fine. But not
25 to -- not to let you believe that I cancelled the
0176
1 San Francisco deposition.
2 THE COURT: Well --
3 MR. DANDAR: That's --
4 THE COURT: -- apparently you did.
5 MR. DANDAR: -- not --
6 No. If I'm going to go to California and
7 there's two out there, we should at least take two
8 back to back like we had previously --
9 THE COURT: Well --
10 MR. DANDAR: -- set.
11 THE COURT: -- you know, you could have taken
12 one. You elected not to for whatever reason. I
13 understand it costs money to fly to San Francisco.
14 It was your choice. You cancelled the deposition.
15 It's just that simple.
16 MR. DANDAR: It wasn't proper notice.
17 THE COURT: Look --
18 MR. DANDAR: I'm going to go ahead and set the
19 depositions, and I'll just set the date myself. And
20 they can go file an objection --
21 THE COURT: Well, they will, of course. And
22 when they file an objection, it'll be granted. So
23 that's not going to get it. You're going to have to
24 try to reasonably set these depositions when these
25 people are available.
0177
1 Listen, you people ought to try cases --
2 Mr. Fugate knows this -- in the criminal arena.
3 Nobody cares a thing about your not having taken a
4 deposition. Absolutely no one. I used to represent
5 people on trial for their life, where -- where the
6 death penalty was a possibility, with depositions
7 untaken. No judge cared; no judge was interested; I
8 never won an appeal on that basis. And I've been
9 told before, when I hadn't taken depositions before
10 they were going to be called, "Go out in the hall,
11 talk to the witness, and let's go. How much time do
12 you need? Five minutes?" It would be an expert and
13 I'd say, "Well, could I have 20?" "No. But you can
14 have 10." There you go. A sign that is there --
15 nobody cared.
16 So the deal is, you civil lawyers have no idea
17 what it's like in the criminal arena. You take --
18 you go without deposing --
19 I know what every expert they've got's going to
20 say, and you ought to too. All you don't know is
21 just the -- what's in between the -- how they're
22 going to say it. You know what they're going to
23 say.
24 The truth of the matter is, any good lawyer
25 worth their salt, on cross examination of an expert,
0178
1 takes about 30 minutes maximum, gets out the points
2 they want to get out, so that in closing argument
3 they can put it in language that a jury can
4 understand and explain it to the jury. Now, that's
5 what good lawyering is all about, not day-long cross
6 examination that goes way over a juror's head and
7 they don't understand it.
8 So you know what these experts are going to
9 say. I know what these experts are going to say if
10 you don't. So if you don't, ask me during a break
11 and I'll tell you.
12 MR. DANDAR: Judge --
13 THE COURT: Just tell me who they are, what
14 their specialty is, and if they're their experts, I
15 can tell you what they're going to say, just like
16 they should know what your experts are going to say.
17 The bottom line is just how to get to the
18 bottom line.
19 So you want a continuance, it's granted.
20 Now we have to set a trial date.
21 MR. DANDAR: All right.
22 THE COURT: What is your suggestion?
23 MR. DANDAR: Third week of September.
24 THE COURT: The third week of September would
25 be silly since the second week of September is a
0179
1 normal trial week, and I would have a whole bunch of
2 jurors coming in here anyway. So why would I want
3 to just pass it off for one extra week?
4 MR. DANDAR: Well, then, the second week of
5 September.
6 THE COURT: What is your suggestion?
7 MR. WEINBERG: Right after the first of the
8 year.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. WEINBERG: After the holidays.
11 THE COURT: And why do you think that that's
12 more appropriate?
13 MR. WEINBERG: Because of what I said before
14 about getting this hearing over with --
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. WEINBERG: -- us getting the -- getting the
17 depositions taken in due course for Mr. Dandar. We
18 have a few other depositions to take as well. And
19 getting the final discovery from -- from the Lisa
20 McPherson Trust. And of course the holidays.
21 Which, this is not going to be a short trial. If we
22 start in September, it's going to go, I would say,
23 beyond Thanksgiving and probably into Christmas.
24 THE COURT: Just the wrongful death? I don't.
25 MR. WEINBERG: It's a couple of months.
0180
1 THE COURT: I think it's a couple of months.
2 MR. WEINBERG: Particularly with the vitreous
3 in the case. I mean, I think that there is a lot of
4 expert testimony that's going to go on. And you
5 heard it. So I think if the vitreous was out of the
6 case it would be a much shorter trial. But with the
7 vitreous in the case, there's going to a lot of
8 expert testimony.
9 You know -- I mean, we -- we sort of got a
10 preview of it in the -- in the vitreous hearing.
11 Maybe not that much detail, but there's going to
12 be --
13 THE COURT: Right.
14 I think that, as the case is presently
15 situated -- that being that the counterclaim has
16 been severed; that the counterclaim will be tried
17 second; that I will only try the wrongful death --
18 until that changes, or if that changes, then I think
19 we can go with the September date.
20 So I understand your preference. And if in
21 fact I should consolidate those two hearings, I
22 would absolutely agree with you. I would not start
23 a consolidated case in September. But as long -- in
24 its present posture, that's the trial date he has
25 requested.
0181
1 Really, the problem with the -- with the
2 depositions, as I take it, is more his than it is
3 yours. Frankly, Lisa McPherson's been dead for
4 seven years. This is a wrongful death case. That's
5 an awfully long time.
6 I understand your problems; I understand his
7 problems. I think September is reasonable. We'll
8 start this trial the second week in September. As
9 long as it remains in its present posture.
10 MR. WEINBERG: Can I ask you a question?
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Would -- you said the jurors are
13 coming in -- it's --
14 THE COURT: It's a regular trial week.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
16 THE COURT: In other words, they will summons
17 in regular jurors. What I will tell them to do --
18 Like today there's one trial. Just one trial.
19 You know, the four judges have trials, they settled.
20 There's one trial. We've got a hundred and umpteen
21 jurors. They're here. There's one judge. Well, if
22 there's one trial on a regular trial week, we'll
23 have a hundred jurors to start. If there's three
24 trials, we'll still have a hundred jurors. In other
25 words, we'll get rid of a few. And then as jurors
0182
1 get released from other cases, they don't get
2 released. Then I'll -- I'll tell them to go ahead
3 and summons in another hundred for Tuesday and
4 another hundred for Wednesday and another hundred
5 for Thursday.
6 MR. WEINBERG: I hadn't really thought about
7 it -- I mean, I had -- I had thought about it, but I
8 haven't completely thought about it --
9 Is this -- are we going to bring in special --
10 I mean, a special group of jurors -- I mean, special
11 isn't the right word --
12 THE COURT: No. Not if it's set for a -- not
13 if it's set for a regular trial week.
14 MR. WEINBERG: That's why I was thinking about
15 possibly doing it on another week, and maybe even
16 starting with some sort of a --
17 THE COURT: Questionnaire?
18 MR. WEINBERG: -- questionnaire, because of the
19 nature of this case.
20 THE COURT: Questionnaire is fine, but that
21 doesn't mean we can't get started with the jurors.
22 What you do is you just give them the
23 questionnaire, once it's been approved; you let them
24 fill it out, give it to the lawyers, the lawyers
25 have it, and you start your questioning. And you
0183
1 know, you have it in front of you and you can look
2 at it. And it works pretty well.
3 Judge Rondolino did that with the tobacco case,
4 where they wanted to use a questionnaire. He just
5 brought -- as I understand it. I'll have to check
6 with him. 'Cause I've never used a questionnaire.
7 I frankly don't know what their value is. But if
8 you want one, I don't care.
9 But you've got to get one --
10 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
11 THE COURT: -- done.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
13 THE COURT: And what you've got to do is, both
14 sides have to agree on it. And nothing has been
15 agreed on in this case. But you know, if you all
16 can agree on a questionnaire, I'll use it. And what
17 you do is you hand it out to everybody.
18 And I wouldn't hand it out to other jurors
19 going to other cases unless they got excused from
20 those other cases, went back to the jury room. So
21 we would start with our own -- let's say we take our
22 own 50 --
23 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
24 THE COURT: -- if I could get that many.
25 And I would -- what I normally do on a big --
0184
1 big trial is bring them in and tell them the trial's
2 going to last two months. What kind of problems
3 does that cause for them? And we'll get a bunch of
4 real legitimate problems. And -- and if I can get
5 the lawyers' agreement, I'll send them on their way.
