Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500
115
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11
2
3
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
15 PROCEEDINGS: Defendants' Omnibus Motion for
Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.
16
CONTENTS: Testimony of Vaughn Young.
17
DATE: June 17, 2002. Afternoon Session.
18
PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
19 St. Petersburg, Florida.
20 BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer,
Circuit Judge.
21
REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
22 Deputy Official Court Reporter,
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.
23
24
25
116
1 APPEARANCES:
2
MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
3 DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
4 Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.
5
6 MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
7 112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
9
MR. KENDRICK MOXON
10 MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
11 Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
12 Organization.
13
MR. LEE FUGATE
14 MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
15 101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
16 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
17
18 MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
19 740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
20 Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.
21
22
23
24
25
117
1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS
2
3 Direct Examination (resumed) - Mr. Dandar 121
4 Cross-Examination - Mr. Weinberg 217
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
1 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, could I bring up
2 something before the witness gets back on?
3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 MR. MOXON: I think you have in your office now
5 the list from Mr. Keane of the summaries of these
6 videotapes from LMT.
7 You can sit down, Mr. Young.
8 So --
9 THE COURT: I don't know if I do or not. I
10 haven't seen them.
11 MR. MOXON: I saw the courier come a little
12 while ago. And I spoke to Mr. Keane this morning
13 and he said he was finally wrapping that up.
14 So just to let you know you have that, and to
15 refresh everybody's recollection of what I believe
16 was the procedure, you were going to take a look at
17 the summaries and determine which ones we get or are
18 available for the parties and which not.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. MOXON: And I understand from him what he
21 did, he summarized them in a form of saying which
22 witnesses have statements on the videos and which
23 ones are considered to be private, just Mr. Bunker's
24 family or whatever.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
119
1 MR. MOXON: Obviously we don't want that. So
2 we have, you know, a list --
3 THE COURT: Did you-all get a copy of whatever
4 it is he --
5 MR. MOXON: No, he said he was making the list
6 itself just to the Court.
7 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
8 MR. MOXON: He said he had a cover filing which
9 I haven't received, which hasn't been served yet,
10 but I assume we'll get today, which was just kind of
11 a summary of what he had been doing.
12 But the list he said he would not serve on
13 anyone, it would just go to you because he
14 understood your instructions.
15 THE COURT: Okay, I'll try to take a look at
16 it, probably not until tonight, but I'll take a look
17 at it tonight.
18 MR. MOXON: Fine. If you could let us know in
19 the morning.
20 THE COURT: I'll try.
21 MR. MOXON: We are keeping you hopping.
22 THE COURT: Yes, don't forget I'm trying to buy
23 and sell a house at the same time, as well as chair
24 reading, and as well as be on the panel, and as well
25 as handle this.
120
1 So, yes, everybody is keeping me hopping.
2 MR. MOXON: Okay.
3 (A discussion was held off the record.)
4 MR. MOXON: Your Honor, if you do -- even if
5 you don't finish, if you find some available and
6 they can be released --
7 THE COURT: Mr. Moxon, I'll get to it as fast
8 as I can, and as soon as I can release anything to
9 you, I will do so.
10 MR. MOXON: Thank you, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Dandar.
12 MR. DANDAR: May we make copies of this Rinder
13 affidavit while I question the witness?
14 THE COURT: Sure.
15 MR. DANDAR: And if it is too much noise, then
16 I'll stop.
17 THE COURT: We all have it, though.
18 MR. DANDAR: I haven't been able to find an
19 exhibit number.
20 THE WITNESS: I left my copy on the bench.
21 MR. DANDAR: But have we used this before?
22 THE COURT: I believe so, but maybe not.
23 MR. DANDAR: '94 Rinder affidavit.
24 THE COURT: My clerk had some problem with some
25 child in school so she's not here to help us.
121
1 MR. WEINBERG: I have learned in my employment
2 I have to be somewhat careful of that, of those
3 things.
4 THE COURT: We'll have to get that straightened
5 out before the trial. I don't know about these home
6 problems, they just don't exist when we get to
7 trial, so --
8 MR. WEINBERG: I agree.
9 We're checking the list of exhibits to see if
10 it is because, frankly, I don't remember one way or
11 another.
12 THE COURT: Well, I certainly remember having
13 it referred to, because I remember Ms. Young
14 testifying about it, I remember Ms. Yingling
15 testifying she saw it. I remember Mr. Minton
16 testifying about it. But Ms. Young, I think,
17 actually saw it. That is when I think I actually
18 saw it. I think it might have been introduced.
19 It doesn't matter. Proceed on.
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION RESUMED
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q Mr. -- Mr. Young, in Scientology, were you
23 familiar with something called a routing form?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And what is a routing form?
122
1 A A routing form is used when a person starts a
2 new -- what could be referred to -- as a service which could
3 be counseling or a course. And your name is at the top.
4 The name of the service is there, the date. And then it is
5 numbered with sequences, that you then go through a series
6 of sequences to route onto the course, which means you pay
7 your money, materials. And they are not very long, usually.
8 Q Is there any service or action in Scientology that
9 is not governed by a routing form?
10 A There shouldn't be. It's -- it's pretty much
11 standard. There is policy that covers anything that you do,
12 you should have a routing form.
13 Q Can a staff member, for instance, just wander
14 around the organization and choose what he or she is going
15 to do for the day?
16 A No.
17 Q Can a Sea Org member perform any activity or
18 provide a service without being ordered or delegated by his
19 or her senior?
20 A Other than the position that you hold, no.
21 Q Now, in Scientology, is there -- are you familiar
22 with the phrase a PR flap?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And why are you familiar with that phrase?
25 A It was a phrase that we used quite often. Ever
123
1 since I moved into the PR bureau, I heard it.
2 Q And can you tell us what a PR flap is?
3 A It's an adverse PR situation that would produce a
4 media story, article, print or electronic, that one might
5 deem to be critical of the organization practices.
6 And you can also have a PR flap with your
7 landlord. Say you are behind on your rent and the landlord
8 is upset. So that could be a PR flap. I don't want to
9 restrict it to just media, but any situation that could be
10 bad public relations.
11 Q Who steps in to handle PR flaps?
12 A Supposed to be a trained PR person is the people
13 that always should be stepping into it to handle it.
14 There is policy that Hubbard wrote that said
15 public relations persons handle the PR, so that would
16 include a PR flap.
17 Q Are PR flaps handled by any special department?
18 A If it's an external PR flap, then it would be in
19 Department 20. It would be a trained person in Department
20 20 PR.
21 Q To a Scientologist -- and for the entire
22 organization of all of Scientology -- what does the
23 Clearwater's Flag Land Base signify?
24 A Well, from the time that it became known as
25 that -- because there was a period of time when it wasn't
124
1 known as that, it was something else -- it became three
2 things.
3 First of all, it carried the name Flag. And that
4 was a word that was reserved only for the ship Apollo where
5 Hubbard resided. He borrowed the name from the Navy. So
6 the Flag ship was the ship that the commandeer of a fleet --
7 where that commander was. Regardless of which ship, it
8 always became the Flag ship.
9 So Apollo was the Flag ship. So when the Apollo
10 was basically put to rest and the Flag Land Base came, it
11 acquired the name Flag. So this is a very revered word.
12 It's the only organization that carries that in its name.
13 The second thing is that -- well, actually there
14 is more than what I just said, three. It was also sort of,
15 in a way, Hubbard's legacy from the Apollo. So, again, it
16 is very revered.
17 Thirdly, it's called the mecca of tech, which
18 means you just get almost any service there. There is some
19 that are given at the new ship they have acquired. But you
20 can get anything there. So that was important.
21 And the last thing that was important was it was
22 in Clearwater. And just because of the history, it became
23 very important.
24 Q What do you mean, it was important because it's in
25 Clearwater? What do you mean by that?
125
1 A Well, the records are quite clear from -- after
2 the FBI raid of '77, what came pouring out of the files was
3 a series of covert ops being run against the mayor of
4 Clearwater. There was intimidation, there was laws being
5 broken, fake hit-and-run accidents, records being stolen.
6 And this was in the middle of the long history of
7 conflict that had been going on between Scientology and the
8 City of Clearwater. And so when that came pouring out, it
9 became evident what had been going on quietly behind the
10 scenes while they denied it. So it became just a serious
11 confrontation.
12 And executives, because of it being Flag and
13 because of what it was, there was no way that they're going
14 to leave Clearwater.
15 THE COURT: That thing of yours is about as bad
16 as the tap tap tap.
17 MR. DANDAR: All right.
18 MR. WEINBERG: While he's doing that, my
19 objection is I think at the beginning of his
20 testimony, your Honor, you said you didn't want to
21 repeat the trial testimony or -- really most of what
22 we've heard today, my recollection is, is part of
23 trial testimony.
24 So my objection is based on what you said
25 earlier, I hope that we can limit what has already
126
1 been testified to in his deposition that took place
2 two years ago during his trial testimony.
3 THE COURT: I agree. But, you know, I don't
4 know exactly where Mr. Dandar is going with this.
5 If we're talking about Clearwater, that is of
6 benefit.
7 MR. DANDAR: We have three pages to go. Could
8 we finish it?
9 THE COURT: Okay. Yes.
10 MR. DANDAR: All right.
11 THE COURT: But remind me in the future when
12 you say could we just run something, if it is more
13 than just one page, the answer is no.
14 MR. DANDAR: I'll take it out in the hallway
15 next time.
16 MR. WEINBERG: By the way, we found the exhibit
17 number, it is 15V -- as in Victor -- Plaintiff's.
18 That is Mr. Rinder's.
19 THE COURT: Okay. So it is in evidence?
20 MR. WEINBERG: Well, what I don't know, if it's
21 in evidence. I assume it is, but the exhibit number
22 is 15V --
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 MR. WEINBERG: -- as in Victor.
25 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
127
1 THE COURT: I don't remember anything from
2 plaintiff having anything A through V.
3 MR. WEINBERG: I don't, either.
4 MR. DANDAR: Anyway --
5 MR. WEINBERG: I'm sure it's in that stack over
6 there.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Were you involved in any of these overt or covert
9 operations?
10 A No -- wait a minute. You mean in Clearwater?
11 Q In Clearwater.
12 A No.
13 Q Were you involved in overt or covert operations
14 anywhere else?
15 A Well, overt operations. I was a PR.
16 Q Okay. Within your experience in Department 20,
17 were there times when private investigators were retained to
18 follow people in open so the person knows they are being
19 followed?
20 A Yes. That -- that is -- I'm familiar with that.
21 Q Is that called something in Scientology or in
22 Department 20?
23 A Not in particular.
24 THE COURT: What does that have to do with this
25 motion?
128
1 MR. DANDAR: It has to do with Mr. Minton's
2 harassment time line.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q What was that -- what was the purpose of following
6 somebody but letting them know the PI was obvious to the
7 person being followed?
8 A Just to harass them, to make them feel that
9 they're being watched. A lot of people get very
10 uncomfortable with that, to have a tail on them, to be
11 sitting across the street, somebody knocking at your door.
12 Private investigators weren't used until after the
13 raid. Prior to that, the Intelligence Bureau did it. But
14 private investigators were later on used.
