IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, by and
through the Personal Representative,
DELL LIEBREICH
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 00-5682-C1
Section 11
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.;
JANIS JOHNSON; ALAIN KARTUZINSKI;
and DAVID HOUGHTON,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
PLAINTIFF'S AND COUNSEL'S CLOSING ARGUMENT TO
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
AND "OMNIBUS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS"
Come now the ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, DELL LIEBREICH, individually, and
their counsel, and respond to the Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and the Motion to
Disqualify Counsel for the Estate filed by the Defendants.
This court spent 35 days in hearing on these motions brought by the CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC's (COSFSO). Michael Garko, and
admitted perjurers, Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks, were its only witnesses to support the motions.
The Estate and its counsel defended based on evidence of extortion by COSFSO against Minton
pursuant to the policy of the Church of Scientology:
"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization,
always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace."
Plaintiff's Ex. 109-C, "HCO Policy Letter of 15 August 1960."
The Estate called 12 witnesses: Peter Alexander, Teresa Summers, Jesse Prince, Brian
Haney, Bill Franks, Robert Young, Frank Oliver, Hana Whitfield, Nancy Many, Ken Dandar, John
Merrett, and Dan Leipold. Not one supported the alleged recantations of the defendants' witnesses:
Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks.
Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc., (COSFSO), named the Estate's
jury/trial consultant, Michael Garko, Ph.D., as a defendant in the Clearwater contract case, which
required Garko to retain an attorney. Then just before it decides to call him as a witness, COSFSO
sends his attorney a letter admitting COSFSO never had any evidence to sue him and dropping him
from the Clearwater case. Defendant's Ex. 189. Two days later, Sandy Weinberg, counsel for
COSFSO meets with Garko and his attorney in secret to prepare him for testifying for COSFSO.
At this time, the COSFSO signs a release for valuable consideration exchanged between the parties
and promised not to sue him. Defendant's Ex 190. The next day, June 11, 2002, COSFSO called
Garko as COSFSO's witness. After he testified, Garko resigned as the Estate's consultant. Contrary
to the amazing statement of the defendants in their Closing Argument that Garko confirms Minton's
and Brooks' recantations, the record is clear that Dr. Garko emphatically denied them all.
64 10 And I said, "Well, when I was with you at your
11 depositions, you know, I never heard anybody, in my
12 presence, encourage you to lie, so I don't know anything
13 about these things."
Michael Garko, June 11, 2002, talking about his conversation with Bob Minton after the first
hearing of "recantation" of April 9, 2002.
100 9 Q And would you agree that the only reason he gave
10 us when he said "I don't trust you anymore" to me is because
11 of these attacks on the Internet?
12 A That was -- that was the thrust of his concern.
13 Q Did he ever say, "You made me lie under oath, Ken
14 Dandar"?
15 A He never said that in my presence.
Garko discussing February 2002 New Hampshire visit with Minton, a visit which Minton requested,
contrary to Minton's court testimony. Pages 23-25.
116
2 Q Okay. Now, did I ever tell Bob Minton to lie
3 about anything?
4 A Not in my presence.
5 Q Did I ever tell Bob Minton to fudge somehow so he
6 didn't have to answer the question truthfully?
7 A Not in my presence.
8 Q Have you ever known me to tell anybody to lie
9 under oath?
10 A No. And I wouldn't work for you if you did.
Garko, June 11, 2002.
I. INTRODUCTION.
The Defendants' entire foundation for this proceeding was the direct examination of Robert
S. Minton. Minton, weakly supported and sometimes contradicted by his mistress, Stacy Brooks,
failed to carry the day for his handlers, the Church of Scientology. His motive for testifying falsely
was solely his desire to meet the Scientology demands of making the Lisa McPherson case "go
away" before Scientology would consider "disengagement" of its continuous "noisy investigation"
of Minton, his family, his friends, and his business associates. The "noisy investigation" is part of
the Church of Scientology's written policies on practicing extortion to force its enemies to "sue for
peace."
Thus, Minton seeks personal benefit from his testimony on direct. However, when
questioned on the identical subject matter on cross-examination, Minton suddenly clammed up and
began steadfastly invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to
erect a wall of incontrovertibility around his testimony on direct, completely thwarting the purpose
of cross-examination, robbing Plaintiff of the chance to impeach Minton's testimony on direct, and
making a mockery of the adversarial process.
Since Minton pled the Fifth Amendment and has refused to identify the name of the financial
institution originating the two UBS checks in question, all of his testimony must be stricken.
Minton is Scientology's agent and witness and is in the position of a claimant, i.e., seeking
affirmative relief for Scientology, by bringing his claim as agent for Scientology against Plaintiff's
counsel alleging subornation of perjury. Minton cannot use the Fifth Amendment as both a sword
and a shield. Consequently, all of his testimony must be stricken. City of St. Petersburg v.
Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Delisi v. Bankers Insurance Company, 436
So.2d 1099 (Fla 4th DCA 1983).
Disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a sanction or remedy of last resort.
... disqualification "strikes at the heart of one of the most
important associational freedoms that a person may have--the
right to choose one's own lawyer ." Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So.2d
1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (Farmer, J., concurring).
Accordingly, disqualification of a party's chosen counsel is a harsh
and drastic sanction and an extraordinary remedy that should be
resorted to sparingly. Lee v. Gadasa Corp., 714 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla.
1st DCA 1998); City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So.2d 641,
644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pascucci v. Pascucci, 679 So.2d 1311
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It is because disqualification is such an
extraordinary sanction that a trial court must exercise its discretion
to disqualify counsel only as a last resort to prevent further
conduct in defiance of the court's order or authority. In Re
Gustafson, 650 F.2d at 1022. Even then, the court's power should
be exercised with great caution, and the court should consider the
use of lesser sanctions before invoking disqualification.
Carnival Corporation v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489, 495-496 (Fla 1st DCA 1999).
In Henriquez v. Temple, 668 So.2d 638 (Fla 3rd DCA 1996), the court upheld
disqualification when the attorney
"deliberately and surreptitiously obtained documents which, after an
in camerainspection, the trial court had previously ordered were not
to be produced. This conduct clearly involved "a situation rife with
the possibility of discredit to the bar and the administration of
justice," see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W., 575 So.2d
630, 634 (Fla.1991), and fully supported the order of disqualification.
Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Fin. Corp., 811 F.Supp. 651
(M.D.Fla.1992), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1439 (11th Cir.1995); State Farm;
Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson, 384 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Indeed, even more serious sanctions, including contempt and bar
discipline, would have been justified on this record.
At 638-639.
The correctness of an order involving the disqualification of counsel
must be determined by testing it against the standards imposed by the
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Cazares v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 429 So.2d 348,
350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)... To require disqualification, prejudice
which would or might result must be more than de minimus.
This narrow construction derives from the policy of the rule and the
committee comment thereto, which notes that the rule was not
designed to permit a lawyer to call opposing counsel as a witness
and thereby disqualify him as counsel. Cazares at 350. The
moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the likelihood that
this prejudice will or might result.
Ray v. Stuckey, 491 So.2d 1211, 1213-1214 (Fla 1st DCA 1986).
The defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof to establish fraud on the court or
any violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Even if the allegations were true, which they
are not, no prejudice has been shown since nothing is material to the plaintiff's claims or the
defenses raised. Ray v. Stuckey.
The allegations against the Estate and its counsel are the result of extortion and pursuant to
an illegal and unethical agreement between admitted perjurers, Robert Minton and Stacy Brooks,
and the Church of Scientology. The evidence conclusively shows that the defendant church and its
counsel have engaged in extortion to attempt to achieve its obvious purpose: dismissal of this case
to save it from liability for monetary damages, bad publicity in the failure of its tech, and
responsibility for the death of its member.
So far, the evidence reveals that Samuel Rosen and MoniqueYingling are directly involved
in the extortion of Minton, and through Minton, the extortion of the Estate and its counsel. The
notes of the first two meetings with confirmatory testimony by church counsel, Monique Yingling,
establishes without reasonable doubt that Minton and Brooks were indeed threatened and made to
falsely accuse Dell Liebreich and her counsel of engaging in criminal activity so that this case would
"go away."
"SJ - outstanding litigation would have to go? Do we mean BM would have to
bring about dismissal of McPherson case.? MR - yes that is what we want."
Yingling notes of March 28, 2002. Michael Rinder, MR, confirming to Minton's lawyer, Steve
Jonas, SJ, that Scientology demands McPherson case be dismissed before Scientology would
entertain "disengagement" with Minton and his family.
The Motion for Terminating Sanctions and the Motion to Disqualify include allegations that
the attempted inclusion of David Miscavige in paragraph 34 of the Fifth Amended Complaint was
filed without any basis in law or fact, with the sole intent to use the suit as a broad attack against
Scientology. This court has since ruled that there was enough evidence for counsel in good faith to
allege Miscavige's involvement in the death of Lisa McPherson.
The timing of these motions, concerning Miscavige and attacking Scientology just before
the scheduled June 2002 trial date, makes it clear that the motions were filed with one purpose: to
derail or delay the trial to create a substantial financial hardship on the Estate and its counsel. This
is the same goal which this court and the Second District Court of Appeal have recognized as being
the real aim of Scientology's discovery.
Scientology never presented any rebuttal to the Estate's expert testimony on the
policies of Scientology, not one expert. If ¶ 34 was thought by defendants to be a sham, then why
wait till April 2002 to file the motion when the first allegation of the culpability of Miscavige is
found in the First Amended Complaint filed December 1997, and in the final Fifth Amended
Complaint served in December 1999? The answer is simple: this motion was planned far in advance
and timed to delay the trial. Due to the overlapping of issues, the Plaintiff incorporates herein its
previous response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I.