6 Then I'll get into publicity type stuff. And
7 we'll see what we get on a one-on -- one-to-one with
8 that. And then if some of those need to go, why
9 they'll be excused.
10 Then whatever I have left, I'll send them out,
11 tell them, you know, "You all appear to be jurors
12 that may be qualified to serve, so we want you to
13 fill out a questionnaire. It'll save a lot of
14 time." And I'll send them out.
15 In the meantime, if we've got more jurors
16 coming in, we can -- in other words, we can kind of
17 just do the preliminary stuff, stuff that I normally
18 do, without a questionnaire. And then when --
19 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
20 THE COURT: So that'll take some time, because
21 it's going to take us some time to get maybe 50
22 jurors for you all to question who -- who have no
23 bias, publicity bias, and who can -- more -- more
24 importantly, who can sit for --
25 MR. WEINBERG: That long.
0185
1 THE COURT: -- two months.
2 I mean, that's a real -- you know, a lot of
3 folks -- everybody's going to say, "Oh, I can't do
4 that." I mean, a lot of people will.
5 So -- so we'll work out those details. And
6 I'll give you all plenty of time to, you know --
7 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
8 THE COURT: So --
9 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I've just been advised by
10 my paralegal that -- if -- if you can do this, we'd
11 rather start the first week of October. Since we
12 can't start the third -- last week of September,
13 we'd rather start the first week of October.
14 THE COURT: Now we're getting into -- now we're
15 getting into Thanksgiving and Christmas.
16 I mean, the problem -- the truth of the matter
17 is, Mr. Dandar, is if we can't start this by the
18 second week of September, quite frankly, we need to
19 start it the second week of January.
20 MR. DANDAR: I already have four trials
21 scheduled.
22 THE COURT: You know, I'm just telling you that
23 you don't want to set a two-month trial that's going
24 to encompass your holidays. I'm not going to do it
25 to jurors; not for a two-month holiday (sic).
0186
1 I will tell you that I let the jurors go on
2 Wednesday on a Thanksgiving. I will let them go the
3 day before Christmas Eve. And so we are going to
4 have long delays in this trial if it gets into the
5 holiday season. That means we're going to have
6 Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday as
7 to Thanksgiving. And I don't know what Christmas
8 is. I don't know what -- what day it falls, but
9 we're going to have the day before Christmas Eve;
10 we're going to have Christmas Eve, Christmas -- and
11 that's just because these people, who are giving up
12 two months of their lives, I don't like to interfere
13 with their holidays.
14 MR. DANDAR: Christmas falls on a Wednesday.
15 THE COURT: All right. So they're -- so that's
16 going to mean that whole weekend before, Monday,
17 Tuesday, Wednesday. And I may just give them the
18 whole week off. I mean, you know, you've got to
19 give these people that have families coming in -- or
20 they won't serve. They just simply won't serve.
21 So the second week of September or the second
22 week of January. So think about it.
23 And -- and I'm telling you, we're starting --
24 I'm starting to look bad. It's like, "How's come
25 this case is set and then it gets passed and then
0187
1 it's set and it gets passed?" Nobody knows. Just
2 looks like the dumb judge can't make up her mind.
3 So I -- you know, I would prefer, quite
4 frankly, to set the thing for the second week of
5 January just because that doesn't involve the
6 holidays. We're past the holidays. People are --
7 that's all done. It's all behind them. They're
8 fresh and ready to serve. And I think it would
9 serve both sides better.
10 But if you want to try for the second week of
11 September, I'll try for the second week of
12 September.
13 MR. DANDAR: All right.
14 THE COURT: So you -- you think about that.
15 Obviously, your preference is the second week
16 of January. So you know, you -- you think on it.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Really for the reasons you said.
18 I tried a Christmas case one time --
19 THE COURT: Oh, yeah. I've tried many of them.
20 MR. WEINBERG: It was a disaster.
21 THE COURT: They're a disaster.
22 And you know, I would think that the person who
23 would not want this case tried would be the
24 plaintiff. I mean, it's the plaintiff that's
25 trying -- it's the plaintiff that's trying to
0188
1 prevail in a civil case. You know, I always used to
2 love, if I was a defense lawyer, to try a case
3 around the holidays, because I normally wasn't going
4 to do much.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Right. I was a prosecutor --
6 THE COURT: And you were a prosecutor. So the
7 prosecutor -- you know, as a defense lawyer --
8 MR. WEINBERG: Sure.
9 THE COURT: -- I loved to set cases around the
10 holidays because it was like I wasn't tying them up,
11 they were. These folks. And you didn't say that,
12 but the jury just kind of got that, you know,
13 flavor. And so I always thought -- to say nothing
14 of the fact that, you know, maybe there was some
15 good spirit around the Christmastime and forgiveness
16 or something. I don't know.
17 But it is not a good time to try a case. I
18 really think you ought to think about the second
19 week of January. Honestly. That should give
20 everybody time to take their depositions. We've
21 got, still, two, three motions to hear, that I want
22 to hear.
23 MR. WEINBERG: Plus this.
24 THE COURT: Plus the rest of this.
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: We would also -- we -- we would
0189
1 probably ask the court for sufficient time to brief
2 this motion too. There's such a huge record --
3 THE COURT: There -- there will be -- I will
4 give you sufficient time. I'm just telling you from
5 your standpoint, that what you need to assume --
6 MR. LIEBERMAN: I understand.
7 THE COURT: -- is that the case -- the motion
8 will be denied. That's how everybody needs to
9 think. So you need to think, "Get ready for trial."
10 I mean, I understand that's work that may be for
11 naught.
12 So -- I mean, the fact that I'm going to want
13 you to brief it for me; I'm going to want you to --
14 this is one time I'm going to let you brief it and
15 attach for me. Because there's such a big record,
16 I'm going to like those attachments.
17 So I'll --
18 But that doesn't necessarily have to stall a
19 trial date. Except if it's in September, obviously,
20 I have to rule; we're going to have motions in
21 limine. A lot of the stuff that I've let into this
22 hearing, I certainly would not let into a wrongful
23 death case at all.
24 And as I said, I -- I think that they're going
25 to be different.
0190
1 One of the reasons why I think I'm going to
2 keep these cases separate no matter what the
3 preference is, there's just so much stuff that -- it
4 would be different in a wrongful death and then a
5 challenge to some improper purpose in filing the
6 lawsuit.
7 So I think the reason why I thought I could
8 consolidate them is because some of the wrongful
9 death stuff has to come in, most likely, to the
10 counterclaim.
11 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
12 THE COURT: But that counterclaim gets bogged
13 down in a lot of areas that just simply are not
14 relevant to the wrongful death.
15 So anyway, I think you all would be smart to
16 think the second week of January. Go on ahead, do
17 your other trials that you've got scheduled. You
18 have plenty of time to get those rescheduled.
19 So think on that, okay?
20 MR. DANDAR: All right.
21 THE COURT: All right. Are we ready?
22 Let's get your answer by tomorrow.
23 MR. DANDAR: To --
24 THE COURT: To whether you want to try for
25 September --
0191
1 MR. DANDAR: Oh.
2 THE COURT: The second week of September or the
3 second week of January.
4 MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.
5 THE COURT: Okay. And this continuance,
6 Mr. Dandar, is charged to you.
7 MR. DANDAR: I don't like that at all.
8 THE COURT: I understand that.
9 MR. DANDAR: I disagree wholeheartedly.
10 THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.
11 Mr. Prince --
12 Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the
13 stand?
14 MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.
15 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to
16 step forward?
17 Mr. Prince, you're already under oath. So you
18 understand that the oath that you took will be valid
19 throughout your testimony.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
21 THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume
22 the stand?
23 Let me make sure, before we start, that I've
24 got the right book. Give me just a minute,
25 Mr. Dandar.
0192
1 Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?
2 MR. DANDAR: Brian --
3 THE COURT: Brian.
4 MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian --
5 THE COURT: Brian.
6 MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.
7 THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh
8 Brian?
9 MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.
10 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I've got the
11 right book. I'm ready.