15 Q Okay. When you left in 1989, who was the head of
16 Sea Org?
17 A Well, that would have been Mr. Miscavige.
18 Q And if Mr. Miscavige, in 1995, November/December
19 of 1995, was still the captain, earned rank captain, the
20 only one of the Sea Org, who would be the head of the Sea
21 Org?
22 A He would still be the head of the Sea Org.
23 Q How much control does the Office of Special
24 Affairs Department 20 have over staff?
25 MR. WEINBERG: I object. This man was never in
129
1 the Office of Special Affairs. He was in the
2 Guardian's Office prior to 1982, according to his
3 testimony. But now Mr. Dandar is asking him about
4 the Office of Special Affairs, which is -- you know,
5 as of 2002. So I object to his competence to
6 testify --
7 THE COURT: During what period of time are you
8 asking about?
9 MR. DANDAR: Well --
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q Were you ever in the Office of Special Affairs?
12 A I was in it during the change-over. Then while I
13 was in Office Services, I directed other activities in the
14 Office of Special Affairs. So I still knew about it because
15 we gave orders.
16 Q What type of orders would you, in a for-profit
17 corporation, ASI, give to the Office of Special Affairs?
18 A With regard to media, with regard to PR flaps,
19 with regard to their liaisoning with other sections that had
20 public relations functions besides just them, such as a
21 public relations agency, a public relations agency was hired
22 early on to try to help with the PR. So we had to work out
23 that coordination.
24 Q How would you -- what function would you play in
25 ASI to Department 20, the Office of Special Affairs, to
130
1 handle PR flaps?
2 THE COURT: My biggest problem here is,
3 Counselor, ASI didn't even exist in 1995. It was
4 gone.
5 MR. DANDAR: It was.
6 THE COURT: So this man is talking about
7 something he did from one department that didn't
8 even exist at the relevant time of this proceeding
9 to an agency -- or to an organization that he never
10 belonged to.
11 You'll just have to bring it up to present day
12 and time. And I don't think he's competent to do
13 that.
14 MR. DANDAR: I'll do that right now.
15 THE WITNESS: Could I correct one thing?
16 THE COURT: Sure.
17 THE WITNESS: ASI continued to exist. It did
18 not cease existence. You may be thinking of another
19 organization.
20 THE COURT: No I'm thinking of ASI.
21 THE WITNESS: Office Services continued, and
22 continues today.
23 THE COURT: Well, that testimony differs from
24 other testimony, so --
25
131
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q What was it about ASI, when you were in ASI, no
3 longer Department 20, that gave you the power to send orders
4 over to Department 20, Office of Special Affairs?
5 A Because we acquired the power through David
6 Miscavige. And that was because we were the ones that
7 controlled the communications of L. Ron Hubbard into the
8 rest of Scientology.
9 David Miscavige picked these things up from the
10 courier, from Mr. Hubbard. We distributed them. And the
11 same way it went back to the traditional Flag, whoever
12 distributes the orders and command intentions, as we called
13 it, of L. Ron Hubbard had that power.
14 Q What about after Mr. Hubbard's death?
15 A Then there was a power struggle between
16 Mr. Hubbard's aide, Pat Broeker, and David Miscavige, Vicki
17 Aznaran, a number of others, until finally the dust settled
18 and Mr. Miscavige was the only one left in power.
19 Q And you, of course, were still in Scientology when
20 the dust settled?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And after the dust settled, were you still at ASI?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And was ASI -- did ASI still have that power it
25 had before Mr. Hubbard died?
132
1 A By that time, especially afterwards, Mr. Miscavige
2 established himself with RTC, so the power moved over to
3 RTC.
4 Q And did you move to RTC with Mr. Miscavige?
5 A No.
6 Q You stayed at ASI?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Did you -- after Mr. Miscavige moved over to RTC,
9 did you still have the power to give orders to the Office of
10 Special Affairs?
11 A No.
12 Q Did the Office of Special Affairs work inside of
13 RTC, or outside of RTC, after Mr. Miscavige went over?
14 A It was -- you mean geographically?
15 Q No, command line-wise.
16 A Even command line-wise, it has what is called the
17 international office in Los Angeles is geographically quite
18 separate from the body of RTC itself.
19 Q Okay. And the Office of Special Affairs, before
20 you left in '89, did it have any control or power over staff
21 of other organizations?
22 A If it fell within the domain of, you know, public
23 relations, a legal threat, something that involved some
24 external matter -- when I say external, I really mean
25 outside the body of the organization, landlord, media,
133
1 lawsuit -- then they can take control. They're expected to
2 take control.
3 Q Have you ever heard of a condition in Scientology
4 called danger condition?
5 A Yes. Every staff member knows that one.
6 Q What does that mean?
7 A To make it simple, it means that your senior is
8 going to go around you, the term was bypass, and they're
9 going to get the job done because you can't handle it. So
10 let me give you an example.
11 You were just xeroxing something -- your associate
12 was xeroxing something and she's having trouble, so you go
13 over and you say, "Step aside, I have got to do this."
14 Well, that is a bypass when you come in and start
15 handling it yourself. That is a danger condition.
16 Q And within your 20 years of being a Scientologist,
17 did you ever encounter a danger condition where either
18 Department 20 steps in, even if it's not part of that
19 corporation, and takes over?
20 A Oh, yes.
21 Q Under what types of circumstances?
22 A Well, for example, when I gave the example of -- a
23 while ago when I was preparing for the Gerry Armstrong case
24 to testify, that organization wasn't able to do it so we
25 went ahead and handled it. That would be a clear bypass
134
1 condition right there.
2 But most of them end up being done through the Sea
3 Organization, more than through the OSA.
4 Q Now, in Scientology there is something called an
5 org board, right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And in an org board, you remember all of the
8 different divisions that are listed?
9 A Well, you can try me.
10 Q Are there -- are there just a lot of different
11 divisions?
12 A There is a history of org boards and it is just
13 nothing more than an organizational chart. And there are
14 seven divisions. And when you see it represented, the
15 seventh division is over on the far left, and then after 7,
16 it starts 1 through 6, and each of the different divisions
17 has three departments. And so it is broken down. And each
18 of the divisions have basic functions, like the technical
19 division, the public division, treasury, which handles the
20 finance, which going back to that word we used, HCO. There
21 is an HCO division. Division 7 was the executive division.
22 And that is where Department 20 was. There are 21
23 departments. So Department 20 was at the very end of
24 Division 7.
25 Q When you left in '89, is that how the organization
135
1 board was, I mean, established?
2 A Yes. And it has been true in later issues I have
3 seen such as the one you have there that has been published
4 since.
5 Q So in 1995 was the organization board the same as
6 when you left in 1989?
7 A According to their publications, they are.
8 Q Now, in reference to a senior case supervisor, a
9 senior case supervisor, say, at Flag, are you aware of who
10 would be senior to the senior case supervisor?
11 A That would be the senior CS Int. The "Int" stands
12 for international.
13 Q That is in California, right?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Can you tell us if there is any circumstance where
16 the senior CS would have a senior at Flag?
17 A If there is an organization that has some
18 organizations within it -- and in Clearwater they might have
19 changed it around a bit -- but there has always been several
20 organizations in the Clearwater section.
21 If there is different CSs and each of the CSs
22 would be known as a senior CS, you could find it under an
23 umbrella locally where there would be a senior CS over them,
24 and then that person would report to the CS Int.
25 Q Do you know who would be senior to the senior CS
136
1 Int?
2 A That would be somebody in RTC.
3 Q Does the Sea Organization have power over regular
4 staff, staff who are not part of the Sea Org?
5 A It's pretty much now what they call the Class 4
6 organizations, which is, you know, like San Francisco
7 organization, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta have been converted
8 into what they call Sea Org orgs, which means a sea
9 organization.
10 The only ones that have been pretty much left out
11 of the loop have been much lower organizations. So they
12 would have -- they would all be Sea Org orgs.
13 Q Where does the Flag Service Organization here in
14 Clearwater rank among other Scientology organizations?
15 A It pretty much has its own rank. The command
16 channels, you can see, it has its own rank and position.
17 It's not over the same category as Class 4 orgs. It's not
18 in any other category. It pretty much has its own rank.
19 Q Is that a higher, or lower, rank?
20 A It's a high rank, but -- I mean, it's just a high
21 rank.
22 Q And in the command channels in the org board does
23 everybody who is a member follow that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Why is that?
137
1 A But you have to understand that is a reflection of
2 already existing policy. They don't follow the command
3 channels booklet; they follow the policies under which the
4 command channels booklet was drawn up.
5 Q Do you know of any instance where a staff or a Sea
6 Org member does not have a senior?
7 A David Miscavige.
8 Q He's the only one that does not have a senior?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you know what a success letter is?
11 A You may be referring to a success story.
12 Q Okay. Do you know what that is?
13 A A success story, yes.
14 Q Can you tell us?
15 A After you finish what in our slang we might call
16 an action, which is auditing, counseling, a course, and you
17 finish it and what they call you attest to it that you
18 completed it, then you write a success story.
19 And a success story basically is just, you know,
20 whatever you want to say. You just are given a blank piece
21 of paper. Sometimes it has a success story printed on the
22 top, maybe just a blank piece of paper, and you write what
23 is called your wins, just how you feel about it.
24 And it can also be used for just ordinary things,
25 "Hey, I'm having a great time today."
138
1 "Well, go write a success story." It is not
2 attached only to an action counseling or auditing or
3 training; it could be for any reason.
4 Q What if you are required to write a success story
5 and you don't write it in a positive tone?
6 A Then a number of things can happen. But --
7 they'll send you back -- basically, the point is if you
8 don't have a success story, then something went wrong and
9 we've got to get it fixed until you write a good success
10 story.
11 Q Have you heard the term "acceptable truth" in
12 Scientology?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What does that mean?
15 A That was a phrase that Hubbard used in one of the
16 policy letters where he said a PR should never lie but you
17 can tell an acceptable truth.
18 What that means is -- basically we see it every
19 day on television with politicians, you know, they're going
20 to wiggle out from a tough question, and they'll tell you
21 something that is true enough to get by and they're not
22 going to lie. It is hardly something that Hubbard dreamed
23 up. He just gave it a name.
24 So that is what you do is you -- somebody asks you
25 a really tough question, you say something else and you
139
1 divert it away.
2 MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, when he
3 said PR, did he mean this was for public relations
4 people? Was that the --
5 THE WITNESS: The policy letter was written for
6 public relations people. And it is part of a PR
7 series. But it's used for other people as well,
8 other than just to train PRs.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Now, would someone who is mentally unstable,
11 psychotic, be a PR flap?
12 A It could be.
13 Q And, of course, in your review of the Lisa
14 McPherson case, did you have an opinion whether or not she
15 would have been a PR flap?
16 A She would have been a serious PR flap from the
17 moment the accident happened.
18 Q Why is that?
19 A First of all, she's out on a public street.
20 Second, she takes off her clothes. Thirdly, she's in
21 Clearwater, which has, what now, 15 years of battling with
22 the authorities and media and everything else as to their
23 presence.
24 Next, it's with Flag Land Base, which is
25 considered quite senior.
140
1 So the point is PR flaps have degrees. You know,
2 I'm sorry to put it this way, but if the young lady has an
3 accident and takes off her clothes in Boise, Idaho, it is
4 not the same thing as Clearwater. Clearwater has a history
5 of problems, and it is one of these, "We don't need a
6 problem." So this would be a serious PR flap.
7 Q Would this condition known as danger come into
8 play at all with Lisa McPherson?