Minton and Brooks allege that they have decided to recant their perjury because they wanted
to "set the record straight" as demanded by Scientology, so that they can settle with Scientology.
See Brooks May 3, 2002 hearing testimony at 218-222. They say that Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen
demanded they "set the record straight" commencing at the first meetings on March 28-29,2002.
Yet, in all three sets of these meeting records of church counsel and Minton counsel, there is not
one mention of setting the record straight. Obviously knowing that the notes do not support the
perjured testimony of Minton and Brooks, defense counsel tried to get Mrs. Yingling to testify that
this discussion took place.
4 Q What I was going to ask you is at any time during
5 the first meeting, the meetings in New York on the 28th and
6 the 29th, did you or Mr. Rinder or Mr. Rosen tell Mr. Minton
7 that he had to come clean or set the record straight or
8 anything like that?
... 16 A I don't recall that those phrases were
17 specifically used at that -- at that meeting on the 28th or
18 at the 29th.
19 However, I do believe that in subsequent
20 discussions that we had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, that
21 those expressions were used.
Yingling at 23, June 11, 2002.
This concession shows both Minton and Brooks lying in this court about when this demand was
made, it was made only in Clearwater and only when Minton and Brooks did not have their counsel
present. Per the Yingling typed notes of the first meeting, the first demand of Scientology was for
Minton to make two cases of which he has no control "go away." What is very telling is that after
filing their first "recantation affidavits," Minton and Brooks went to Yingling and Rinder of the
church and had them help them with their second "recantation affidavits." See page 275-276 of
Yingling. This supports the testimony of Jesse Prince, Minton, and Brooks that Scientology hand
delivered to them stacks of transcripts highlighted or otherwise marked that Scientology wanted
Minton and Brooks to address in their recantations.
While Yingling has copious notes of the meetings in New York, when Minton and
Brooks met with her in Clearwater to confess they are perjurers, Yingling conveniently has
no notes! Why is it that when the most important events in this case occur, notes are missing?
All counsel notes of these New York meetings and Jonas' letter to Dandar conclusively show
that the first precondition was for Minton to make the Florida case and the Wollersheim case "go
away." Jonas' letter to Dandar states that the McPherson case must be "dismissed." Plaintiff's Ex.
61. Notice that there is never any mention by Jonas of setting the record straight or perjury.
Brooks, in protecting Scientology, even lied to this court when she denied that Rosen demanded the
McPherson case be dismissed. Brooks May 3, 2002, at 221:8-10. Yet the Yingling notes and the
Jonas letter to Dandar confirm dismissal is a precondition.
II. PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.
A. The Defendants' allegations of perjury and subornation of perjury.
Although Scientology stated to this court as well as Judge Baird that there are only three
items of alleged perjury: 2,4, and 5 below, the basis of the motions has evolved over the course of
the hearing. Defendants allege that the Estate's personal representative and counsel have committed
perjury and suborned perjury of witnesses as follows:
1. False allegations that the church leadership murdered Lisa McPherson.
2. Concealment of agreement to donate bulk of recovery to LMT. (2, 17,22-23).
3. Filing a false Jesse Prince August 99 affidavit, which alleges that leadership let her
die because of PR FLAP. (8).
4. Concealing a secret meeting with Minton to add Miscavige. (11).
5. Lying about receipt of a UBS check dated May, 2000. (19).
6. Lying that Minton money is a loan to counsel rather than to estate . (24).
7. Lying that Minton has no control over this litigation. (27).
8. Concealing that Minton was told of mediation settlement offer (31).
9. Lying about the reason for Prince's withdrawal. (34).
10. Lying that Lisa wanted to quit Scientology. (36).
11. Lying about the disposition of Lisa's 1995 diary. (38).
12. Lying about the presence of Cockroach bites on the body of Lisa McPherson. (40).
13. Procuring the destruction or removal of LMT records. (40-44).
B. Response to allegations of perjury.
1. Church leadership murdered Lisa McPherson.
The Fifth Amended Complaint does not allege premeditated murder.
17 Manslaughter can be by intentional act or by
18 culpable negligence. Which we all know what that
19 is. If you don't, read the jury instructions and
20 you'll find it.
21 I think, as I read the complaint, that that is
22 the path that the plaintiff has alleged. And I
23 think Mr. Dandar confirmed that yesterday.
The Court, May 3, 2002, at page 6
COSFSO is being sued for intentional medical neglect resulting in death. That is how simple
this case is. The proof of intent is not based on any other evidence except that of the medical
experts. The Estate's Scientology experts answer the question::"Why would this happen?"
However, the answer to this question is not an essential element to the wrongful death cause of
action.