12 Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee --
13 I mean -- coffee -- see, I was thinking of coffee.
14 That'd be nice. Maybe you'll bring me some.
15 Is this water fresh?
16 THE BAILIFF: I'm not sure, your Honor.
17 MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be --
18 MR. FUGATE: -- a "no."
19 THE COURT: That's what I would say.
20 Would you mind?
21 No telling how long that's been sitting in
22 there. You know what he'll do? It'll have mold on
23 it. He'll go -- pour it out --
24 Thank you very much.
25 When this trial comes -- because I will let you
0193
1 all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once
2 we get to a trial --
3 MR. WEINBERG: Right.
4 THE COURT: -- just water.
5 But I'm going to get me a little cooler and
6 keep it up here. Because I don't trust them -- I
7 can't ask every day. Just one of the tiny little
8 things that needs to be done.
9 And by the way, Mr. Dandar --
10 MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.
11 THE COURT: -- if I might just suggest, I did
12 notice in that article that you were quoted. The
13 truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It
14 would be well for you not to be quoted in these
15 articles.
16 MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or
17 Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.
18 THE COURT: Okay.
19 MR. DANDAR: I think -- I think the reporter is
20 quoting from in-court testimony.
21 THE COURT: If that's the case, then we can't
22 help that.
23 But -- but do not -- and I'm not going to tell
24 the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because
25 you know, part of the -- part of the canons say one
0194
1 ought not to be talking to the press about their
2 case while it's ongoing.
3 MR. DANDAR: Right.
4 THE COURT: That would be like you all having
5 some comment for me. I don't think you would be
6 appreciative of that.
7 MR. DANDAR: I do --
8 That's what happens to me -- off the record?
9 Can we go off the record for just a second?
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.
11 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Madam Reporter?
13 THE REPORTER: Yes, ma'am.
14 (A discussion was held off the record.)
15 THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
16 ___________________________________
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked
19 about your position with the Religious Technology Center;
20 you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing
21 investigations involving litigation and other critics of
22 Scientology. And I'm showing you today Plaintiff's Exhibit
23 113, entitled Intelligence Actions. Can you identify that
24 document?
25 A Yes.
0195
1 Q And what is it?
2 A This is a document -- a document written by L. Ron
3 Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about
4 predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating
5 individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.
6 And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives
7 to be enemies or suppressive persons.
8 Q Against whom? They're enemies of whom?
9 A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These
10 are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of
11 Scientology.
12 Q On the -- it's a one-page document. The third
13 paragraph talks about a standard, is to -- when you're under
14 attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with
15 the prior document where you -- where it mentioned, and you
16 explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence
17 if there's no crimes found?
18 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your
19 Honor.
20 First of all, this is a 1968 thing.
21 Secondly, I just want to let the record be
22 clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince
23 interpreting policy. He was booted out of the
24 church -- booted out of the position in 1987; left
25 in disgrace from the church; has been -- has been --
0196
1 has been, you know, paid to testify against the
2 church. And now he's coming in here trying to
3 interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn't
4 say anything about creating or manufacturing
5 evidence and saying that -- trying to interpret it?
6 I -- I object to that.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Does this policy have anything to do with the
10 prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and
11 explained to the court about, if you can't find the crimes
12 of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?
13 A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of
14 the intelligence department in different Scientology
15 organizations.
16 Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from
17 the bottom, attack loudly?
18 A You know, I think we must be looking at a
19 different -- I must be looking at a different document than
20 you.
21 Q I hope not.
22 A Where did you see that --
23 Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.
24 Q What does that mean, attack loudly?
25 A Noisy investigation.
0197
1 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What
2 he's saying is what it means to him?
3 THE COURT: Yes.
4 MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?
5 THE COURT: That's what he's saying.
6 BY MR. DANDAR:
7 Q Within your experience and your position of the
8 inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that
9 understanding -- what you're understanding of that means.
10 MR. WEINBERG: Well, see --
11 A This would mean --
12 MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants
13 to sit up there and say what it means to him, that's
14 one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say,
15 "This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy
16 means to a Scientologist," that's nonsense. And
17 that isn't right. And that's what's been going on
18 for -- for -- you know, with Mr. Prince and
19 Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the --
20 in the church. It's not right.
21 They shouldn't be up here trying to interpret
22 for the -- for the religion of Scientology, what
23 policy is.
24 THE COURT: That's not even your argument;
25 that's the argument of the First Amendment scholar.
0198
1 And I have let him preserve that argument --
2 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
3 THE COURT: -- and it is preserved. And your
4 objection therefore is overruled.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
6 THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don't
7 agree with his position, this would be relevant to
8 this, and it would be relevant probably to your
9 counterclaim.
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means
11 I should be objecting to --
12 THE COURT: No. Because I've allowed you to
13 preserve a continuing objection.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your
15 Honor.
16 But the point is, from the First Amendment
17 point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in
18 creates an untenable position for the church.
19 Because if we -- if we merely preserve our position,
20 then we're put in the position of, do we have to
21 counter it? To counter it, we would then have to
22 engage in a process which we shouldn't have to
23 constitutionally, which would be incredibly
24 burdensome on us and on the court.
25 Because in order to understand Scientology
0199
1 policies, you can't take one and look at it in
2 isolation, and have somebody who was not -- who
3 was -- who was basically removed from his
4 position --
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- by the church --
7 THE COURT: But he was there. And he was
8 there. And he presumably was high up in the scale.
9 And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he
10 was removed or not. I've therefore ruled he's
11 qualified.
12 If you want to withdraw your motion, saying
13 there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a
14 fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will
15 agree with you.
16 You filed the motion in this hearing. I think
17 it's relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter
18 what your First Amendment argument is going to be,
19 I'm going to allow it in for this hearing.
20 It's your motion. That's why I said I think
21 you're going to have some distinctions that I'm
22 going to be willing to draw for different things.
23 You do whatever you want to do for this motion.
24 I've allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is
25 preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you
0200
1 may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as
2 you have filed the motion you have filed.
3 You've made your argument. I'm ready to move
4 on.
5 This is not somebody who was not in the church.
6 This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody
7 who was there, who says, "This is what we did."
8 MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he
9 also was -- was removed --
10 THE COURT: Well, then --
11 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- from his position --
12 THE COURT: -- do it on cross examination.
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- for not being a Scientology
14 expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology
15 expert by the authority that had the ability to
16 determine who are -- who is capable, who is proper
17 to speak for Scientology.
18 THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can
19 suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you
20 all about Jesse Prince, you must be really
21 frightened of him.
22 You've made your point. We're going to move
23 on.
24 BY MR. DANDAR:
25 Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third
0201
1 paragraph on Exhibit 113 states, "Even if you don't have
2 enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason
3 is, it is only those people that have crimes that will
4 attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being
5 found out when attacked back."
6 Is this considered a scripture of the Church of
7 Scientology?
8 A During -- during my tenure in Scientology, this
9 document was not considered to be any type of scripture.
10 This was a training material to train a person in
11 intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.
12 Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking
13 about -- answering the question about if this relates to the
14 noisy investigation when this document, in the third
15 paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word
16 "loudly."
17 A Yeah.
18 Q And what is a noisy investigation?
19 A A noisy investigation -- I believe we covered that
20 the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted
21 the document in the church.
22 But it's basically to go around and arouse the
23 neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that
24 Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations
25 about the person that may or may not be true. And according
0202
1 to Scientology's Manual of Justice, which is a further
2 document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go
3 through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy
4 investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of
5 it.
6 MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word
7 "terrorism" or "terrorize." I mean, that's just --
8 THE COURT: I didn't hear him say that. Did he
9 say that?
10 MR. WEINBERG: That's what he said.
11 MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who
12 is attacking the Church of Scientology.
13 THE COURT: Overruled. I'm not thinking of
14 that as terrorism; I'm thinking of that as just
15 simply a word.
16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, that's fine. But I'm a
17 little sensitive, after reading this article this
18 morning, where -- or yesterday morning, where Osama
19 Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the
20 same sentence.
21 MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete
22 Times.
23 MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I --
24 THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by
25 Mr. Minton.
0203
1 MR. WEINBERG: Who -- who -- let's make it
2 clear -- is not our witness, and is a person that
3 has -- that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar
4 from -- from the beginning of this lawsuit.
5 THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor,
6 but he is your witness.