9 A Probably. You have got to remember, danger occurs
10 if you don't like the first response. As they said, you are
11 doing this and you don't feel it should happen so you jump
12 in, but you could also consider it enough of an immediate
13 threat that you jump in immediately and start giving orders.
14 Q Can you explain why OSA, the local OSA office
15 person, Mr. Fontana, appeared at the ER where Lisa McPherson
16 was taken following the accident at Morton Plant?
17 A That is --
18 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, speculation. He's
19 asking for an opinion based, to some event, on what
20 happened six years or so after he left the Church of
21 Scientology.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Go ahead.
25 A That is his job. By definition Department 20
141
1 handles external affairs. External situations. The PR
2 handles PR flaps.
3 You don't send in the senior CS or anything else.
4 You have to send in policy -- the policy is you send in a
5 trained PR, so the trained PR has to be there on the scene
6 of a PR flap.
7 Q And based upon what you know about the Lisa
8 McPherson circumstances, would only the local OSA office be
9 involved in this?
10 A No.
11 Q Why is that?
12 A Well, you have several factors going. Not only
13 was there a PR flap of somebody going crazy or taking off
14 their clothes, but you have whatever degree you consider it,
15 you have got an accident in a city and the authorities can
16 be called in. So you have the possibility of a legal
17 threat.
18 On top of that, you have someone going -- has the
19 word -- has the word PTS 3 been used here?
20 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
21 THE COURT: Many times. Really, when I asked
22 you that question about what was HCO, frankly, it
23 was simply because I hadn't looked at the top.
24 Everything else you explained to me, everything I
25 have heard and understand better than I ever dreamt
142
1 I would have to.
2 THE WITNESS: That makes it very easy. Thank
3 you.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 A Somebody that is PTS 3, well, you have the
6 technical people that are going to become involved in it but
7 not right away.
8 First, you contain the PR flap. Then you check
9 out the legal threat. And then you'll have to deal with
10 this on a technical level, so there is more than just OSA
11 can handle.
12 When you go into the technical area, Department 20
13 doesn't handle technical. That is on a different command
14 level.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Well, does Department 20 take over all of the Lisa
17 McPherson circumstances even if it involves a technical
18 division because of the PR flap?
19 A It can, because the PR and legal threats are a
20 direct -- you have to understand they are a direct threat to
21 the organization. The survival of the organization and the
22 technology is senior.
23 So if it's necessary, they can give the orders in.
24 Q Would reports about Lisa McPherson taking off her
25 clothes and going to the ER be sent up lines?
143
1 A They would be knowledge reports. They could be
2 part of your weekly report. First of all, any person
3 involved in a situation would have written up a report.
4 Q How do you know that? You weren't there.
5 A This is -- this is per policy. And if they are
6 not doing it, then it's not per policy. And going back to
7 the first policy letter, this is how it's done and you do it
8 no other way. And that is RTC's role. And it is stated
9 constantly, they're there to make sure you do it exactly
10 that way.
11 THE COURT: The knowledge reports and weekly
12 reports going up line, in your opinion, would have
13 gone up line in what fashion?
14 THE WITNESS: For this, the first thing would
15 have been, you know, you even get on the phone
16 before you even write anything to see what is going
17 on. But it would go -- it would go by electronic
18 means through E-Mail.
19 THE COURT: Okay. I guess what I'm suggesting
20 is if it went to -- a knowledge report, for example,
21 who would write it?
22 THE WITNESS: As I said, each person involved
23 would write a knowledge report. But the senior over
24 the area who was in command of it, who is taking
25 command -- in this case it would probably be the
144
1 commanding officer of the OSA for the local unit --
2 would do this because it's legal and PR, and that
3 person is over it. So that person would send it to
4 the OSA International.
5 THE COURT: To whom?
6 THE WITNESS: That would be Mike Rinder.
7 THE COURT: But they send it directly to him?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. And CC's would then go to
9 the relevant departments so they are advised.
10 THE COURT: What if local OSA didn't take over;
11 what if, as it was suggested, that it was an
12 ecclesiastical function and, therefore, it was the
13 senior case supervisor who was in charge,
14 Mr. Kartuzinski, where would he send anything?
15 THE WITNESS: I just got lost on ecclesiastical
16 function.
17 THE COURT: Ecclesiastical function which would
18 be an introspection rundown, which is --
19 THE WITNESS: Oh.
20 THE COURT: -- an ecclesiastical function of
21 the Church, according to certain testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: Ecclesiastical is not a word they
23 use internally. You cannot find it in the volumes.
24 If it is a technical matter that will come
25 secondarily when she goes back and is taken over by
145
1 the technical people, but first you have to deal --
2 it's sort of like a person in an accident. First
3 you handle the tourniquet and do that, then you go
4 for the rest of the care later. So PR and legal
5 comes first, and then they'll move her out of there,
6 then take care of the rest of it later.
7 So Mr. Kartuzinski would have reported to
8 senior CS Int and RTC and would have CC'd some other
9 people, too.
10 BY MR. DANDAR:
11 Q Would Mr. Kartuzinski be out policy if he didn't
12 write a report to the senior case supervisor international
13 in California about Lisa McPherson?
14 A He could lose his position in the organization if
15 he didn't do that, because it's that serious.
16 Q And in order to lose your position in the
17 organization, wouldn't that require a Committee of Evidence?
18 A Usually. But there are people that are also just
19 removed by somebody saying, "You are removed." I have seen
20 that. And it's happened. It's in the evidence -- evidence
21 of that is in the documents I presented, the Wollersheim
22 declaration. But usually the procedure is a Committee of
23 Evidence. But if it is serious, you just say, "You are out,
24 you are in, let's go."
25 Q And that person, of course, being taken out of
146
1 position would know about it, right?
2 A Sometimes.
3 Q I mean, when they're no longer the senior CS, they
4 would understand why they're no longer the senior CS?
5 A Oh, in that sense of the word, definitely.
6 Q How long would OSA Int be involved in the Lisa
7 McPherson matter?
8 A They'll continue until it goes away. Because
9 it's -- it's a lawsuit, it's legal and PR.
10 Q And is that because you are speculating, or is it
11 because of something else?
12 A It's according to the policies of L. Ron Hubbard,
13 it is an external matter, all external matters, legal, PR
14 threats, are Department 20.
15 THE COURT: When Mr. Rinder as OSA -- is he OSA
16 Int, is that his title?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
18 THE COURT: When Mr. Rinder, assuming
19 Mr. Rinder got this OSA Int, what does he do with
20 it?
21 THE WITNESS: He reports up further. And --
22 but he just doesn't sit and report. He has to be
23 taking action. There was always a form that you
24 report such things. It was called situation
25 handling. Situation -- it's like -- situation,
147
1 there is a fire going on in the hall, handling it.
2 We put it out.
3 You just don't report a situation. You report
4 the situation and what you are doing, you handle it.
5 So he would be required to report up what is
6 happening and what actions are being taken and then
7 also what he's proposing for the future.
8 So you just -- you just don't report a flap.
9 You report it only when you can report a handling.
10 THE COURT: When he sends it back -- when he
11 sends it downline, who --
12 THE WITNESS: You do know the language, don't
13 you?
14 THE COURT: Yes, I do, actually.
15 When he sent it downline, who would he send it
16 to? Would he send it to -- assuming that -- that
17 Ms. McPherson is at the hotel, she's in a fairly
18 paranoid state, and this is being reported up and
19 downline, who actually is Mr. Rinder going to report
20 back to and tell them how to handle it?
21 THE WITNESS: The same thing. Once -- there
22 would have come a point when she was in the hotel
23 being taken care of, as we might say, technically,
24 that the OSA will move their attention more to the
25 prospect of what might come out of this. You know,
148
1 is there any authorities involved, any police
2 reports, et cetera.
3 And the bulk of the work will move over to the
4 technical people. OSA will monitor, because it
5 could have been a serious flap and it might turn
6 into -- to be one again, so they'll closely monitor.
7 But the bulk of the work and the attention will move
8 over to the more technical people.
9 THE COURT: I'm sorry, maybe when I said
10 ecclesiastical I was in error, it could have been
11 technical. But, in any event, assuming the way to
12 handle it was to perform an introspection rundown,
13 "perform" may be the wrong word, but --
14 THE WITNESS: Right.
15 THE COURT: -- but to start that process, that
16 will then move over to the technical people, such as
17 Mr. Kartuzinski?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, that would not be the domain
19 of OSA because it is no longer an external matter.
20 She's out on the street, she's at the ER, she's in a
21 hospital, wherever else. It's externally.
22 Once the person is brought in physically and is
23 being handled by the internal personnel, that part
24 of it is no longer an OSA Department 20 matter
25 because it's not external. It was, but it's been
149
1 brought inside, so you just monitor to make sure she
2 doesn't, say, run out of the Ft. Harrison naked and
3 we have another problem. As long as it is contained
4 internally, then Department 20 simply monitors.
5 THE COURT: So now those people watching over
6 her would send their reports to the senior case
7 supervisors?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
9 THE COURT: What does he do with it?
10 THE WITNESS: He will send it on up to RTC.
11 And he might also be asked to be --
12 THE COURT: IRTC?
13 THE WITNESS: Religious Technology Center.
14 THE COURT: To RTC?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 THE WITNESS: He might also be asked to keep
18 Department 20 apprised of how it's going so they can
19 get an estimate that we may not have a situation on
20 our hands.
21 THE COURT: Would that be local? Would he then
22 advise the local Department 20? Or would he advise
23 Mr. Rinder at the international level?
24 THE WITNESS: No, he would be advising locally,
25 then local would report back up.
150
1 THE COURT: Would report back up? Okay.
2 THE WITNESS: You try to hold the chain of
3 command in those command channels as much as
4 possible. Or if you haven't been able to hold them
5 at the time it happens, you try to bring them back
6 to some sort of normalcy where everybody has their
7 echelons and we're sort of back on the track.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 BY MR. DANDAR:
10 Q Now, you said OSA Int would monitor if she's at
11 the Ft. Harrison Hotel after leaving the hospital. Right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Now, if someone needed to make a decision while
14 OSA Int is monitoring her, per policy, who would be the ones
15 making the decision to decide we're going to take her back
16 to the emergency room if she needed to go back?
17 A Well, first of all, in your hypothetical it would
18 be a technical matter not related to an OSA matter. They're
19 the ones that would propose it. I can't imagine them
20 proposing it. But they would be the ones that would propose
21 it. And they would have to get -- per the policies, they
22 would have to have senior okay on this.
23 THE COURT: A senior okay?
24 THE WITNESS: From the senior CS Int or someone
25 else. They just can't decide this locally because
151
1 it was a situation.
2 See, until you know that everything is fully
3 handled and we're out of the woods and there is no
4 possibility of any further threat, everybody just
5 sort of stays on a minor alert and everybody has to
6 continue to be appraised, because this could blow up
7 at any time. So they can't just say, "Oh, well,
8 let's take her back to the ER," you know, "Or let's
9 do something else." They can't without serious
10 emergency. Somebody could fall down in the Ft.
11 Harrison and break a leg, you run them to emergency.
12 You don't need to ask RTC for that.
13 I was just talking about, as the normal course
14 of events going along as the days following the
15 accident, that is how it would have been done.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q What about Lisa McPherson, though, her
18 specifically? Who would be the ones who would make a
19 decision, if a decision needed to be made, to take her to a
20 hospital, who --
21 THE COURT: He already told us it would depend
22 whether it was an emergency or whether it was just
23 sort of in the normal course of things. Different
24 people make that decision based on whether it is an
25 urgent emergency.