More proof of Miscavige's micro-management is his uninvited, unauthorized, and amazingly
brazen appearance to this court's chambers on August 16, 2002, inviting the court to a tour of
COSFSO's new Super Power Building in Clearwater and to answer any question which the court
may have. While this court acted appropriately through the court's judicial assistant in immediately
informing Miscavige that his offer could not be accepted per the judicial canons, this action by
Miscavige as well as his letter to the State Attorney, Bernie McCabe, offering money to obtain
dismissal of the criminal charges over the death of Lisa McPherson, clearly demonstrates his hands-
on management of COSFSO. It must be assumed Miscavige's lawyers would have advised him not
to contact this court as he did. Nevertheless, he proceeded to do so. This is an example of
Scientology's "BY-PASS," where Miscavige by-passes his entire staff, legion of attorneys, and
COSFSO corporate offices to take personal control of the situation at hand. (Plaintiff's Ex. 179,
Danger Condition and By-Pass.)
17 20 THE COURT: I have to stop just for a second.
21 I kind of have to wonder why it is that all this
22 matters. You didn't get service over Mr. Miscavige.
23 He's not, therefore, a defendant in this case. And
24 so whether or not Mr. Miscavige directed something
25 to be done or whether he didn't direct something to
18 1 be done, or whether, if he did it, he did it through
2 RTC or through the Sea Org or whether he didn't,
3 what difference does it make? You don't have
4 Mr. Miscavige.
5 MR. DANDAR: I agree with you 100 percent. But
6 they made it part of their motion to dismiss the
7 case.
8 THE COURT: What?
9 MR. DANDAR: That I alleged that David
10 Miscavige was involved in what happened with Lisa
11 McPherson. He's not a party. That is why I don't
12 know why we're doing all this.
13 THE COURT: Well, I do, because in your
14 pleadings -- in your pleadings, paragraph whatever
15 it is, you allege that he ordered end cycle, he
16 ordered her dead. That is why it is here.
17 Quite frankly, what -- it wouldn't matter to me
18 if he ordered it or Alain Kartuzinski. That is the
19 issue, is it ordered as far as damages are
20 concerned.
21 I mean, quite frankly, the Church presumably
22 would be responsible for their agents and any
23 damages that were attributable to their agents. I
24 have not heard anybody say that Mr. Kartuzinski,
25 Ms. Johnson or Mr. Houghton were not agents of the
19 1 Church of Scientology.
2 So I mean, the person you sued and the person
3 who you have jurisdiction over is COSFSO. Now, if
4 COSFSO doesn't have any money, in case you get a
5 judgment, and that is why you are trying to bring
6 the Sea Org into it, save it for another day.
During Shaw testimony, June 13, 2002.
Like any other Scientology litigation, COSFSO, in following Scientology policy, turns a
mustard seed into a California redwood. The allegations are indeed against the Church leadership,
which this court has already stated enough evidence existed for counsel to allege this in good faith.
148 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you, your Honor.
12 A Technically, the senior CS FSO, Alain Kartuzinski,
13 would have been in charge of her. But he would have been
14 reporting up line.
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q To who?
17 A To senior CS International, Ray Mithoff, probably
18 to the executive director of the FSO, Debbie Naughton, and
19 could be to the Department of Special Affairs.
Hana Whitfield, July 16, 2002.
Other Scientology experts have testified that David Miscavige is a micro-manager and would
be involved with decision-making over Lisa McPherson.
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
.
Robert Vaughn Young, at 158:
3 - that this person, who was PTS
4 III, in the introspection rundown, that this would
5 have been reported to the top; to Mr. Miscavige?
6 THE WITNESS: Without a doubt.
154
18 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I -- in my opinion --
19 I -- I know David -- up to '81. I know he's a
20 real earnest kind of guy. He's -- he's a real
21 micromanager type of guy. So he was probably
22 watching this all of the time.
191
3 A He would have been all over this like white on
4 rice.
Bill Franks, June 13, 2002, at page 150:
Even a public member, Peter Alexander, testified that Miscavige is not disinterested in other
areas outside of the RTC, no matter how insignificant. Alexander, former Vice President of
Universal Studios and a former "celebrity" in Scientology, who was involved with the design of the
new Super Power building in Clearwater, testified that Miscavige even involved himself in
architectural matters at COSFSO, such as the Super Power Building. Alexander at 85, June 7, 2002.
MLO staff nurse, Judy Goldsberry Weber, testified that Miscavige would hold meetings at
COSFSO questioning staff on daily operations and once brought people through the MLO on a tour.
7 Q. Where did you meet David Miscavage (sic)?
8 A. I had two occasions on which he came to the MLO
9 office, was showing people around. I have met him
10 on a dozen occasions.
11 I actually met him in what we call the Green
12 Room in the back of the auditorium. There was some
13 questions he wanted answered from an MLO hat and I
14 went back and had an interview on a one-on-one with
15 him.
16 Q. When was the time that he was showing people the
17 MLO office at COSFSO in Clearwater?
18 A. It was right after we opened. We had the area
19 renovated. It had been just two offices and we
20 renovated and put in the dentist office. And so
21 that would be the -- December of '94 is when we did
22 the renovations.