7 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
8 THE COURT: You called him.
9 MR. WEINBERG: -- your Honor, that's where we
10 disagree. But I'm not here to argue with that.
11 THE COURT: No.
12 MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.
13 We called him as a witness.
14 THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You
15 called him as a witness. I did not declare him a
16 hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he
17 was able to respond to your questions without
18 leading questions.
19 You called him in this hearing as your witness.
20 MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn't mean that
21 Mr. Minton is --
22 Well --
23 THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about
24 nothing, doesn't it?
25 I understand about the article. That was
0204
1 Mr. Minton who said --
2 MR. WEINBERG: My --
3 THE COURT: -- that.
4 MR. WEINBERG: -- objection had to do with
5 Mr. Prince saying "terrorize," which is -- which
6 is --
7 THE COURT: Well, your objection's overruled.
8 He can use the word "terrorize" if that's the word
9 he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my
10 opinion, with a terrorist attack. "Terrorize" is
11 just a word. We use it all the time. Don't be so
12 sensitive. Golly, we've got to get down into
13 getting back into -- stop being so sensitive.
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q In your experience in -- in RTC, in Scientology,
16 how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against
17 the critics?
18 A Well, there's several ways that I've -- I've seen
19 it done --
20 THE COURT: And I'm sorry. When I indicated
21 about the --
22 Excuse me.
23 When I indicated about the motion to dismiss,
24 what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to
25 this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the
0205
1 allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for
2 his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think
3 it's admissible in this hearing.
4 Forget what I said about --
5 I -- I haven't gotten my head back into this
6 case.
7 MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I
8 read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q So --
11 THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Prince. I
12 interrupted you.
13 Madam Court Reporter, read back that question
14 before I interrupted him.
15 THE REPORTER: The pending question is, "In
16 your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you
17 go about finding or manufacturing threats against
18 the critics?"
19 The witness began to answer, "Well, there's
20 several ways that I've -- I've seen it done --"
21 A Yes.
22 As far as out-and-out manufacturing information --
23 And again, I want to clarify that. During the
24 time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in
25 Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls
0206
1 technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training
2 of things.
3 Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about
4 this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from
5 me until that point. So I -- I actually had a very short
6 amount of time there. But as what I've seen as far as
7 manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person --
8 Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to
9 Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John
10 Nelson used to be a person that was the CO -- the commanding
11 officer of Sea Org --
12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
13 A -- International.
14 MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How's he
15 know this?
16 THE WITNESS: Because I was there.
17 MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?
18 THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the
19 parties.
20 THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Were you in charge of the parties?
23 A Yes. The party was working in one of my
24 divisions.
25 At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a
0207
1 private investigator to investigate a fellow named John
2 Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in
3 Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.
4 THE COURT: At what?
5 THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the
6 Commodores Messenger Organization.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q And that was an elite organization?
9 A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs,
10 which eventually became Church of Scientology International.
11 CSI.
12 Q All right.
13 A And he had started his own splinter organization
14 with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was
15 perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology.
16 So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick
17 Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room
18 next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that
19 they would know when he was coming and going; and when he
20 left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was
21 to call the police when he came, to say he was a -- a heroin
22 dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.
23 I found out about that because the private
24 investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back
25 to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, "Look,
0208
1 this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets
2 convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence."
3 I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither
4 did the private investigator. He was coming back.
5 I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki
6 Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation
7 and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away -- not
8 to do that particular operation.
9 This was an instance of manufacturing information
10 that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had
11 personal knowledge of. I've heard other things about that.
12 And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. --
13 Q Well, what year was this?
14 A That this occurred?
15 Q Yes.
16 A This happened in 1985.
17 Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at
18 RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or
19 perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?
20 A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a -- is -- is
21 what would correctly define -- as opposed to critics.
22 Because there was -- you know, critics wasn't a word that we
23 used in Scientology when I was there. "Oh, this person's a
24 critic." That's not a word that we would use in
25 Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.
0209
1 This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn't -- this
2 whole critic thing didn't come into being, I believe, until
3 after I even left Scientology.
4 Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of
5 Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you
6 have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going
7 on?
8 A The other partner of this fellow, his name was
9 David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials,
10 the NED for OTs. And he --
11 THE COURT: Of the what materials?
12 THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is
13 the -- this is the --
14 MR. DANDAR: NOTS.
15 THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6
16 and 7.
17 THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front
18 of that?
19 THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating
20 Thetans. And it's an acronym, NED.
21 MR. DANDAR: NED.
22 THE WITNESS: NED.
23 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No
24 foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that
25 David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?
0210
1 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't understand. I
2 thought he was talking about the NOTS. I've seen
3 that in some of the literature.
4 MR. DANDAR: Yes. That's what he was --
5 MR. WEINBERG: But what --
6 MR. DANDAR: -- talking --
7 THE COURT: I just simply asked what it -- what
8 it meant.
9 MR. WEINBERG: No -- all right.
10 But what he said before that was -- that
11 prompted your question -- was that David Mayo had
12 actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT,
13 whatever it is.
14 MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross
15 examination, but it's really interrupting the flow
16 of the direct.
17 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.
18 There was an entire proceeding in California
19 about all this.
20 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to allow it.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of
23 NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?
24 A Because it's -- the NOTS Materials, as I saw them
25 in 1985 -- each and every one of them had his signature or
0211
1 his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED
2 for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them.
3 So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these
4 materials. This is what I base that opinion on.
5 Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote
6 them, correct?
7 A He was a senior CS international at the time he
8 wrote that.
9 Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?
10 A He was Mr. Hubbard's auditor, correct.
11 Q All right. So what happened -- what was the
12 operation against Mr. Mayo?
13 A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.
14 And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a
15 business place, office complex. They were on the first
16 floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his
17 office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also,
18 a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray
19 Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int --
20 (The reporter asked for clarification.)
21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
22 A -- was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a
23 deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as
24 well as Nancy Mainy.
25 And the purpose of these deep cover operatives
0212
1 were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced
2 Abilities Center to provide information about financial
3 accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole
4 the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the
5 Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent
6 in there to not only glean information but to disrupt
7 activities, covertly disrupt activities.
8 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this,
9 and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis -- what
10 his --
11 THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?
12 MR. WEINBERG: -- of the information is?
13 THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It
14 was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a
15 hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer
16 ultimately. And on March 15th -- not March 15th,
17 but somewhere around that time period. This all had
18 to do with the Wollersheim case.
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q And when you testified in front of a judge on
21 Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?
22 A Church of Scientology -- Religious Technology
23 Center.
24 THE COURT: You testified for the Religious
25 Technology Center that the -- that someone from the
0213
1 Church of Scientology went into --
2 THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: -- this man's place and --
4 THE WITNESS: No. I --
5 THE COURT: -- stole --
6 MR. DANDAR: Wait --
7 THE WITNESS: No.
8 THE COURT: -- his mailing list and --
9 THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That's not what I
10 testified to.
11 What I testified to was the fact that the
12 materials that were being used in the Advanced
13 Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the
14 ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.
15 THE COURT: I see. So he -- this Mr. David
16 Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and
17 was in a splinter group.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. He was -- he was kicked out
19 of Scientology.
20 As a matter of fact, I think I brought the
21 document with me today that -- that shows why he was
22 kicked out of Scientology. And when he left he
23 started his own movement, basically.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25
0214
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q What's the name of that document?
3 THE COURT: Was he -- was he --
4 A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.
5 THE COURT: Was he -- was he with Mr. Nelson?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter
8 group?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 THE COURT: I see.
11 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor -- I'll tell you
12 what --
13 MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince
14 say what the basis for his testimony was, whether
15 it's hearsay or did he give these alleged orders
16 to -- to --
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. WEINBERG: -- break in and bug and --
19 THE COURT: How did you know about this?
20 THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the --
21 the people that were doing the activities were in a
22 division in RTC that I supervised.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 THE WITNESS: And the -- the people that were
25 involved -- I can tell you specifically the names of
0215
1 this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence
2 officer in RTC.
3 THE COURT: Who was "our"? "Our"?
4 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. RTC.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.
7 THE COURT: So you were supervising the people
8 who were doing this?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
10 THE COURT: There's your foundation. I mean,
11 that's the foundation.