152
1 MR. DANDAR: I think he was speaking generally.
2 I need to make sure --
3 THE COURT: No, I think he was talking
4 generally. And I think he was talking specifically
5 as to this case.
6 And it would, once again, depend on whether the
7 situation was as you and your experts think it was,
8 or was it a situation where the Church and their
9 experts think it was, it seems to me.
10 MR. DANDAR: Could I ask that?
11 THE COURT: Yes, you can, but I think he
12 already answered that.
13 THE WITNESS: Could I make a request? Could I
14 have a short break, please? I only need about five
15 minutes.
16 THE COURT: All right, we'll take a five-minute
17 break.
18 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 1:48 to 2:03 p.m.)
19 __________________________________
20 THE COURT: Okay. Let's continue. Is this
21 101? Did he move this into evidence?
22 MR. FUGATE: No.
23 MR. DANDAR: No. I move it into evidence.
24 THE COURT: I'm getting tired of telling you
25 this. If you don't want something into evidence,
153
1 fine. But I never know. I just sit here and hold
2 it and wonder what in the world it is.
3 Is 99 in evidence?
4 MR. WEINBERG: What is that?
5 THE CLERK: Yes.
6 THE COURT: 99, 98 and 100 are in evidence?
7 THE CLERK: No.
8 MR. DANDAR: I move them into evidence.
9 THE COURT: Any objection?
10 MR. WEINBERG: I do object. It is Mr. Young's
11 declaration. Is it to bolster his testimony? If
12 he's not impeached he can -- based on that, I don't
13 understand why he'll put some prior affidavit in.
14 THE COURT: I think probably this is
15 information Mr. Dandar had and relied on. Is that
16 right?
17 MR. DANDAR: Part of it. Most of it is, but it
18 is nice and concise and all together, and that is
19 why I'm moving it into evidence.
20 MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, I mean, it was
21 written in December of '99 -- December 7 of '99. So
22 he's -- that is --
23 THE COURT: Part of the problem is -- and part
24 of why I think -- some of this information is going
25 to be admissible if it's not barred by the First
154
1 Amendment -- is because there is no information here
2 to suggest that things change from day to day. So,
3 I mean, I don't know how much of it is relevant and
4 how much isn't. I just don't have time to read it.
5 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I haven't read it.
6 THE COURT: I haven't either, so I'm going to
7 let it in. If there is anything relevant in it
8 we'll use it. If there isn't, we won't.
9 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
10 THE COURT: I mean, I think what I heard was
11 that that had to do with the chain of command and
12 those types of things which are at issue here, I
13 suppose.
14 MR. DANDAR: Well, they are because of
15 Paragraph 34 in their motion.
16 THE COURT: Well, yes.
17 MR. DANDAR: I didn't make it an issue.
18 MR. WEINBERG: Well --
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q Now, Mr. Young, in the case of Lisa McPherson, if
21 it became --
22 THE COURT: By the way, for whatever it is
23 worth, I don't have any doubt at the time you wrote
24 your complaint that you had a good faith basis to
25 believe that David Miscavige knew about the
155
1 situation. I mean, that is obvious from all your
2 witnesses. Whether it is true or not doesn't
3 matter. What matters is whether your complaint was
4 false or whether you had a good faith basis for it.
5 I think you did. So, frankly, that you don't have
6 to beat into the ground anymore.
7 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
8 THE COURT: But what we really ought to be
9 talking about here, more so than that, is whether or
10 not there was any information or any basis upon
11 which the rest of that paragraph was -- in other
12 words, I think you had a basis upon which -- that
13 you could believe that he had some information about
14 what was going on.
15 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
16 THE COURT: All right?
17 MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q All right. Mr. Young, in reference to Lisa
20 McPherson then, if it came to be that the people who were
21 watching her saw her physically decline as Heather Hof says,
22 and she wrote reports to the senior CS, Kartuzinski, and she
23 stated to the police under oath she was frantic there was a
24 physical decline, Lisa was not eating or drinking enough to
25 survive, those words that she said under oath to the police,
156
1 and Mr. Kartuzinski did not respond to any of these reports,
2 number one, do you have an opinion, based upon your
3 experience, who would be the one in charge of making the
4 decision what to do with Lisa McPherson during the last days
5 as she was at wherever she was, the Ft. Harrison Hotel?
6 MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form because
7 in the question he said things that I don't think
8 there is any factual basis for.
9 It is also not important to the question, which
10 is completely different than this premise to the
11 question, which was all this evidence that
12 supposedly happened. He's asking about -- I suppose
13 if he has some idea about who was in charge.
14 THE COURT: Well, I assume he has some evidence
15 from a police report that Heather Hof said she was
16 frantic, nothing else -- nothing was happening.
17 MR. WEINBERG: I would like to know where that
18 was.
19 MR. DANDAR: It was marked as an exhibit in her
20 deposition.
21 THE COURT: I presume he had some evidence to
22 support that. I assume there is certainly evidence
23 in the report to support the fact that nothing
24 happened because nothing, in fact, did happen. And
25 so, therefore, I have to assume unless
157
1 Mr. Kartuzinski says to the contrary that he said
2 take her to the hospital, nobody paid any attention
3 to him, that, therefore, that part of what he said
4 is true and factual.
5 So as far as your objection it's not based on
6 facts, that is overruled.
7 You know, assuming there is something in the
8 record that says Ms. Hof said this.
9 MR. DANDAR: All right. And now I'm telling
10 the Court that that is in the record.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. DANDAR: And I'll make sure you get a copy
13 of that and her statements to the police.
14 THE COURT: All right.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q So, Mr. Young, who would be the person making the
17 decision in the final days as to whether or not Lisa
18 McPherson leaves the property of the Church of Scientology
19 and goes to a public facility like an emergency room?
20 A Since she was in -- she was a very serious
21 potential PR flap, possible legal threat, that would not be
22 a local decision, because the person leaving the premises,
23 you lose control over the situation. So that would have
24 been -- involved more than just local people.
25 Q Who would it involve?
158
1 A It would involve both the OSA Int level, as well
2 as the RTC level.
3 Q The fact that you know and worked with David
4 Miscavige while you were inside Scientology, do you have an
5 opinion as to whether or not David Miscavige, number one, as
6 captain of the Sea Org, would have known about Lisa
7 McPherson in the beginning when she had the car accident and
8 went to the emergency room, and knew about her throughout
9 her seventeen days until she died?
10 A I worked with him seven years, and this was his
11 pattern. He insisted upon knowing anything that could be a
12 serious threat. Media threat, legal threat, were the two
13 most important things. And he insisted on being -- knowing
14 about this.
15 Either he's told immediately by the locals, or he
16 could be told by his immediate juniors.
17 Q Mr. Young, we're going to get to -- we're going
18 back to when I first discovered you and met with you and
19 Stacy in Seattle.
20 But right now, since we're on this topic, let me
21 ask you just to stay with us on this point. In the
22 summer -- August of 1999 we filed a motion to add parties.
23 And I believe in October of 1999 you filed a
24 declaration in this case. And part of that declaration
25 which the Court has is in your statement by you under oath,
159
1 I believe it is an under-oath affidavit, stating that you
2 reviewed the August '99 declaration of Jesse Prince in this
3 case about his experience and why he believed Lisa McPherson
4 died.
5 Do you recall that?
6 A Yes.
7 THE COURT: Do I -- do I understand you have
8 that? Are you sure I have that?
9 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
10 THE COURT: If you say so, then fine. But I
11 don't remember whether I do or not.
12 MR. DANDAR: It is part of the -- it is part of
13 the defendant's notice of additional authorities
14 filed in October of '99 in the first -- when we had
15 a motion to set aside the agreement not to add on
16 parties.
17 MR. WEINBERG: You mean the plaintiffs?
18 MR. DANDAR: It is part of the plaintiff's
19 package of materials of additional authorities that
20 includes Stacy Young's declarations, Vicki Aznaran's
21 declarations --
22 THE COURT: I don't know if I have that or
23 whether that is something filed with Judge Moody.
24 MR. DANDAR: I think it is both. But I'm going
25 to make sure --
160
1 THE COURT: You make sure I have it then.
2 MS. WEST: We gave it to Judge Schaeffer.
3 MR. DANDAR: We did notice of judicial --
4 request to take judicial notice of what we
5 previously filed with Judge Moody.
6 THE COURT: Somewhere in this hearing?
7 MR. DANDAR: Somewhere in this hearing we gave
8 it to you.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. DANDAR: But we'll doublecheck with Sue to
11 make sure --
12 THE COURT: Doublecheck it with the clerk to
13 make sure I have it in my booklet.
14 MR. DANDAR: Okay, we'll do that, too.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Do you recall what you concluded, your comments,
17 concerning Jesse Prince's affidavit?
18 A I believe I said that based on my 21 years and
19 everything that I have learned through all of the policies
20 and books, even in the years following, that I couldn't find
21 anything in there that I considered to be contrary to my
22 personal experiences, my familiarity with policy.
23 Q Now, do you have an opinion, sir, based on your
24 21-plus years, as to whether or not -- well, I want you
25 first to assume that the pathologists for the estate have
161
1 testified Lisa died as a result of intentional medical
2 neglect. And I believe Dr. Spitz and Dr. Bandt both say
3 that the watchers of Lisa McPherson watched her die, in so
4 many words. I'm paraphrasing.
5 Do you have an opinion, if those doctors are
6 correct, as to why Lisa McPherson -- why the watchers
7 watched her die?
8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence.
9 Objection as to the form, as well.
10 THE COURT: Mmm --
11 MR. WEINBERG: Does he have an opinion based
12 on, what? In his trial testimony he said he has no
13 personal knowledge of what occurred in Clearwater.
14 THE COURT: I don't know about his trial
15 testimony. This isn't a trial. This is his hearing
16 and he's here --
17 MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand. But we do
18 have some basis in this case. He was offered before
19 as to certain issues. This was not one of them.
20 But he made clear in this testimony before he had no
21 personal knowledge of what happened.
22 THE COURT: There is no one who has been
23 excluded by me from this hearing. Therefore, I
24 don't care what evidence you have anyplace else in
25 existence for anything. For this hearing --
162
1 MR. WEINBERG: It's no agreement.
2 THE COURT: Right.
3 MR. WEINBERG: It is part of the discovery in
4 this case. Mr. Dandar had to identify what the
5 issues were that Mr. Young was going to testify
6 about. We took his deposition, and then Mr. Dandar
7 took his trial testimony.
8 THE COURT: He didn't know at that time you
9 were going to accuse him of perjury and suborning
10 perjury and filing false and -- and perpetrating
11 fraud on the Court and all that sort of stuff. That
12 is different.
13 Your objection is overruled.
14 MR. WEINBERG: I understand -- well, okay.
15 THE COURT: You move on, Mr. Dandar.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q Do you have an opinion, Mr. Young --
18 A I just didn't hear that question. What?
19 Q Do you have an opinion as to why, if the estate's
20 pathologists are correct that they watched her die, do you
21 have an opinion how that --
22 THE COURT: I have read those pathologists'
23 depositions. And I don't think that -- with the
24 exception perhaps of Dr. Spitz -- that Dr. Bandt
25 says that. I mean, he may say gross negligence. He
163
1 may have a lot of things he does say. But I don't
2 think that he says they stood around and watched her
3 die.