Weber deposition at 146, March 27, 2000.
Brian Haney, a former Ohio staff member and COSFSO public, testified as to his opinion
on the involvement of Miscavige in the death of Lisa McPherson.
11 Q And that didn't make perfect sense to you, did it,
12 that -- that David Miscavige, as the complaint said, ordered
13 Lisa McPherson to die? That didn't make perfect sense to
14 you, did it?
15 A It only made sense to me in the context that
16 Teresa Summers, at that time, relayed to me an incident
17 where another person was actually ordered to drop their
18 body, which means die, in Scientology. And I was very
19 shocked by that.
Haney at 183, June 19, 2002.
Teresa Summers did testify about the matter of Kartuzinski processing an ill man at FLAG
to drop his body, i.e., die.
34 1 Okay, so I believe there was a messenger who had
2 been being kept at the Ft. Harrison. And he was being
3 watched. And he couldn't take care of himself, and he was
4 being fed.
5 And it was explained to me that he was ill, had
6 some kind of -- I think they said muscle -- she said
7 muscle-wasting disease. And they needed to move him.
8 However, her policy -- you are really not supposed
9 to keep people around who are sick like this. You are not
10 there to take care of the ill. Basically, they are down
11 stats. And that is not what Flag is all about. They are
12 there to take the able people and make them more able.
13 So even the fact they were caring for him, they
14 weren't supposed to be doing that, but they needed to move
15 him because he was on -- whatever floor he was on needed
16 renovations.
35 23 A Okay. So, Mmm, so the solution was -- the way it
24 was explained to me by Mr. Englehart was Alain Kartuzinski
25 was going in and audit him
36 1 Q Alain Kartuzinski?
2 A Right.
3 THE COURT: Who told you this?
4 A The commanding officer, who was my immediate
5 senior.
6 THE COURT: Who was?
7 THE WITNESS: Laurie Englehart.
... 19 A Mmm, oh, so Alain was going to go in and audit him
20 to help him drop his body. And then he did. I mean, it
21 took about three days, I think, but three days later she
22 came back and said, okay, so it has been done and he's done.
23 And that was it, that is the last I heard.
24 Q So the renovations could go forward?
25 A Right, so the renovations could move forward.
Summers, June 10, 2002.
2. Concealment of agreement to donate bulk of recovery to LMT.
Prior to this hearing, Minton always testified under oath correctly that there was no
agreement between him and the ESTATE to donate any portion of the money which may be
received by the ESTATE in this case. In every one of his depositions, beginning with the first one
in 1998, he denied any agreement to receive any money from this case, except what he loaned to
counsel. At this hearing, he falsely testified that his December 2000 affidavit, stating there was no
agreement, was false, yet it supports his prior deposition testimony of May 2000, as pointed out by
the court at page 673 of Minton's hearing testimony.
65 14 A Well, he says, I've already had that idea but I haven't
15 discussed it with Dell Liebreich yet.
16 Q Has he since told you that he discussed it with
17 Ms. Liebreich?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What did he say?
20 A He said she agreed to do just that.
21 Q When did he tell you this?
22 A I think the 5th of December.
23 Q What cult awareness group was agreed on?
24 A No specific groups were discussed. The only one that
66 1 was discussed was one that Mr. Lottick is involved in...
Minton first deposition of 1-19-98.
13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with
14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any
17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
18 A. No.
Minton deposition of May 24, 2000 at 239.
158 18 Q Do you know of anyone else investing in the case?
19 MR. MERRETT: Objection. Assumes facts not
20 in evidence, argumentative.
21 THE COURT: Overruled.
22 MR. MERRETT: Do you know of anybody
23 investing?
24 A I don't know of anyone investing in the case,
25 including me.
Minton deposition of 9-18-01.
269
10 Q. Exhibit 34, Mr. Minton, this is a posting
11 by Mr. Bunker, who is employed at the LMT, right?
12 A. He was at that time, that's correct.
13 Q. Right. And the time is April 6th, 2001?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This posting? I want to direct your
16 attention to one portion of this posting. It's the
17 next to the last page of the document, and if you
18 look -- can I see the copy you're holding just to
19 make sure we are at the same place? Yeah. If you
20 look at the last paragraph on the page, starting
21 four lines up from the bottom of the page:
22 Additionally, Scientology is aware that the family
23 of Lisa McPherson has agreed to donate the bulk of
24 any funds they receive from this litigation to the
25 Lisa McPherson Trust, which Bob recently set up in
270
1 Clearwater.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. And is that statement accurate?
5 A. It's not.
6 Q. Huh?
7 A. It's not.
8 Q. What is incorrect about it?
9 A. It's just completely incorrect.
10 Q. Is there anything that's right about it?
11 A. No.
... 18 Q. Did the family of Lisa McPherson agree to
19 donate the bulk of any funds?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do they agree to donate anything?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Had they ever agreed to do so?
24 A. No.
Minton deposition of 10-11-01.