12 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have -- I haven't
13 copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We
14 have the copier in the jury room so it doesn't cause
15 any noise. And then we'll copy it. But this is
16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 114.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q Can you identify that?
20 MR. DANDAR: Then we'll have it copied.
21 A This is the first Religious Technology Center
22 Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence,
23 actually. And it lists -- one, two, three, four, five, six,
24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 -- has 16
25 individuals listed on this document, of people that are
0216
1 receiving a justice action. These are people that were once
2 in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982.
3 So David Mayo here was the senior CS
4 international. He's on this document.
5 And this is the document that lists all of their
6 supposed and alleged crimes.
7 And the people that constituted the committee that
8 would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime
9 composed of -- one, two, three, four, five, six -- seven
10 people.
11 And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary
12 was Shelly Miscavige. That's David Miscavige's wife. A
13 member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve
14 Marlowe's wife, who -- at the time, he was a commander of
15 the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse
16 Prince. Then there's Gelda Mithoff, who's the wife of Ray
17 Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a
18 security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to
19 David Miscavige.
20 And this committee was charged with finding -- and
21 this was basically what is constituted all of in
22 management -- to, you know, basically do another
23 housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a
24 time or two.
25 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I'd like to go ahead and
0217
1 have this copied, and I'll distribute it. Is that
2 all right?
3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 Did you mark it?
5 MR. DANDAR: Yes. It's 114.
6 MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to
7 relevance. I haven't looked at it yet. But what's
8 the relevance of a 1982 --
9 THE COURT: I don't know.
10 MR. WEINBERG: -- religious justice action
11 against people?
12 THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part
13 of Mr. Dandar's case regarding his allegations of
14 threats, extortions or whatever it is he's alleging
15 about.
16 MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was
17 never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn't --
18 didn't -- didn't undergo any committee of evidence
19 or Scientology justice action. I just don't
20 understand the relevance.
21 THE COURT: What is the relevance?
22 THE WITNESS: Well --
23 THE COURT: No. Not you.
24 THE WITNESS: Oh.
25 MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg
0218
1 called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence,
2 with the other top Int management people, on a
3 committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the
4 author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And
5 it just shows Mr. Prince's involvement in the higher
6 echelons of Scientology.
7 THE COURT: So this is -- this is just to show
8 that he's got some -- what, that is -- that he --
9 is -- is capable of testifying as an expert here?
10 MR. DANDAR: Yes. And --
11 THE COURT: Well, I've already accepted him as
12 an expert.
13 MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the
14 policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he --
15 which is the basis of this testimony before we
16 reached that document.
17 THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may
18 have some relevance. I don't know.
19 MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?
20 THE COURT: I don't know. I mean, I have to
21 believe some of the things the lawyers say.
22 MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.
23 This is in a series of, like, three or four
24 documents on this subject. And then we'll get on to
25 a different matter.
0219
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you
3 identify that?
4 A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along
5 with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual
6 of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude
7 of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind
8 of gives the thought process, the -- the basis of it. It
9 comes from Klausewitz.
10 Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is
11 directed against the enemies of Scientology?
12 A Correct.
13 Q And then the third -- actually, the fourth
14 paragraph from the bottom it states -- states, quote, One
15 cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.
16 This policy letter goes to -- applies to former
17 Scientologists as well as someone who's an -- an enemy, who
18 has never been a Scientologist?
19 A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a --
20 as an enemy.
21 THE COURT: Is this again what you call a
22 suppressive person?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off
0220
1 enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive
2 the enemy of political advantages, connections and
3 power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and
4 harasses. All on a thought plane --
5 THE COURT: Okay. You don't have to read it to
6 me, Mr. Prince. I --
7 THE WITNESS: Okay.
8 THE COURT: -- can read.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph
11 states, "Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It
12 eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence
13 and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close
14 quote. What is PRO?
15 A Public relations officer.
16 Q And intelligence is what?
17 A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or
18 department or division of Scientology organizations.
19 Intelligence having to do with the prediction.
20 Again, it goes back to this issue we have here,
21 intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to
22 predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states
23 that in the issue. So intelligence would predict or would
24 start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data
25 collection, covert data collection, amass as much
0221
1 information about the situation as possible, then proceed
2 accordingly.
3 Q That's the -- does that include the use of the
4 private investigators?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.
7 THE COURT: While you're doing that, can you
8 all tell me whether or not a document called
9 Middle -- well, it's something filed by Middle
10 District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright
11 infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy
12 Brooks -- is that an exhibit in this hearing?
13 MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?
16 MR. LIROT: It wasn't one of our exhibits.
17 MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of
19 Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?
20 MR. WEINBERG: I don't think that is.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the
23 complaint.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25
0222
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?
3 A 116 is a document in the same vein of the
4 documents we've been studying before. It's the public
5 investigation section. And this basically has to do with --
6 "investigates attacking individual members and see the
7 results of the investigation, get adequate legal and
8 publicity."
9 So this again is similar to what we've gone over
10 here before.
11 Q So it's in a series of the other exhibits on how
12 to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?
13 A Correct.
14 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 117, entitled
15 Attacks on Scientology. What is that?
16 A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It
17 talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. "An attack
18 on Scientology --" well, you know, the basic principle is,
19 never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the
20 attacker. That kind of thing.
21 Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late '60s.
22 Were they still in effect when you were in your management
23 position at RTC?
24 A Very much so. And they're still in effect today.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your
0223
1 Honor. Based on what?
2 THE COURT: Sustained.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q And how do you know they're still in effect today?
5 A Because of that time track that was submitted into
6 this courtroom of specific things that have -- that have
7 occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over
8 specifically what has happened to me because of my
9 involvement in this case and other cases.
10 MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of
11 foundation.
12 THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that
13 inference, but I suspect he can't testify that that
14 is in fact what's happening today. But he can infer
15 that, I think.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q Now, Mr. Minton -- Mr. Prince, have any of the --
18 these policies come into play in the -- Pinellas County in
19 the past?
20 MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he
21 was in the church? Is that what you're asking?
22 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
23 MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?
24 MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into
0224
1 play in Pinellas County?
2 THE COURT: If he's talking about what occurred
3 to him? Is that what you're --
4 MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to
5 non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated
6 by the Church of Scientology in the past years.
7 Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.
8 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor --
9 THE COURT: How does he know that?
10 MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these
11 exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk
12 about them.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong
15 exhibit, but --
16 I withdraw the question. And I'm just going to
17 go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in
18 my hand.
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit
21 118?
22 A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order
23 Number 1, in that it's an ethics order that declare -- one,
24 two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 --
25 12 people to be suppressive persons.
0225
1 Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, "They are fair game."
2 What does this have to do with?
3 A Fair game?
4 Q Yeah. What's this exhibit have to do with?
5 A This exhibit has to do with people that used some
6 version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level
7 materials and started some type of distribution of those
8 materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.
9 Q All right. And --
10 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection.
11 What does this have to do with this case?
12 If the Church of Scientology, within its
13 internal structure, just like the Catholic church,
14 declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive,
15 you know, because they did something against the
16 church; like, you know, attempt to -- to take the --
17 the scripture and change it -- what's that got to do
18 with this hearing?
19 THE COURT: I think --
20 MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this
21 hearing.
22 THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do
23 with this hearing. And if you don't understand it,
24 then I'll have to explain it to you.
25 MR. WEINBERG: All right.
0226
1 THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion
2 being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive
3 person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these
4 things, including finding out all of the crimes that
5 he may have committed, and bring it to his
6 attention. That is the allegation of extortion.
7 MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are
8 Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant --
9 at the time, 1968 -- being declared pursuant to the
10 Scientology religious practices, under their justice
11 system. Mr. Minton's not a Scientologist.
12 THE COURT: There's no question in my mind
13 that, according to the matters that have been
14 brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have
15 been considered a suppressive person.
16 MR. WEINBERG: But he's putting in a document
17 that -- that says pursuant to church policy, these
18 Scientologists are -- are getting a certain justice
19 action. That's what that is. I mean, he doesn't
20 have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he
21 ever was in the church.