4 MR. DANDAR: Dr. Bandt said intentional medical
5 neglect, homicide, and --
6 THE COURT: He said homicide of a manslaughter
7 nature, doesn't he?
8 MR. DANDAR: Well, homicide -- well, based on
9 Minnesota -- his understanding of Minnesota law, it
10 is not first degree murder, it would be second
11 degree homicide based upon intentional medical
12 neglect, not simple negligence or gross negligence.
13 It is a higher level than just manslaughter.
14 THE COURT: Well, intentional medical neglect
15 could mean standing around watching somebody die.
16 It could mean that you are so reckless and you are
17 so grossly negligent that you don't see something
18 that should be obvious to any person that it rises
19 to the level of intentional even though it isn't
20 intentional.
21 So I don't know that they have said that those
22 workers stood around and watched her die. The only
23 person that I saw that said he didn't believe the
24 workers was Dr. Spitz.
25 MR. DANDAR: Okay, Dr. Bandt does specifically
164
1 say he doesn't believe -- in fact, he used the
2 phrase "pure fantasy" to talk about how
3 Ms. Arrunada, the person who has the medical degree
4 from Mexico, unlicensed, what she described the last
5 two days of Lisa McPherson.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then it's your
7 hypothetical. If your hypothetical turns out not to
8 be based on any facts, then it is worthless.
9 So I was trying to suggest the way you might
10 put it in a fashion that I know is factual. But if
11 you are pretty sure it is factual, go ahead.
12 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q If Dr. -- let's just go with Dr. Spitz. If
15 Dr. Spitz is correct that they stood around and watched her
16 die and, as you say, the orders to do anything had to come
17 from the senior CS Int in California, can you tell us, based
18 upon what you know about Scientology, why that would happen?
19 A Well, first of all, from my recall of reviewing
20 the records such as the notes being kept by the watchers, as
21 well as what I know, first of all, they weren't medically --
22 medically trained to be able to recognize a condition.
23 So what that means, you have been assigned a job
24 so you follow orders of people who know better than you.
25 That is what you are always taught.
165
1 So you don't act without being told what to do.
2 And that is what they did. They -- those people sitting
3 right there needed orders to rush her to an ER, say. Or to
4 do something else, unless there was just a -- what is called
5 a standing order, which is make sure she gets liquids, and
6 so you do that every day, you don't need to be told that
7 every day. But if anything changes, you need to be told
8 what to do, because you are protected.
9 Q Assuming that the order never came in after Janis
10 Johnson, the formerly licensed anesthesiologist, now on
11 staff in the MLO at Flag, she testified that on December 5
12 Lisa was majorly dehydrated and she recognized that, and she
13 called Dr. Minkoff and asked for penicillin, and he said,
14 "No, take her to ER, and if you don't take her to the local
15 ER, then you can bring her up here, but I'm not going to
16 give you a penicillin prescription over the phone."
17 A He's telling it to the wrong person. She has no
18 control over her. The watchers don't have control over her.
19 Q Even someone who has a medical degree?
20 A You need a post or position. Just because you
21 have a degree and you are walking around the Ft. Harrison or
22 in this court doesn't mean you can just sort of assume and
23 take a person on as a patient. There is positions. There
24 is command channels. There is a structure of the
25 organization. It has to be followed. That is always
166
1 senior. And that is hammered in, hammered in, hammered.
2 So those people needed orders, regardless of what
3 they may have been trained to do as a doctor or
4 anesthesiologist.
5 Q Well, assume the workers were writing reports,
6 including the ones that are missing, that this situation is
7 not good and, in fact, Heather Hof testified that she wrote
8 that something needed to be changed, and that was on
9 Saturday, December 2nd, but she gets no reply.
10 Do you have an opinion as to why these workers --
11 and as she said she was frantic -- why these workers would
12 not get a reply from OSA Int or the senior CS Int?
13 A It's -- it's a shock to me, too. Because my
14 experience was when you feel you have a situation, you
15 respond quickly. You respond in a matter of hours. You
16 have to respond within 24 hours.
17 And it's -- the only time, in all of my years, et
18 cetera, the only time that went quiet and you didn't hear
19 back was somebody was up there trying to decide what to do.
20 Or maybe the mail got lost. But that is the only way.
21 But normally people would move fast. So that not
22 hearing, when you are being told something is wrong, is
23 unusual.
24 Q Well, do you have an opinion as to what policies
25 the Church of Scientology would be following if they decided
167
1 not to do anything?
2 A There is -- there is nothing that just says don't
3 do anything. First of all, to clarify that. What you do
4 sometimes is you just say continue to do the same thing.
5 It's like a presidential pocket veto. You don't say veto;
6 you just leave it alone and it dies. I didn't mean to use
7 that word like that.
8 So just by leaving the action alone and giving you
9 orders, it means you continue to do what you have been
10 doing.
11 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar, I remember, in reading
12 Mr. Kartuzinski's deposition, that Mr. Kartuzinski
13 said he did call David -- not David Miscavige, he
14 did call Dr. Minkoff himself.
15 MR. DANDAR: He did call Dr. Minkoff several
16 times during the 17 days.
17 THE COURT: I'm talking at the end. That he --
18 did he call Dr. Minkoff and asked him to see her,
19 not Janis Johnson? I mean, she may have, too. But,
20 I mean, it did seem as if, at that point, it was the
21 upper level at the Church -- or at Flag that was
22 making some decisions there. Janis Johnson went to
23 her senior who was Mr. Kartuzinski, right?
24 MR. DANDAR: No.
25 THE COURT: No?
168
1 THE WITNESS: May I offer something?
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q Is there anyone at Flag that could call
4 Dr. Minkoff?
5 A Say -- ask that again, please?
6 Q Is there anyone at Flag that could have called
7 Dr. Minkoff, per policy?
8 A Let me distinguish here something, if I may
9 explain it.
10 If this was a young woman at the Ft. Harrison who
11 had taken deathly ill and she'd not been out there in an
12 automobile accident and taken off her clothes, there is
13 complete local control and they could have called the doctor
14 and said, "Hey, can we bring her over?"
15 "Come on over and see her."
16 It is very normal, even if she was yelling in the
17 Ft. Harrison Hotel, you know, and they are calming her down.
18 The fact she was in an automobile accident, and
19 authorities were there, and you have this serious PR
20 situation and a legal threat, you lose local control until
21 that is completely gone.
22 So, yes, he could call Minkoff. But he does not
23 have the authority, because OSA Department 20 is watching.
24 We have -- we're in Clearwater. We have been at war with
25 this city for 15, 20 years. You just don't rush the person
169
1 who was -- might get us all in trouble again and do this
2 and, you know, this. So he could not just make it a local
3 decision as if she had been somebody not involved in an
4 automobile accident, taken off her clothes. That changes
5 the matter.
6 As soon as it goes to Department 20, you lose some
7 control. You do, until that situation is fully gone.
8 Q And is there any policies in Scientology where
9 this Department 20 PR flap situation that you discussed
10 would be paramount over the life of Lisa McPherson?
11 A You will never see something worded like that.
12 No. I'll say that flat out.
13 Q Okay.
14 A But you are always taught, the first thing that
15 came in, the most important thing -- it's not just you are
16 saying the life of a person is unimportant. But the most
17 important thing is the organization, the technology. Then
18 you take your priorities from there.
19 So you always have to judge it from that. It's
20 not somebody says Scientology is more important than the
21 life of a person. You'll never see that stated, et cetera.
22 But you are just told what is important. Because if that is
23 not preserved, then other people can't be helped.
24 Q Where does the individual rank on the scale of
25 importance, starting with the Scientology and the tech at
170
1 the top?
2 A Well, you -- the individual is of the least
3 importance. And even Hubbard said groups are more important
4 than individuals. And so it builds up from there, sort of
5 like, you know, building a pyramid. And so you judge your
6 priorities from there.
7 The maxim that everybody works by, one of the most
8 important maxims in Scientology, is the greatest good for
9 the greatest number. And it's just a utilitarian -- Hubbard
10 didn't think of it. It was a principle, utilitarian
11 principle, John Stewart Mills.
12 So you have to take into consideration who will be
13 hurt the most and decide from there.
14 Q Okay.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Dandar gave you a hypothetical
16 that seems to be expressed in somewhat of, what
17 shall I say, a passive form. So let me see if I
18 understood it.
19 You indicated if I had your affidavit, which I
20 believe has been filed, and I think after I heard
21 something about it I may have seen it. But he said
22 in October of '99 you filed a declaration saying you
23 had read Mr. Prince's affidavit and you couldn't
24 find anything or say anything contrary to what he
25 had concluded or something like that, I'm not sure
171
1 exactly what your testimony was. Is that what your
2 affidavit said?
3 In other words, did it say you agreed with him?
4 Or did it just say you couldn't find anything wrong
5 with his affidavit?
6 THE WITNESS: I couldn't find -- well, first of
7 all, let me clarify that. I did not have all of the
8 empirical personal knowledge Mr. Prince did. We
9 worked in two different sectors.
10 But my familiarity with what I knew and the way
11 he described it, there was nothing that he said in
12 there that I considered to be false according to my
13 personal experiences and my familiarity with the
14 directives of Scientology.
15 But I could also -- I -- there were certain
16 things he said I knew were true that I could say,
17 oh, yes, that is very correct. But I could not at
18 the same time -- since I couldn't attest to the
19 veracity of every statement, all I could say is as
20 to the rest there was nothing else I found contrary
21 to my personal experiences or my familiarity with
22 the directives.
23 THE COURT: Again, from what you have testified
24 to and what other persons, Mr. Franks included, have
25 testified to, and I haven't heard from Mr. Prince
172
1 yet, but -- and I have heard from Ms. Brooks, too,
2 who is an ex-Scientologist that has some familiarity
3 with the Church and its policy, it is inconceivable
4 to me, thinking about a PR flap and how the Church
5 would want to avoid that at all costs, certainly
6 here in Clearwater -- you have stated that, true?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: It is inconceivable to me that
9 Mr. Prince says that -- says that obviously the word
10 came down just to let her die because, otherwise, it
11 would have been too big of a PR flap so, therefore,
12 an end cycle was put out -- you have read it so you
13 know what it is he said. I can't imagine anything
14 that would create a bigger PR flap.
15 And the fact it did create a big, huge PR flap
16 and a huge lawsuit, all of which Department 20 is
17 supposedly geared up to -- to stop or -- or
18 hopefully stop, why any such order could ever have
19 come down from anybody in any position of
20 responsibility or authority, it just wouldn't make
21 any -- in other words, his statements and what you
22 have testified to and others who have been in the
23 Church have testified to don't seem to coexist.
24 THE WITNESS: Well, can I correct one thing,
25 your Honor?
173
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: If I may, first? It was not a PR
3 flap when she died. It was not known. It was
4 quiet. It took a while before this actually came up
5 as a lawsuit. In fact, it was -- it was -- I don't
6 even know how long it took. But I know it went out
7 through the Internet when people started digging
8 into it and finding out about it. So she died and
9 there wasn't a flap.
10 Secondly, even though that may sound
11 incredulous that a person could die and you don't
12 have a flap, that is because you have got somebody
13 like a Minkoff that you can go to who is
14 sympathetic, he's a loyal Scientologist, he will
15 give you the proper response. You can trust him to
16 do this because he's OT8. Can I use that here?