On page 44 of COSFSO'S closing, it states that Minton admitted in his May 24, 2000,
deposition that the Estate does have an agreement to donate a bulk of the proceeds to the LMT.
COSFSO refers to pages 391-392 of the deposition. However, as is common with the defendants,
and hopefully not with the Estate, the defendants do not "tell the rest of the story" of clarifying
testimony. Here it is. At 219 of his May 2000 deposition, Minton is speaking of the one and only
agreement, i.e., repayment of the money he loaned to Dandar as explained in Minton's 1998
deposition.
219 2 Q. Is the agreement that you just described
3 with Mr. Dandar in writing?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Is it memorialized in any fashion?
6 A. In the depositions that I've done before.
7 Q. It's memorialized in writing no other
8 place except where your words have been
9 transcribed?
10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. It's not necessary.
13 Q. Is there any writing with any of Lisa
14 McPherson's relatives --
15 A. No.
16 Q. -- with respect to this agreement?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Was there ever?
19 A. No.
223
1 Q. Have you talked to Dell Liebreich about
2 what would happen to the hoped for proceeds in this
3 case?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Have you had any discussion with her about
6 money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust?
7 A. No.
8 Q. It's never happened?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family
11 about money coming to the Lisa McPherson Trust
12 arising out of the hoped for proceeds of this case?
13 A. No. No.
14 Q. Have you talked to anyone in the family
15 about potential proceeds in this case going to a,
16 quote, anticult, end quote, organization?
17 A. No.
239 10 Q. Have you had any written communications
11 with any other family member I haven't mentioned?
12 A. Not to my knowledge.
13 Q. Do you have any agreement of any kind with
14 the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Does the Lisa McPherson Trust have any
17 agreement with the Estate of Lisa McPherson?
18 A. No.
18 Q. Now, January 31st, 2000, you appeared on a
19 talk show, 1270 AM, WXYT Detroit --
20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. -- where you said, and I quote: The
22 family who I have been supporting in the civil
23 lawsuit have agreed that when and if they prevail
24 against the Church of Scientology in this lawsuit,
25 they will donate a very substantial amount of the
392 1 proceeds of that lawsuit to this organization
2 called the Lisa McPherson Trust.
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Do you remember saying that?
5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 Q. So how much have you agreed with them that
7 they will donate to the Lisa McPherson Trust if
8 they prevail in this lawsuit?
9 A. I haven't had any direct discussions with
10 them about it.
11 Q. Where did you get this information, that
12 they were going to donate a substantial amount of
13 the proceeds of the lawsuit to the Lisa McPherson
14 Trust?
15 A. Mr. Dandar.
16 Q. When did he tell you that?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. What did he tell you?
19 A. Just what it said.
20 Q. What did you understand the substantial
21 amount of the proceeds to be?
22 A. A substantial amount of money.
23 Q. What year did he tell you that?
24 A. '98 or '99.
25 Q. Well, actually, the Lisa McPherson Trust
393 1 didn't exist until November '99.
2 A. The Lisa McPherson Trust has nothing to do
3 with it.
4 Q. What do you mean?
5 A. Oh, that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that part,
6 yes. So that would have been '99.
7 Q. What do you mean the trust has nothing to
8 do with it? Was there a prior agreement --
9 A. No.
10 Q. -- that money would be donated to
11 A. No. There was a discussion at one stage
12 that they would, and this was with Mr. Dandar over
13 lunch, which I think I testified to in January
14 '93 -- January '97 -- whenever the
15 MR. BOULT: That's outside the scope.
16 A. '98. Sorry. Okay.
17 MR. DANDAR: Objection; outside the
18 scope.
19 A. -- that they would support the anticult
20 community with a significant amount of money from
21 this lawsuit.
22 Q. All right. When did Mr. Dandar tell you
23 that the family is going to make a substantial
24 amount -- provide a substantial amount of the
25 proceeds to the Lisa McPherson Trust?
394 1 A. Sometime -- I don't remember whether it
2 was before or after it was formed.
3 Q. It may have been before?
4 A. It could have been. I mean, you know,
5 that sort of time frame. That would be roughly
6 summer through late fall.
7 Q. Was it around September of 1999 when he
8 told you that?
9 A. Excuse me?
10 Q. Was it around September of 1999 that
11 Mr. Dandar told you that a substantial amount of
12 the proceeds of this lawsuit would be donated to
13 the Lisa McPherson Trust?
14 A. That falls within the time range that I
15 think, you know, between summer and fall of '99,
16 late fall.
17 Q. Was it before or after you gave Mr. Dandar
18 the $250,000 payment?
19 A. Do you know when that was?
20 Q. Well, apparently it was on or about
21 September 2nd, 1999.
22 A. I don't recall that that particular thing
23 had anything to do with it, you know, time-wise.
24 Q. Was it before or after that?
25 A. I don't remember.
395 1 Q. What was the context when Mr. Dandar told
2 you that you were going to get this money back from
3 the family?