22 THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony
23 has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it
24 was followed. And it wasn't changed. And it would
25 be a high crime to change the writings of
0227
1 Mr. Hubbard.
2 You know, we don't change the Bible just
3 because times change. I presume you don't change
4 the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about
5 as clear as anything I know.
6 MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that -- that there is
7 only one interpretation --
8 THE COURT: Nobody said there was one --
9 MR. WEINBERG: -- of 50 words that are
10 written --
11 THE COURT: Nobody said there is one
12 interpretation. This is something that --
13 MR. WEINBERG: -- is preposterous.
14 THE COURT: -- that Mr. Hubbard wrote.
15 MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal
16 justice action with regard to Scientologists, in
17 1968.
18 THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.
19 Apparently you don't. I do. It's this hearing. I
20 think it's relevant to this hearing. And it's
21 coming in.
22 Take it up. Make your objection. It's made,
23 take --
24 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
25 THE COURT: -- it to the appellate court. Do
0228
1 whatever you want to do. Your objection is
2 overruled.
3 MR. WEINBERG: I understand.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly
6 internal?
7 A This issue would have been published internally,
8 but it would have gone out -- but it's something that would
9 have been put in each organization so that they would know
10 who these suppressive persons are.
11 The purpose of these ethics orders -- one of the
12 purposes of these ethics orders is, when they're issued, for
13 everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn't
14 then walk into an organization and pretend to be
15 Scientologists in good standing and -- and wreak further
16 havoc on the organization --
17 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor --
18 A -- if that's what's --
19 MR. WEINBERG: -- that's not --
20 A -- Scientology --
21 MR. WEINBERG: -- that's not -- objection.
22 (Simultaneous speakers.)
23 MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this
24 document. I believe this document, for whatever
25 it's worth, is a forgery. But he can't authenticate
0229
1 it. He's just guessing. He's speculating. He
2 wasn't there when it was published. If it was
3 published.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?
6 THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?
7 THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me
8 by Vaughn Young.
9 THE COURT: So you did not receive this
10 document or see this document when you were in the
11 church.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained
14 and it will not be admitted.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the -- does this
17 appear to be a genuine document?
18 THE COURT: Well, that --
19 A Absolutely.
20 THE COURT: That isn't going to get it. He
21 can't -- he can't authenticate something that was
22 given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not
23 quite the same as some of these other things that
24 I've seen -- this is something called -- I mean, I
25 don't know if this is authentic or not. Some of the
0230
1 other things that all look like the same, then I'm
2 going to allow it in, necessarily, without his
3 authenticating.
4 MR. DANDAR: All right.
5 THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is
6 out.
7 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
8 BY MR. DANDAR:
9 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 119. Can you
10 identify this, please?
11 A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February,
12 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those
13 activities within the Scientology organization.
14 Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the
15 caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that?
16 A Because I think that it, again, just like these
17 other issues that we've seen, goes along in the same vein,
18 in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself,
19 including what it says it'll do here: Create the greatest
20 possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a
21 government or whoever to protect Scientology.
22 MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113
23 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I
24 move 119 into evidence.
25 THE COURT: I'm going to receive those.
0231
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Now, Mr. Prince --
3 MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I
4 know --
5 THE COURT: And I'm not going to hear from
6 Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New
7 York. I mean, there's three lawyers at the table.
8 It isn't going to happen. So you sit down.
9 Mr. Weinberg's making the objections. Or
10 Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate?
11 Which is it going to be?
12 MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg's witness, your
13 Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
15 Occasionally I will hear from our First
16 Amendment expert, occasionally.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q Let me show you --
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'll exercise restraint, your
20 Honor.
21 THE COURT: Thank you.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when --
23 THE COURT: I'm sure.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: -- I may try --
25
0232
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Can you identify that?
5 A Yes.
6 THE COURT: Please remember this is a most
7 unusual hearing that we're having.
8 A This is a document that explains -- a confidential
9 document written by someone in the Guardian's Office, which
10 was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs,
11 concerning -- the mayor, Gabe Cazares.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn't a Scientologist,
15 right?
16 A Correct.
17 Q So these actions -- do the actions we just
18 previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with
19 the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor
20 Cazares?
21 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has
22 no -- he has no knowledge -- he was never in the
23 Guardian's Office. We've heard a lot of testimony
24 about the Guardian's Office, all of which is that
25 Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of
0233
1 its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There's
2 no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he
3 got this one and who gave it to him.
4 THE COURT: Where did you get this?
5 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe,
6 on our Internet site -- not ours -- on the Lisa
7 McPherson Trust Internet site.
8 THE COURT: And --
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C.
11 prosecution?
12 A Yes.
13 THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?
14 THE WITNESS: This was -- I believe this was an
15 exhibit in the D.C. case --
16 MR. DANDAR: Mary --
17 THE WITNESS: -- where the 11 defendants
18 were --
19 MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the
20 Guardian's Office; people who broke into the FBI and
21 other public government buildings and were
22 prosecuted.
23 Mr. Franks talked about this --
24 MR. WEINBERG: So --
25 THE COURT: Excuse me.
0234
1 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to
2 throw allegations around. One that he did throw
3 around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the
4 murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not
5 addressed, and he needs to address it.
6 But this Guardian's Office stuff has nothing to
7 do with this hearing. Nothing. They were -- they
8 were -- whatever they did wasn't authorized by
9 Mr. Hubbard, wasn't authorized by the Church of
10 Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out
11 of the church and they were prosecuted.
12 And that was all long before 1995. And what
13 they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into
14 Scientology. And he said he didn't have anything to
15 do with it.
16 THE COURT: This was -- yeah. What is the
17 relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad
18 litem -- guardian ad litem. I need to get back to
19 thinking --
20 The Guardian's office was -- but I think that
21 there's been testimony that the Guardian's Office
22 was simply supplanted by another office. And I've
23 forgotten the name of it.
24 THE WITNESS: Office of --
25 MR. DANDAR: Office of --
0235
1 THE WITNESS: -- Special Affairs.
2 MR. DANDAR: -- Special Affairs.
3 THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 MR. DANDAR: It's the same --
6 THE COURT: And consequently -- there is
7 testimony that it was the same -- and it was just --
8 it was just something that was done to -- I don't
9 know if this is true, because -- I mean, this is --
10 I think there's sufficient information to allow
11 this in.
12 MR. WEINBERG: It's not true. And Mr. Prince
13 wasn't in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn't,
14 and he doesn't have any -- he is not competent to
15 testify about what went on in the Office of Special
16 Affairs. He certainly can't testify about what went
17 on in the Guardian's Office because he wasn't
18 even -- he wasn't there, and he wasn't in the church
19 at the time.
20 THE COURT: Well --
21 MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just -- it's
22 just like we're just going to throw all of the slime
23 we can -- excuse me, Ken -- we're going to throw all
24 the slime we can out here? Well, why don't we --
25 THE COURT: Well, you know --
0236
1 MR. WEINBERG: -- address --
2 THE COURT: -- it's your motion. If you want
3 to withdraw it, then you're not going to have any
4 slime.
5 MR. WEINBERG: We're not --
6 THE COURT: Withdraw --
7 MR. WEINBERG: -- going to --
8 THE COURT: -- or --
9 MR. WEINBERG: We're not going --
10 THE COURT: -- listen and make your objection
11 and I'll rule on it. And sit down. Now.
12 I'm going to rule this is admissible.
13 MR. WEINBERG: All right.
14 THE COURT: You're going to hear some slime
15 when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.
16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but
17 we've been hearing it for a long time.
18 THE COURT: Well, we're going to hear it for a
19 lot longer. You've had your turn. This is his
20 turn.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q What's the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?
23 A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of
24 conduct where --
25 THE COURT: I'm not sure that he needs to
0237
1 explain this to us.
2 What -- was he in the office in 1976, in the
3 church?
4 MR. DANDAR: No.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Were you in the church at that time?
7 THE COURT: Well, then --
8 A Yes --
9 THE COURT: -- how does he know about --
10 A -- I was --
11 THE COURT: -- that?
12 THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
13 A But yes, I was in Scientology in '76.
14 THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were
15 with RTC or something like that?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the
17 reason why we have this document in here is because
18 it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing
19 pattern of conduct, where if there's a perceived
20 enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a
21 specific program to remove him from any position.
22 That's the first thing it says in this document, you
23 know, to remove this person from his job so that
24 he's not a threat to Scientology.