17 THE COURT: Sure. We know what that is.
18 THE WITNESS: He's an OT8. He has gone all of
19 the way. He has been on the ship, the Free Winds.
20 He's loyal. He's keeping Scientology working.
21 He'll help us. It is like saying we have friends in
22 high places.
23 So I'm saying just because the person can say,
24 yes, that could go wrong, well, except if you have
25 friends in high places, meaning in that case, a
174
1 doctor, and, secondly, when she died, it wasn't a PR
2 flap. It was quite quiet. It took a while before
3 this ever came up. Now it's a flap. But it wasn't
4 when she died.
5 THE COURT: It then came up pretty quickly
6 after she died. I mean, you would know if a -- a
7 doctor would absolutely have to, no matter what is
8 said to the contrary, a doctor who did not have
9 someone under his care who died, as Lisa McPherson
10 died, would have to turn that over to the medical
11 examiner.
12 THE WITNESS: True.
13 THE COURT: A medical examiner was not, is not,
14 never has been, I don't believe, a Scientologist.
15 THE WITNESS: True.
16 THE COURT: Dr. Minkoff would have known that.
17 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
18 THE COURT: So there could -- would have been
19 no one thinking in their right mind that wouldn't
20 have known if, in fact, she was dehydrated and they
21 stood back and watched her die in a dehydrated
22 state, that the medical examiner wouldn't pick up on
23 that and it would cause them, A, to perhaps be
24 charged with murder, or manslaughter, or practicing
25 medicine without a license, and on and on it goes,
175
1 and be sued for a lot of money.
2 I have to assume that these people like
3 Mr. Rinder and Mr. Miscavige are people of some
4 intellect. I mean, unless they are just fools, they
5 would realize that that could not be the answer or
6 the choice that they made and avoid a PR flap.
7 THE WITNESS: I understand how you are looking
8 at this, your Honor. I do.
9 THE COURT: Okay. So, I mean, that is why I'm
10 saying you were asked in a very oddball way, which
11 is you couldn't find anything contrary to what he
12 said. That is -- I don't know what that means.
13 Does that mean that you think that Mr. Miscavige put
14 out an end cycle and said let her die?
15 THE WITNESS: I don't have any personal
16 knowledge that he did, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Well, do you have any way you would
18 want to render an opinion in this court that you
19 think that is true?
20 THE WITNESS: Let me put it this way.
21 THE COURT: You have as much knowledge as Jesse
22 Prince has.
23 THE WITNESS: I --
24 THE COURT: As far as I know -- I don't know
25 what he's going to tell us when he comes in here.
176
1 But as far as what I know, he doesn't have any more
2 knowledge about this case -- I'm talking about the
3 Lisa McPherson case -- than you have.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
5 THE COURT: Okay? So I may be wrong, I haven't
6 heard from him. But let's assume that. Okay?
7 Do you have any basis upon which you could make
8 that statement?
9 THE WITNESS: The statement again was, your
10 Honor?
11 THE COURT: The statement was that
12 Mr. Miscavige, to avoid a PR flap, entered an end
13 cycle order. I heard it called drop the body, end
14 cycle, different sundry things, to avoid -- I mean,
15 this is the magic to me, or this is the -- this is
16 the part I'm having trouble with -- to avoid a PR
17 flap, that Mr. Miscavige entered an order that said
18 let her die, in essence.
19 THE WITNESS: I don't believe he would have
20 issued an order directly with that wording. I -- I
21 know Mr. Miscavige well enough in my years, nobody
22 ever issues those types of orders that may have
23 legal ramifications. We learned that back in '77.
24 So, no, you don't do that.
25 Whatever you say, you mask it, you put it into
177
1 a euphemism, maybe even don't even put it in
2 writing; you put it on the phone and just say,
3 "Never mind, let it go," something which basically
4 washes your hands of the situation.
5 I have seen it enough times that -- serious --
6 serious situations where the person simply absolves
7 themselves and lets it evolve back to the junior,
8 let the junior take the heat. And sometimes by just
9 lack of issuing an order, that is an order. I have
10 been in those situations where no order was an
11 order. You were just left there and then if it went
12 well, then the senior takes the credit. If it goes
13 back, then you catch the heat.
14 THE COURT: Well, let's assume then that is
15 what happened for -- just to carry this thing
16 through to what I assume is something else you'll be
17 happy to tell us about, which is Mr. Miscavige just
18 decided, "Well, I'll do nothing and let the junior
19 take the heat."
20 Again, he would have to know that that decision
21 was going to bring on a huge amount of bad PR
22 because he would have to know that Dr. Minkoff would
23 have to call the medical examiner.
24 THE WITNESS: I don't think so, your Honor.
25 I -- when -- when it is called senior management,
178
1 you may imagine the lower units, but you are not
2 that familiar with how local authorities work
3 because you are only dealing with your personnel.
4 So I could sit up there and -- well, I don't know
5 how a local court works --
6 THE COURT: Don't you ask?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, you need to be advised on
8 this.
9 THE COURT: Right.
10 THE WITNESS: That is why --
11 THE COURT: And if Mr. Miscavige is at the head
12 of the Church, one would assume or hope that he
13 would make a decision based on some knowledge, "What
14 will happen if this lady dies in my hotel down
15 there?"
16 THE WITNESS: That is why you end up hiring
17 local counsels who will advise, and sometimes
18 they'll advise directly to upper management, you
19 know. Right here -- an attorney right here could
20 end up speaking to him to advise because he wants to
21 know straight from the horse's mouth. And I think
22 that is always a wise move.
23 THE COURT: He would have been told, if that
24 happened, "Gee whiz, get her to a hospital quickly,
25 because if she's dehydrated and she's dying and she
179
1 dies, she'll go to the medical examiner, they have a
2 halfway decent medical examiner down there that will
3 pick up on this, well, the Church is going to be
4 indicted again."
5 THE WITNESS: Also --
6 THE COURT: "We'll get sued for a whole bunch
7 of money. This is a very bad choice. Do
8 something."
9 THE WITNESS: That is why I think we're missing
10 the last four days of the records. The last four
11 days of the record is like the 18-minute gap in the
12 Watergate tapes. What went down, what went down
13 those last four days? That is really crucial --
14 THE COURT: I'm not sure it is four days. I
15 think it is like two and a half.
16 MR. DANDAR: It ended Sunday afternoon around
17 three. But that is just one of the caretakers --
18 THE COURT: But the records that were
19 missing -- the records that were missing are not
20 records from up, coming down. What were missing are
21 the lowest echelon here, the workers. They wouldn't
22 know anything about anything you and I are talking
23 about or anything going on in this lawsuit.
24 They would just simply say, "Seems to be
25 getting worse. Looks like she's dehydrated."
180
1 And it is -- in its worst scenario this would
2 be, "This is really bad. This is getting worse.
3 Help."
4 I mean, that is the worst that you would see on
5 the records that were missing.
6 THE WITNESS: On their records. But their
7 records can also reflect what they're being told to
8 do.
9 For example, there is medications. They talked
10 to somebody and there is medications. That can
11 reflect something other than just, "Gave her a glass
12 of water today."
13 THE COURT: Well, I think the last record on
14 anything relevant to this case was she had two
15 liters of water -- or two liters of -- upon waking
16 up, I think that was the order from Janis Johnson.
17 THE WITNESS: Right. But what I'm saying,
18 those records, when I studied them, they reflected
19 more than what was going on in the room. It showed
20 liaison outside, contact with others, what was being
21 said, what was being reported; so one could get some
22 sense, just from those internal reports inside the
23 room, as to what was being -- transpiring outside
24 the room.
25 THE COURT: You don't think anyone would have
181
1 written down, "Gee, David Miscavige told us to end
2 cycle on Lisa McPherson," would they?
3 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, because they wouldn't
4 even have heard his name.
5 THE COURT: So those records -- that aspect of
6 those records wouldn't help that aspect of
7 Mr. Dandar's case at all.
8 THE WITNESS: No, not in that sense.
9 Mr. Miscavige speaks only to other people who will
10 execute orders. That would be either through the
11 Office of Special Affairs, or possibly he might talk
12 to somebody -- I think it is unlikely -- in the
13 senior CSN office. He would get somebody else to
14 talk to those people. He always uses an
15 intermediary as much as possible.
16 THE COURT: So you have no basis to tell us
17 whether there is any -- any truth to that assertion
18 or not?
19 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am, I don't have any
20 empirical evidence.
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 THE WITNESS: And that is why I think it is --
23 it is regrettable that those last few days are
24 missing, because we might have.
25
182
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Well, do you have an opinion, without the
3 records -- do you have an opinion as to why -- why she died
4 if, in fact, it was noticeable that she was in physical
5 decline?
6 A Well, one thing --
7 THE COURT: Surely you are not asking him to
8 render a medical opinion.
9 MR. DANDAR: No, not medical. Scientology
10 reason.
11 THE WITNESS: Scientology reason as to why she
12 died?
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q Yes. Why wasn't she taken a minute down the road
15 to Morton Plant Hospital instead of 50 minutes up to
16 Minkoff?
17 A Because Minkoff is OT8. It's -- it's a very
18 incestuous relationship at times. You always try to do
19 business with other Scientologists. You always try to give
20 a Scientologist the job, you know, to paint your house or
21 anything else. So you do this.
22 But in this case Minkoff, he's an OT8 and
23 Scientologist, so that is where you go, that is where you
24 are going to get your best chance.
25 Q Best chance meaning like Dr. Minkoff tried and
183
1 wrote letters to the medical examiner saying that Lisa
2 McPherson died from sepsis?
3 A No, I didn't mean your best medical chance, your
4 best PR chance.
5 Q Do you think Dr. Minkoff's letter to the medical
6 examiner saying she died of sepsis, rather than anything
7 else, was his attempt to squelch the PR flap?
8 MR. WEINBERG: Objection.
9 A First of all, I'm not a --
10 THE COURT: That objection will be sustained so
11 you don't get to answer at all.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
13 Your Honor, may I make a special request for
14 two minutes while I make a run, if nobody leaves the
15 room? My apologies. It is a prostate thing.
16 Thank you.
17 (Whereupon, the witness is excused from the
18 stand for a brief period.)
19 THE COURT: While they are gone, do you want to
20 make sure I have that package?
21 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
22 THE COURT: I'm talking now about the package
23 you submitted to Judge Moody that had all of these
24 affidavits.
25 MR. DANDAR: Yes. I'm going to make sure.
184
1 THE COURT: When did the State Attorney begin
2 their investigation in the case?
3 MR. WEINBERG: The Clearwater Police began on
4 the night of the death. And when the State Attorney
5 got involved, I'm not quite sure but it was sometime
6 in the fall of 1996, I think, or early 1997. So the
7 Clearwater Police did the investigation up until,
8 you know, Joan Wood went on TV, which was in late
9 '96, early '97, then the State Attorney did its
10 first interviews, as I remember correctly, early
11 '97.
12 THE COURT: Did the Clearwater Police
13 Department ever shut down their investigation? In
14 other words, they took it to the State Attorney
15 eventually, then they picked it up?
16 MR. WEINBERG: Yes. What happened, they
17 started the night -- the night of the death. And
18 then, if I remember correctly, because of all of the
19 publicity, the State Attorney sort of got involved
20 in early 1997. And at that point it was sort of in
21 conjunction with one another.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 (WHEREUPON, the witness returns to the
24 courtroom and to the witness stand.)