4 MR. MERRETT: I'll object; argumentative,
5 assumes facts not in evidence.
6 A. I've already testified to that prior, in
7 a prior deposition.
8 Q. No. I'm talking about the communication
9 you had with him about the Lisa McPherson Trust
10 since the prior deposition of the trust didn't
11 exist, right?
12 A. No, but you asked when I was going to get
13 the money back.
14 Q. Okay. So what was the context of the
15 communication you had with Mr. Dandar when you
16 talked to him about the family providing a
17 substantial amount of the proceeds in this case to
18 the Lisa McPherson Trust?
19 A. There was no particular context. It was
20 just, you know, the family was very supportive of
21 the idea of setting up this organization, you know,
22 something like that. I don't remember any
23 particular context.
24 Q. What did the family think this
25 organization was?
396 1 A. A Scientology watchdog group.
2 Q. Did they -- did you give them the
3 impression it was a nonprofit organization?
4 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object for
5 scope and relevance.
6 MR. BOULT: Overruled.
7 A. You know, I didn't give them any direct
8 impression. Whatever impression they got,
9 Mr. Dandar gave it to them. It was intended to be
10 nonprofit until such time as we determined that
11 there was too much transparency in a nonprofit and
12 the Church of Scientology would be snooping around
13 all the time, like you're doing here in this
14 deposition.
15 Q. Did you have a discussion with the family
16 about that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So everybody understood it would be
19 nonprofit early on?
20 MR. MERRETT: I'm going to object as
21 being -- I apologize.
22 Q. Let me give you the question again.
23 Generally, when y'all were talking about starting
24 this organization, it was understood it was going
25 to be nonprofit, correct?
397 1 MR. MERRETT: And I'll object as being
2 beyond the scope. It's going into the
3 internal affairs of the trust.
4 MR. DANDAR: Join in the objection.
5 MR. BOULT: Overruled.
6 A. We all talked as though it were going to
7 be nonprofit, that's pretty much accurate except --
8 except I did say that, you know, we have to examine
9 the transparency issue with a nonprofit.
10 Q. Okay. Did you have any -- you had some
11 communications with Dell Liebreich and she was
12 supportive of --
13 A. No, not on that subject.
14 MR. MERRETT: Let him finish the question.
15 Q. Well, let me finish the question. You
16 had some communications with Dell Liebreich and she
17 was supportive of the idea of setting up this
18 organization, right?
19 A. I didn't have any communications with Dell
20 Liebreich.
21 Q. Who did you have communications with in
22 the family you told me were supportive of setting
23 up --
24 A. Mr. Dandar. He told me the family was
25 very supportive of the idea of setting up this
398 1 organization.
2 Q. Okay. Who in the family would that be?
3 A. I don't know who he talked with but I
4 assume Dell Liebreich.
5 Q. And you later worked out with Mr. Dandar
6 that this was going to be a for profit company,
7 correct?
8 A. Mr. Dandar had nothing to do with the
9 decision that it was going to be a for profit
10 corporation.
In this testimony, Minton states there is no agreement for the bulk of anything. Then he is
confronted with unsworn media interview. While he states that his interview statements are correct,
he finally admits he has no agreement with the family or the Estate, and that all he knows is that the
family thought it was a good "idea." Id.,at 395:19-23; 397:25. Even Minton admits that the idea
was to support the "anti-cult community," not the LMT or Minton. 393:19-21. What Minton did
was take the family's idea and turn it into his plan, which is exactly what his confidante, Brain
Haney, testified to at this hearing. Haney at 88-91, June 19, 2002. The idea never turned into an
agreement with Minton or the LMT.
Minton talks of the same luncheon meeting he had with Dandar in 1997. All of this
conforms to his deposition testimony of January 1998 and the beneficiaries testimony of December
1999, i.e., the family's idea to set up a foundation in the memory of Lisa McPherson, not with
Minton or the LMT. It was an idea of the family and a noble one at that.
Now after making his deal with Scientology, he claims he lied in all of his depositions with
his own counsel present and that the ESTATE'S counsel suborned his perjury.
No one supports Minton's new lie on this subject, not even Brooks. Her affidavit is
insufficient under Section 92.525(4)(c), Florida Statutes, since it merely states "upon information
and belief."
Section 92.525(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1993) states that "[t]he
requirement that a document be verified means that the document
must be signed or executed by a person and that the person must state
under oath or affirm that the facts or matters stated or recited in the
document are true, or words of that import or effect." Further,
section 92.525(2) authorizes verification solely on information and
belief only where "permitted by law." See State, Department of
Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Padilla, 629 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1993) (verification on information or belief permissible under
section 322.2615(2), Florida Statutes (1991), where statute
authorized affidavit stating "officer's grounds for belief" that person
arrested had violated section 316.193), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 980
(Fla.1994). The term document includes pleadings. 92.525(4)(b)
(1993).