25 And -- and it goes on where, you know, they had
0238
1 some college -- the person pretend to be a college
2 student and write a letter --
3 THE COURT: Well --
4 THE WITNESS: -- saying --
5 THE COURT: -- this is 2002. The allegation
6 that this occurred is in the year 2002.
7 Do we have any thought that was -- what was
8 going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in
9 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it's farfetched.
10 THE WITNESS: Well --
11 THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don't
12 need a whole bunch of --
13 THE WITNESS: Okay.
14 THE COURT: -- explanation from Mr. Prince.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Well, let's -- we'll quickly then look at 121, and
17 then we're finished with this part.
18 A Okay.
19 THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime.
20 I should not have used that word. That was your
21 word. Very poor choice of my words.
22 MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.
23 THE COURT: Yes, it was.
24 MR. WEINBERG: And I never --
25 THE COURT: Okay. I don't even know what it
0239
1 says. I haven't read it. So I don't know if it's
2 slime or not.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit
5 121?
6 A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy.
7 This was a project that was executed when Scientology first
8 arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence
9 activity so that it would be informed of exactly --
10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No
11 competence. There's no way he can authenticate this
12 document.
13 THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn't look
14 like any document that I have seen.
15 How do you -- where did you see this document?
16 THE WITNESS: There's a -- this -- this
17 document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long
18 sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit -- an exhibit
19 stamp on it, because this is one of the documents
20 that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles.
21 As -- in this current form, it doesn't have it.
22 This was something that's on -- that was on the
23 Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.
24 THE COURT: So you've never seen this document
25 except on the Web site?
0240
1 THE WITNESS: No. I -- I have seen the
2 document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit
3 number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part
4 of the documents -- stipulation of evidence that was
5 turned in in D.C.
6 MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of
7 evidence between the government prosecutor and the
8 Church of Scientology.
9 MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your
10 Honor, he -- Mr. Dandar's testifying about some case
11 that went on 20 years ago.
12 THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because
13 presumably he's done some homework on it. I don't
14 know.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no
16 exhibit --
17 THE COURT: I'm not allowing this in.
18 MR. DANDAR: All right.
19 THE COURT: I'm not allowing it in because
20 there's nothing that tells me it can be
21 authenticated by this witness.
22 MR. DANDAR: All right.
23 THE COURT: And we -- I'm not going to let the
24 Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which
25 anything is authenticated.
0241
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 122.
3 THE COURT: How much of this are we going to
4 have to go through?
5 MR. DANDAR: It's the last --
6 THE COURT: Your point's been made, I think,
7 the point you're trying to make.
8 MR. DANDAR: Last one.
9 THE COURT: Well, you just said that about
10 Number 121.
11 MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn't let it in, so --
12 I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?
15 A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and
16 copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It
17 was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked
18 in the 1st Division of Scientology --
19 THE COURT: The what division?
20 THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 --
21 THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st
23 Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1,
24 HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office
25 division.
0242
1 And this basically outlined again how to deal
2 with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this
3 kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal
4 with the press and public relations.
5 MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.
6 THE COURT: Any objection?
7 MR. WEINBERG: No.
8 Only as to relevance. This has to do with
9 internal justice actions --
10 THE COURT: Well --
11 MR. WEINBERG: -- with regard to
12 Scientologists.
13 THE COURT: If it can be authenticated --
14 MR. WEINBERG: I didn't object to the
15 authentication.
16 THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for
17 any relevance that it might have. May not have any.
18 It's just hard for me to -- when documents are
19 presented, to take the time out to read them. It
20 may not have any relevance. And some of these --
21 these things that I'm letting in may be absolutely
22 irrelevant, but they're long and they're hard -- and
23 it's hard to read them.
24 MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this
25 church, like the Catholic church and a lot of
0243
1 churches, has internal -- has an internal justice
2 system where they deal internally with -- with
3 what --
4 THE COURT: Well --
5 MR. WEINBERG: -- you know, what they call
6 crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not
7 necessarily crimes. And --
8 THE COURT: And you can make -- and you can
9 certainly make that point in your closing argument.
10 MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to
11 similarities with the Catholic church.
12 THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.
13 MR. DANDAR: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: It's been declared a religion. It
15 is a religion. So is the Catholic church a
16 religion.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on
19 this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court's
20 attention?
21 A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the
22 Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, "When we
23 need somebody haunted, we investigate."
24 This talks about not only people inside of
25 Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of
0244
1 Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists;
2 people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They
3 don't have to be a Scientologist. And it -- and it -- this
4 is -- this document itself explains the basis of
5 intelligence, investigation, how it's used, how you handle
6 bad press. And it -- it's just kind of like a little
7 handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to
8 have that function within Scientology.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q All right. Now --
12 THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology
15 intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?
16 A Yes, I have.
17 Q What and when?
18 A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with
19 families that would call, that had -- members within the
20 Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted
21 another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their
22 family member.
23 I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who
24 informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas,
25 Nevada -- Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.
0245
1 He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was
2 concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew
3 to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father,
4 and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it.
5 But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was
6 a person hired -- a Scientology-hired private investigator.
7 The person that posed as the victim's father was a retired
8 sheriff.
9 And I guess the purpose -- and you know, they paid
10 me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess
11 the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything
12 criminal that could be used to show that I'm forcefully
13 deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that
14 never happened, so --
15 And then this -- I've only recently learned that
16 this even was so.
17 The whole deal with having a black private
18 investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house,
19 putting the seeds on the back porch -- you know, I'm
20 wondering, "Where is this," you know, and I'm throwing it
21 all -- that whole stuff, as later come out, was an
22 operation. I mean, they -- they --
23 My father lives in a retirement community. He's
24 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his
25 house and circled his house with signs.
0246
1 You know, those are just some of the things that
2 have happened.
3 Q Okay. All right. Now, let's go to Mr. Minton.
4 By the way, before we get to Minton, one question.
5 You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the
6 Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you
7 ever testify in any other case for the Church of
8 Scientology?
9 THE COURT: What year was that, please,
10 Mr. Prince?
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was
12 1986.
13 THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of
14 Scientology at the time?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for
17 the church?
18 THE WITNESS: I testified as to -- an expert
19 particularly in the NED for OTs material.
20 THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don't
21 know what that --
22 THE WITNESS: Oh.
23 THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?
24 THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.
25 MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.
0247
1 THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.
2 THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you're saying
3 nefrotease.
4 THE WITNESS: Oh.
5 THE COURT: NED for OTs.
6 THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study
9 those documents, so I did a comparison to what David
10 Mayo had as opposed to what the church had
11 copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.
12 THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you
13 understand all this time he's been saying that, it's
14 NED for OTs?
15 THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Not "nefrotease." All right.
17 (A discussion was held off the record.)
18 MR. DANDAR: And it's abbreviated as NOTS.
19 THE COURT: So you were called to say, what,
20 that this NED for OTs material was --
21 THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to --
22 THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.
23 THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L.
24 Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to
25 similar materials that they were using at what was
0248
1 known as the Advanced Abilities Center.
2 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record,
3 my -- my understanding is that Mr. Prince was
4 testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert
5 witness.
6 THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there's
7 some complications as to who's a fact witness and
8 who's an expert witness, and that's something we'll
9 have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we'll
10 not go there. We'll say he was either a fact or an
11 expert witness.
12 BY MR. DANDAR:
13 Q And you were -- you were always -- when you --
14 before you were told -- you didn't choose Mr. Miscavige as
15 being a leader and you were booted out onto the
16 rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before
17 that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?
18 A Very much so.
19 Q Okay. I don't think your microphone's on.
20 A Oh. How about now?
21 Q No. I don't think it's turned on.
22 A Oh.
23 THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you
24 lawyers can hear him, okay.
25
0249
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Now, is there a -- how does Scientology consider a
3 Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and
4 talking about Scientology?
5 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
6 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What was the question?
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q How does the Church of Scientology consider
9 someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?
10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He's now speaking
11 for the entire Church of Scientology now?
12 THE COURT: I don't know.
13 A Well --
14 BY MR. DANDAR:
15 Q Pursuant to the -- pursuant to written policy of
16 the Church of Scientology.