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
185
1 THE COURT: You are welcome.
2 MR. DANDAR: Judge, we did file request for
3 judicial notice on May 15, 2002 which attached the
4 notice of the following affidavits, and what I think
5 is I handed the clerk just this and I think I handed
6 you the whole stack. But I'll get you another copy.
7 THE COURT: I have a feeling -- I don't think I
8 have ever seen this request for judicial notice.
9 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
10 THE COURT: Maybe I have. But if what you --
11 if what you asked me to take judicial notice of is
12 the notice of filing affidavits and other documents
13 in support of a motion, I may well have said fine,
14 I'll take judicial notice of it. If I did, I don't
15 remember seeing it until just now.
16 I don't mind taking judicial notice of part of
17 a court file, but I don't think I got it. The
18 reason I think that is because I think I have seen
19 Ms. -- Ms. Brooks' affidavit which I didn't even
20 really understand until somewhere midway in this
21 hearing that it was an affidavit from someplace else
22 that was attached. I don't know that I have ever
23 seen Mr. Young's affidavit to date.
24 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
25 THE COURT: And if there was any others, I
186
1 think I just heard you say there were others, I
2 don't think I even know who they are, let alone have
3 I seen them.
4 MR. DANDAR: I'll have another copy tomorrow.
5 THE COURT: You don't have any objection to me
6 taking judicial notice of whatever part of the file
7 it is he's having me take judicial notice?
8 MR. WEINBERG: I don't. I just want to know
9 what it is. I don't think any of his affidavits are
10 in evidence.
11 THE COURT: I don't, either. First day you
12 gave me two requests to take judicial notice, and I
13 don't think it is either of those.
14 MR. WEINBERG: All I remember as to Mr. Young
15 is that I think that in evidence is the motion to
16 add parties in September of '99, and I think the
17 supplemental filing by Mr. Dandar before the
18 October 8 hearing, which would have included
19 Mr. Young's affidavit. I think that was put in
20 evidence in this case.
21 But I don't -- I'm not even sure of that.
22 THE COURT: So you better get that to me,
23 Counselor. Okay?
24 MR. DANDAR: I will. I'll have that to you.
25
187
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and 9. It
3 is already in evidence.
4 First of all, can you tell us what Exhibit 8 is,
5 please?
6 MR. WEINBERG: Well, can you --
7 A Exhibit 8 is a photocopy of a policy letter
8 written in 1967 entitled "Penalties for Lower Conditions."
9 And it is written by L. Ron Hubbard.
10 MR. WEINBERG: It is very confusing to us but
11 our 89 has to do with the first amended complaint.
12 THE COURT: This is the clerk's exhibit.
13 MR. DANDAR: It says Plaintiff's Exhibit 8,
14 5/7/02.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q And Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 in the bottom under
17 the -- is the bottom the "worst condition" or the "worst"
18 something? What is the word?
19 A Well, condition -- should I explain conditions?
20 Or not?
21 Q Does that have anything to do with conditions?
22 A Yes. These were conditions that are called lower
23 conditions as of 1967.
24 Q What is meant by conditions?
25 A Mmm, Hubbard built many things in layers and
188
1 hierarchies of things. It seemed like floors on a
2 skyscraper going up and down.
3 And ethics was basically, to keep it in simple
4 terms, morals, how you behaved, how well you are doing. And
5 lower conditions meant you were doing very badly.
6 And at the bottom here in this one was a condition
7 of enemy. You can't go any further than a condition of
8 enemy. And so he describes what this condition of enemy is.
9 And then sometimes these gave advice as to what
10 the person needs to do. But in this case it just says what
11 needs to be done to them.
12 Q Is that called fair game?
13 A This was called fair game. It says right here:
14 "Enemy. SP order." And "SP" stands for suppressive person.
15 And the second sentence says: "Fair game. May be
16 deprived of property or injured by means by any
17 Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist.
18 May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
19 Q Was that policy canceled?
20 A This was amended because there was different
21 conditions that came out. But the policy itself remained
22 because there is information here.
23 Q What about Exhibit 9 -- what do you mean, there is
24 information here?
25 A Well, let me put it this way. There is very
189
1 seldom Mr. Hubbard canceled a policy. He would amend a
2 policy. He would update it.
3 And in this case this was updated. So that
4 different things were said in the lines of these conditions.
5 But you don't just cancel them and throw them away
6 because this is a valuable document. He never just simply
7 got rid of policy.
8 Q What is Exhibit 9 then?
9 A Exhibit 9 is -- is a page with two policy letters
10 on it. Because they're both short. This is one from one of
11 the volumes, the same pages. You printed more than one of
12 them to a page.
13 Number one is entitled "Cancelation of Fair Game"
14 written in 1968 by Hubbard.
15 Q So did that cancel Number 8, Exhibit 8?
16 A No. This was -- this is one of the most -- more
17 controversial policy letters. It is often cited by
18 Scientology to say fair game was canceled, here is the
19 policy, see this cancelation of fair game.
20 When I was a PR working with media, governmental
21 authorities, I did that. I pulled it out and I said, "See,
22 fair game was canceled."
23 And that is because the person didn't understand
24 the rest of it. Because it says here, "This PL," meaning
25 policy letter, "does not cancel any policy on the treatment
190
1 or handling of an SP."
2 Well, this other one that we have here was "How
3 you handle an SP. May be sued, tricked or lied."
4 What he's saying here, and it says it clearly -- I
5 mean, I hate to say it says what it says, but this has gone
6 into courts, government, media, government agencies and they
7 haven't caught on, so pardon me if I said -- point out he
8 says fair game may not appear on any ethics order.
9 In other words, the words "fair game" may not
10 appear on any ethics order because it is bad public
11 relations.
12 The next sentence, "This does not change any
13 policy on how to handle SPs."
14 So all we stopped doing is we stopped using the
15 words "Fair game," but everything else he wrote about how to
16 destroy an SP, you do it, fair game policy was not canceled,
17 just the use of the words.
18 Q Okay. How did I meet you?
19 A You called me.
20 Q And do you know how I found your name and phone
21 number?
22 A I don't remember right now.
23 Q Do you know when I did that?
24 A Mmm, it was earlier in 1997, if I recall. Around
25 maybe April or somewhere in the spring.
191
1 Q Did I come up to see you?
2 A You spoke on the phone and asked if you could come
3 up to talk.
4 Q And was it you who I was talking to?
5 A Yes.
6 Q So did I fly to Seattle?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And I met with you and Stacy, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you and Stacy were married at the time.
11 Correct?
12 A Yes.
13 THE COURT: When was this, please?
14 THE WITNESS: 1997, earlier part.
15 THE COURT: Early 1997?
16 THE WITNESS: Spring, early somewhere,
17 somewhere around there.
18 BY MR. DANDAR:
19 Q March, April, I believe.
20 A Yes. As I said, around my birthday in April.
21 Q Okay. And what did we talk about?
22 A Well, you explained that you were counsel for this
23 case down in Florida, and that -- and you just wanted to
24 know pretty much the way I described it to Leipold and
25 Graham Berry. You were involved in litigation involving
192
1 Scientology, it is complex, you were having trouble with the
2 language, structures, policies, vocabulary, knowing which
3 organization fits with what, and you just wanted to see what
4 we might know.
5 Q Did I -- what did I ask you to do?
6 A Well, you wanted help with the case.
7 Q Okay. And what was your response?
8 A I don't remember how quickly I responded. But I
9 agreed.
10 Q What about Stacy's response?
11 A She was a little -- she was a little slower on it
12 at the time. But she finally -- you know, she agreed.
13 Q Okay. And what did you do to consult with me or
14 help me?
15 A Well, after you got back, then you sent me some
16 materials so I could catch up on it, because at that time
17 all I knew was what you had given to me orally by describing
18 the case. And you sent -- I believe you sent the complaint
19 and maybe a couple of other papers.
20 And then you said you would get more material to
21 me.
22 Q Did I -- did I talk about adding on parties at
23 that first meeting, outside of Flag?
24 A No, I don't recall that at all.
25 THE COURT: Just a minute. Is this what you're
193
1 talking about (indicating)?
2 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
3 THE COURT: Is that it?
4 MR. DANDAR: That is it.
5 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I do have that.
6 MR. DANDAR: Yes. That is the whole thing.
7 THE COURT: All right. For some reason, I'm
8 not sure if I ever took this -- this may have ended
9 up over here, never to be seen again. So I'm glad I
10 saw it. Okay.
11 MR. DANDAR: I'm glad you saw it, too.
12 THE COURT: So you do not need to give this to
13 me again.
14 MR. DANDAR: All right.
15 MR. WEINBERG: Just for the record, what is the
16 title of that thing?
17 THE COURT: "Notice of Filing Affidavits and
18 Other Documents in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to
19 Add Parties."
20 This is a --
21 MR. WEINBERG: That is what I was referring to.
22 That is the supplemental filing in October of '99?
23 THE COURT: It is a filing in the -- on the 7th
24 of October of '99.
25 MR. DANDAR: Judge, I would like that to be
194
1 part of the evidence of the plaintiff. And if you
2 want me to file another copy with the clerk, I'll do
3 that.
4 THE COURT: You can't have this because this is
5 mine. I told you I like to write on mine, so --
6 MR. DANDAR: That is why I did a notice to take
7 judicial notice request, so we don't keep filing the
8 same things over and over.
9 THE COURT: Right. So I have taken judicial
10 notice of it. But if you want it to be evidence in
11 this hearing, you're going to have to mark it.
12 MR. DANDAR: Then we'll do that.
13 THE COURT: And have the clerk accept it.
14 MR. DANDAR: All right.
15 THE COURT: And on and on.
16 MR. DANDAR: All right.
17 THE COURT: And I do not object to that if you
18 want to do that.
19 MR. DANDAR: All right, we'll do that. And
20 I'll do it tomorrow.
21 BY MR. DANDAR:
22 Q All right, Mr. Young, did there come a point in
23 time when I talked about David Miscavige or -- or his name
24 came up somehow?
25 A I'm sure it did. I'm just saying I don't recall
195
1 exactly at what point.
2 Q Okay. And do you recall helping me or offering
3 suggestions for allegations of the -- what was going to be
4 the first amended complaint?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And how did that process take place where you
7 suggested factual allegations concerning the history of
8 Scientology?
9 THE COURT: Give us a date here because this
10 could be important.
11 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
12 A This was probably -- I'm still talking April/May
13 because I got the complaint just a matter of days after he
14 returned to --
15 THE COURT: This was a draft of the first
16 amended complaint? Or was this an actual copy of
17 the complaint that had been filed?
18 THE WITNESS: I believe there was an actual
19 copy of the filed complaint.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Was this the one that has
21 been referred to as kind of the simple wrongful
22 death complaint?
23 THE WITNESS: I wasn't here for that
24 description, your Honor. I don't know.
25 THE COURT: Okay. And I can understand why you
196
1 would not know necessarily what that meant.
2 BY MR. DANDAR:
3 Q Let me -- it is already in evidence but let me
4 just show you the original complaint and see if that helps.
5 THE COURT: There are five of them, so -- or
6 more, so don't just assume it is the one you saw by
7 reading the first few lines because they're probably
8 all the same.
9 MR. WEINBERG: I think the date may have more
10 bearing than anything.
11 THE COURT: Pardon me?
12 MR. WEINBERG: I think the date may have more
13 bearing than anything.
14 THE WITNESS: That seems to be it. I know it
15 was identified as the first -- the original
16 complaint that was filed.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q It only names Flag as a defendant, correct?
19 A Mmm, I guess so. I would have to look at it more
20 closely.
21 THE COURT: He probably doesn't even know --
22 A Oh, okay, up there, "Scientology, d/b/a FSO."
23 BY MR. DANDAR:
24 Q Now, turn to the first amended complaint and see
25 where there is added parties. Could you see if there is any
197
1 paragraphs that you recognize that you helped create?
2 A Well, most of the stuff talking about the
3 background, history of Scientology and -- I don't mean to be
4 blunt but you didn't know that much about it. You were
5 fairly typical of attorneys that are dealing with
6 Scientology litigation; you didn't know the language, you
7 didn't know the structure, you didn't know if A was
8 underneath B or -- et cetera.
9 And I remember reading the original complaint just
10 thinking, no, no, this is -- I didn't know the facts of the
11 case right then, but I did know enough about the structure
12 of the organization and language to see that this -- this
13 didn't reflect the situation.
14 So my task was to first of all advise you of that.
15 I did not know any of the facts of the case yet. I hadn't
16 been given that material. I just wanted to advise you as to
17 the vocabulary, structure, language of the organization.
18 Q Well, could you look at the first amended
19 complaint and tell us what paragraph, by looking at the
20 number, you believe that you contributed to writing?
21 A Well, for example, Paragraph 4, which says "The
22 Church of Scientology was created in the early 1950s by
23 science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and --"
24 THE COURT: Don't -- when you read -- everybody
25 does this, tends to read so fast, and that court
198
1 reporter still has to take it down. So please don't
2 read it at the speed level --
3 THE WITNESS: I shall. Thank you.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q All right.
6 A So, I mean, you didn't know any of this stuff
7 about the background and the history. And there is -- there
8 were points in here that I knew enough about, without even
9 knowing the facts of the case, but just knowing what the
10 suit was about, that I could advise you on, which was such
11 as what a situation was in Scientology, which is we were
12 using the word "PR flap" and "situations" is in quotes.
13 Knowing that a person who would take off their clothes and
14 run around the streets, we have a situation here.
15 So I was trying to put this into the body of the
16 vocabulary, sort of like I was trying to do in my testimony
17 this morning.
18 Q Okay. And do you know when I was meeting with
19 you -- how many times did I meet with you in Seattle?
20 A Mmm, I believe it was twice.
21 Q Okay. Do you know if you or Stacy were advising
22 me --
23 MR. DANDAR: Here I go again, I have to
24 watch -- we still have the -- the stipulation of
25 privilege that if I talk -- start talking about what
199
1 they are advising me, the privilege is waived just
2 for that conversation and not for anything else?
3 THE COURT: I think so.
4 MR. DANDAR: All right.
5 THE COURT: Do you agree with that? I think
6 that is kind of what we've been doing throughout.
7 MR. WEINBERG: I think what we've been hearing
8 is a lot of conversation. So I assume it has been
9 waived as to the questions we just had.
10 MR. DANDAR: Right. Right.
11 BY MR. DANDAR:
12 Q All right, so do you recall you or Stacy or me
13 being gung-ho to add David Miscavige as a defendant in the
14 first amended complaint?
15 A No.
16 Q Do you recall me talking to you about the role of
17 David Miscavige?
18 A Well, you couldn't have talked to me about it
19 because you didn't know his role either way.
20 Q Let me show you what is marked as the Church of
21 Scientology's Exhibit 73. Let's see if you can recognize
22 that.
23 A I vaguely remember this.
24 THE COURT: What are you showing him?
25 MR. DANDAR: I'm showing him the May '97 letter
200
1 that Ms. Brooks handed over to the Church of
2 Scientology.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. DANDAR: This letter is May 2nd, '97.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q Do you know if you and I or your wife Stacy talked
7 about adding David Miscavige on as the managing agent for
8 all of Scientology?
9 A I believe she did.
10 Q Okay. And this letter that is May 2nd of '97, is
11 that a letter that I sent to you -- did you respond to that
12 at all, if you recall?
13 A I don't believe so.
14 Q Okay. Do you know if Stacy did?
15 A No, she -- she wouldn't have done that. I would
16 have carried on the correspondence.
17 Q Because you and I were the only ones in contact
18 with each other. Correct?
19 A Early on, yes.
20 Q Okay. When did that change, if at all?
21 A I can't say exactly. But early on all we had was
22 just -- all I had was just the facts of this lady,
23 automobile accident, died under mysterious circumstances,
24 da-da-da. I had no other information.
25 I don't think I even knew the introspection
201
1 rundown was involved at that time. It wasn't until you
2 provided further information, documents, so that the case
3 could be better understood, that is when Stacy came in.
4 Stacy's role, quite often, with us working as a
5 team, was that she took care of the technical side. She had
6 much more technical training than I did, whereas I had more,
7 you know, public relations, legal organization externally
8 training and experience than she did. So we sort of
9 complimented each other inside and outside.
10 So I know that as we became more acquainted with
11 what I might say is the medical side of this case, that she
12 got interested because of the things like PTS 3 and
13 introspection rundown.
14 THE COURT: Let me see what it was you were
15 showing him. I'm still not sure if I know. Let me
16 see it.
17 And is what you are indicating you would have
18 responded to that part that is in yellow here that,
19 "Would Mr. Miscavige have personal knowledge of
20 those in isolation and their condition," is that
21 what you are saying you would have responded to?
22 THE WITNESS: He would have asked about that.
23 Obviously, he wanted to ask me.
24 THE COURT: This is in a letter sent to you?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
202
1 THE COURT: I take it what you are saying is
2 you would have responded to this?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 THE COURT: I take it over the telephone or --
5 THE WITNESS: Well, he's indicating he wants to
6 meet and talk about it.
7 THE COURT: Okay. To your knowledge, you did
8 not respond to this in writing?
9 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
10 THE COURT: So it either would have been over
11 the phone or in person or something like that?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Okay. Shall I give this back to
14 the clerk?
15 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
16 THE COURT: Madam Clerk.
17 THE WITNESS: Could I explain one point on
18 that, Mr. Dandar?
19 BY MR. DANDAR:
20 Q Yes. Go ahead.
21 A My experience, having worked with some attorneys
22 before I met you, is that when they don't know about the
23 Scientology language and the structure, they can write me a
24 letter like that. And half the time I might even disregard
25 it because they don't even know what they're asking for.
203
1 So that is why we have to sit down and talk until
2 they understand what it is that they're really looking for.
3 Q Well, let me show you Paragraph 12 of the first
4 amended complaint. Take a look at Paragraph 12 and see if
5 you recognize anything in there that you may have
6 contributed to in the formulation of the paragraph.
7 MR. WEINBERG: Is the question whether he
8 actually wrote it or drafted it or something? Is
9 that --
10 MR. DANDAR: Contributed.
11 THE COURT: I think so.
12 MR. WEINBERG: Okay.
13 A I don't recognize it as my style of writing, as
14 having written it. But I know I advised you on the various
15 informations and the content that went into it. But if I
16 would have written it, I wouldn't have written it like that.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q All right.
19 A So obviously you or somebody took the information
20 that I provided and then wrote the paragraph.
21 Q All right. Let me jump and -- well, first off,
22 let me hand you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit
23 102. And this is only one page of a multipage document.
24 I'm trying to -- 102 doesn't look very good on that one.
25 Do you recognize this document?
204
1 A Yes.
2 Q Which is only the first page of October 25, or 26,
3 1971, it's a Flag Order 3057.
4 A Yes.
5 Q Is there -- this is called "Shore Flaps." Is
6 there a difference between a shore flap and a PR flap?
7 A No, it is basically the same. Shore flap is just
8 because this was dealing with the ship and it would dock at
9 certain ports, and so it was a shore flap. But a shore flap
10 and PR flap would be pretty much equivalent.
11 MR. DANDAR: I would like to move that into
12 evidence.
13 MR. WEINBERG: I object, and I don't think we
14 should put part of the policy in.
15 MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the whole thing.
16 I'll copy it during a break and put it in.
17 THE COURT: All right.
18 MR. DANDAR: And I'll substitute the one page
19 and I'll add on the other two pages.
20 MR. WEINBERG: But I would like to see the rest
21 of it to see what the relevance of all this is.
22 MR. DANDAR: Here.
23 THE WITNESS: Do I leave these up here with
24 these?
25 MR. DANDAR: Yes.
205
1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Okay, I want to jump back to Mr. Rinder's
3 approaching you and your wife back in 1994.
4 First of all, you had already turned Mr. Rinder
5 down a few times before Stacy called you and asked you to
6 come to Seattle and meet with Mr. Rinder, correct?
7 A A few times, yes.
8 Q What was it Stacy said to you that finally
9 persuaded you to meet with Mr. Rinder?
10 MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to
11 conversations like that. He has already gone over
12 the subject matter once.
13 THE COURT: I don't think he has gone over with
14 him why it was he changed his mind. I don't know
15 what the hearsay would be.
16 MR. WEINBERG: His conversation with Stacy as
17 to hearsay. He said, "What did Ms. Brooks tell you
18 that caused you to change your mind?"
19 THE COURT: Oh. Technically, what she said to
20 him is hearsay.
21 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
22 THE COURT: However, if it is being used to
23 impeach what she said, then it is not hearsay. I
24 don't remember -- I have absolutely no idea what she
25 said about this, and I certainly don't know what
206
1 he's going to say. So you'll have to be the judge
2 of that.
3 BY MR. DANDAR:
4 Q All right. How did she persuade you to come up
5 there and meet with Mr. Rinder?
6 A In her estimation, she had withdrawn from the
7 consultation work. So the way she put it was, "As long as
8 we are out of this," and I never understood why she made it
9 "we," that "maybe there is a way that we could just extract
10 ourselves and get something out of this," whatever that
11 meant. And that she thought it wouldn't hurt to do it.
12 It wasn't that what she said was persuasive to me
13 as much as I was trying to give her as much support as
14 possible. And if she wanted to do it, it is almost like
15 saying, "Okay, I'll let you do it because you have asked for
16 it." It wasn't a case of what she said as much as she
17 simply asked for it.
18 Q Okay. Do you have your copy of Mr. Rinder's
19 declaration?
20 A No.
21 Q Maybe I --
22 A I wasn't given back that copy.
23 Q It is actually marked, Mr. Weinberg is right, as
24 Plaintiff's Exhibit 15V as in Victor.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
207
1 MR. DANDAR: I'll hand the Court another copy
2 just for convenience.
3 THE COURT: Thank you.
4 MR. DANDAR: Since we already made all that
5 noise copying it. I don't remember using letters
6 but I guess I did.
7 BY MR. DANDAR:
8 Q Did you have a chance, during lunch, to read this
9 affidavit?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And are there any statements made by Mr. Rinder in
12 this affidavit that are not true?
13 A It would be a lot faster if I pointed out to you
14 what was true. It's -- it's such an amazing fabrication of
15 events and descriptions.
16 I had seen this once before, but I only looked it
17 over lightly just to see he was contesting. This is the
18 first time I seriously read it. And it is just staggering
19 with what is being said in here.
20 Q Okay, what is true then?
21 A Well, I didn't mark them. But the fact that he
22 came -- you know, even saying I spent several days in
23 Seattle. Six