17 A According --
18 MR. WEINBERG: We --
19 A -- to --
20 MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not
21 talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the
22 church considers some Scientologist coming in and
23 testifying.
24 THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his
25 experience when he was in the church and as a
0250
1 witness, I will allow it. He is testifying,
2 however, based on that and not -- he really wouldn't
3 know how everybody else thinks.
4 MR. DANDAR: No. It's based on the former.
5 Right.
6 THE COURT: Right.
7 A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics
8 book, in its management series and basic staff books, that
9 it is a crime to come into a court and testify about
10 Scientology without first going over the information with
11 Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.
12 In other words, it's a crime to just walk into a
13 courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology,
14 without first Scientology being privy to what that's going
15 to be --
16 MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we -- could he tell
17 us where this policy is?
18 THE COURT: Right.
19 THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology
20 Ethics. It's right there. I can pull it out and
21 read it for you.
22 MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out --
23 MR. DANDAR: I'm handing the witness a
24 hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
25 THE COURT: Did you say without first
0251
1 discussing it with an ethics officer?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: Here's one reference to that. It
5 says, "Testifying hostilely before a state --"
6 THE COURT: Why don't you give us a page
7 number?
8 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. This is page
9 number 209.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 THE WITNESS: It's listed under Suppressive
12 Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, "Testifying
13 hostilely before state or public inquiries into
14 Scientology to suppress it --"
15 THE COURT: Well, that doesn't really say --
16 what you had just testified to is that it was a
17 crime to testify without first discussing --
18 THE WITNESS: Right.
19 THE COURT: -- it with an ethics officer.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. You're right.
21 And what I'm looking for is called --
22 THE COURT: I'll tell you what we'll do. Let's
23 just let him look for that either over the break,
24 our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can't
25 find it, you can make your objection. And if he
0252
1 can, then he can cite it into the record at that
2 time and we can just go ahead and move on.
3 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
4 THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you
5 can --
6 MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing
7 the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book --
8 many of the policies in there are -- we were
9 probably going to -- are completely contradictory to
10 what Mr. Dandar's witnesses have been saying.
11 THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to --
12 MR. WEINBERG: So --
13 THE COURT: -- put it in -- this may be
14 Mr. Dandar's only copy. So if you want to put it
15 in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.
16 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term "acceptable
19 truth"?
20 A Yes.
21 Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?
22 A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you
23 don't have to tell the -- tell the whole truth or to tell an
24 accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be
25 acceptable to the person that you're speaking to.
0253
1 Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not
2 telling the truth?
3 A Very much so. It's a way to evade or avoid a
4 question or to avoid -- yeah -- to -- a direct question.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to
6 identify the policy and show us where in the policy
7 it says what he just said?
8 THE COURT: I think -- I think there's some
9 stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.
10 MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn't say
11 what he just said, that it's okay to lie.
12 THE COURT: Well, then it --
13 I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you're
14 talking about, is the document that I think I've
15 already seen --
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: -- acceptable truth?
18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.
19 THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of
20 it based on your years in the church?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: I can't -- I can't remember what
23 number it is, but there is some number in evidence
24 that deals with acceptable truth.
25 MR. DANDAR: It's -- it's called a PR series,
0254
1 and it talks about PR, public relations, and the
2 second page mentions acceptable truths.
3 And I'll find that for you during the break.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q All right, Mr. -- Mr. Prince. When is the first
6 time you met Bob Minton?
7 A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the
8 spring of 1998 or perhaps -- no, perhaps it was the summer
9 of 1998.
10 Q And how was it that you came to meet him?
11 A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me
12 to him.
13 Q Where at?
14 A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.
15 Q And what caused you to be at his home in New
16 Hampshire?
17 A I was on vacation --
18 Well, this is kind of a long story.
19 I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to
20 that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything
21 about it, and I just typed in, "Hey, my name is Jesse
22 Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them
23 contact me. Here's my number."
24 So I was vacationing in Connecticut. Stacy called
25 me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.
0255
1 Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the
2 first time and asked for -- have Stacy Vaughn -- Stacy Young
3 or Vaughn Young call you?
4 A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact
5 with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that
6 there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and
7 people and things like that. I was -- I didn't know
8 anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.
9 And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of
10 this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these
11 people openly critical of Scientology.
12 Now, for me this was completely unheard of.
13 Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would
14 quickly be silenced. And I saw that -- that Stacy and
15 Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to
16 them. So I answered their message as best that I could, and
17 say, "I need these people to contact me."
18 Q When was the last time you considered yourself a
19 Scientologist?
20 A You know, I know I've answered the question in
21 different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it's kind
22 of hard to tell. I -- for me, I think probably by 1996,
23 maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with
24 anything about it.
25 Q You left the -- you left the organization where
0256
1 you -- from RTC, then RPF, and -- and you went to work for a
2 Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a
3 Scientologist, correct?
4 A Correct.
5 Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that
6 company?
7 A Correct.
8 Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then,
9 when you were working for that company?
10 A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.
11 Q Okay. When did you leave that company?
12 A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.
13 Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley,
14 the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left,
15 formally, your position in Scientology?
16 THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here,
17 'cause I don't know --
18 When you left, whatever that is, were you still
19 a member of the Sea Org?
20 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a
22 member of the Sea Org?
23 THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.
24 THE COURT: Okay.
25 MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your
0257
1 question. That's when he left.
2 THE COURT: Well, that's --
3 MR. WEINBERG: So -- so when he left -- the day
4 he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org,
5 is what he's telling you, I think.
6 THE WITNESS: Correct.
7 THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996,
8 that you still -- you were --
9 You're saying you were like a public member?
10 Is that it?
11 THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.
12 THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Judge just brought up something.
15 When -- how -- what is the -- what do the Sea Org
16 people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they're
17 Scientologists?
18 A Public Scientologists.
19 Q So they use the word "public."
20 A Correct.
21 Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer
22 of '98, what did you do after that, in reference to
23 Mr. Minton?
24 A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I
25 was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue
0258
1 with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that
2 Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet.
3 And we started to --
4 THE COURT: What was the date, now?
5 I'm sorry, Mr. Prince.
6 THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.
7 THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to
8 Mr. Minton's home in New Hampshire? You stayed in
9 touch? Is what you're --
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
13 A She said -- she talked to me about that, and she
14 put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking
15 over some of the issues, and thought that I could help.
16 So I started talking with Daniel Leipold,
17 Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a
18 Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson, letting me know that
19 I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against
20 Scientology, basically.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Based on what?
23 A Based on -- well, for me to leave the situation
24 that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to -- it was a kind of a
25 give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.
0259
1 I was being held there against my will, as well as
2 my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs
3 and -- for months. And we were told that if we signed these
4 documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door.
5 Again, this went on for months.
6 And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted
7 us to sign --
8 THE COURT: Of what year?
9 You see, everything --
10 THE WITNESS: October of 1992.
11 A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed.
12 So he made reference to the fact that I had signed
13 a document saying I wouldn't assist anyone in bringing any
14 legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q FACTNet wasn't bringing legal action; they were
17 being sued by Scientology.
18 A Correct.
19 THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which
20 lawyer?
21 THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold
24 on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson.
25 What did you do?
0260
1 A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the
2 situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained
3 the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against
4 maybe Golden Era or whatever -- I never actually saw the
5 suit myself -- and filed it in Riverside County.
6 And then there was a whole press thing. I was
7 interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.
8 Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?
9 A No.
10 Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?
11 A Yes, I did.
12 Q All right. And how long did you stay there?
13 A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.
14 Q Okay. '98 to '99?
15 A '98 to '99. Yeah. About a year.
16 Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to
17 Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?
18 A Correct.
19 Q All right. And you looked over those folders with
20 Stacy Brooks?
21 A Yes, I did.
22 Q And then after we received a copy of the PC
23 folders under court order, you went and took your time and
24 examined all --
25 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be
0261
1 direct questions and not --
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. DANDAR: I'm just trying to speed it up.
4 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct
5 question.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of
7 this -- you're right. But some of this is
8 preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.
9 MR. WEINBERG: It's the -- it's the testimony.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I
12 didn't object to that part of it.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 (A discussion was held off the record.)
15 THE COURT: We'll take a break right now.
16 We'll be in r