Muss v. Lennar Florida Partners I, L.P., 673 So.2d 84 (Fla 3th DCA 1996).
However, in Brooks' hearing testimony, she cleared up this uncertainty and said she lied
about there not being an agreement for the Estate to give the bulk of any recovery to the LMT.
Brooks at 283-284, May 6, 2002. This means she perjured herself and never told her own attorney.
Minton's own attorney, John Merrett, admits that Minton's Internet postings to give the bulk
to the LMT or Minton were false, only intended to rile up Scientology.
25 9 A So far as I was able to discern, the statements
10 that he made in connection -- directly in connection with
11 the litigation in deposition and in testimony were truthful.
12 The public statements and Internet statements
13 were, to a substantial degree, calculated at needling
14 Scientology, sometimes, I had the impression, creating
15 disturbance or distraction for Scientology's Office of
16 Special Affairs and those folks.
17 BY MR. DANDAR:
18 Q So radio, newspapers, speeches out in public,
19 Internet postings, he said and did things to rile up
20 Scientology?
21 A Correct.
22 THE COURT: Some of which were not exactly
23 true?
24 THE WITNESS: According to my understanding at
25 the time, yes.
May 23, 2002, John Merrett.
John Merrett destroys both Minton's and Brooks' testimony on the allegation of an
agreement to give any portion of a settlement/judgment proceeds to Minton or the LMT.
THE COURT:
73 22 . . . Like I said -- I have said, there is no
21 agreement. But that is what we're calling the
22 secret agreement.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
24 THE COURT: Now, what I recall is that
25 Ms. Brooks said she testified falsely about it in
74
1 her deposition. So I'm going to assume that she
2 said in her deposition it didn't exist because she
3 now says it did exist.
4 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, by application of
5 reason, she would have had to have said it didn't
6 exist because my understanding was that it didn't
7 exist.
8 THE COURT: So it didn't exist. So your
9 understanding was it didn't exist?
10 THE WITNESS: Correct.
John Merrett, May 23, 2002.
Contrary to Minton's and Brooks' testimony, John Merrett testified that he prepared
affidavits for Minton and Brooks to sign denying such an agreement existed. (Merrett, page 31-36,
May 23, 2002.) Either Minton and Brooks lied to their own attorney or they are lying now. The
latter is the truth.
Other witnesses also confirmed that Minton is lying. Brian Haney, once a trial consultant to
the Plaintiff, once a member of the LMT, once a confidant of Minton, testified:
6 Q At that dinner did you hear Dell Liebreich tell
7 Bob Minton that she wanted to give him or his
8 organization -- which the trust was already formed at that
9 time -- any bulk or substantial amount of the money if
10 recovered in this case?
11 A No. What happened was I suggested to you that Bob
12 Minton do something like that. But she didn't say anything
13 like that at all.
14 Q When did you suggest that to me?
15 A Right there at the dinner.
16 Q Was that in front of Bob Minton?
17 A No.
18 Q That was just a private conversation between you
19 and I?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So you predicted Bob Minton would do what?
22 A Would claim that money belonged to him. That in
23 return for funding the wrongful death case, that he or the
24 trust would be entitled to that money.
25 Q Why did you predict that? I mean, what made you
90 1 even think that?
2 A I had some experience with Mr. Minton and his
3 behavior by that time.
4 Q In what way?
5 A He's what I called assumptive and presumptive. He
6 would -- you know, he would take over a situation and
7 commandeer it and think that it was his right to just be in
8 charge or take over things that I don't think were within
9 his -- you know, his domain.
10 Q Did you ever hear, later on, Bob Minton claim that
11 he had some agreement with me or the estate to get the bulk
12 or substantial amount of any recovery in this case?
13 A I read a thing on the Internet where he said it in
14 a radio program, that -- that -- first he said that the
15 money was supposed to go to an anti-cult organization.
16 And then at some point later he said it was
17 supposed to go to the LMT. And that is when I called you
18 and I said, "See," so, yes -- "it happened."
19 Q And what -- did I respond to when you called and
20 said, "See, it happened"?
21 MR. WEINBERG: Now Mr. Dandar is asking for
22 Mr. Haney to apparently parrot self-serving
23 statements that Mr. Dandar made which is hearsay.
24 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 MR. DANDAR: All right.
91 1 BY MR. DANDAR:
2 Q Did you ever talk to Bob Minton about that --
3 A Yes.
4 Q -- Internet posting?
5 A Yes. About that situation, yes.
6 Q What did he say?
7 MR. WEINBERG: Could we date this conversation,
8 please?
9 MR. DANDAR: We will.
10 A He kind of -- he --
11 THE COURT: Well, do it now.
12 MR. DANDAR: Okay.
13 BY MR. DANDAR:
14 Q When did you talk to Bob Minton about his
15 postings?
16 THE COURT: Approximately, if you can give us
17 an approximate year, month.
18 THE WITNESS: End of January of 2000.
19 THE COURT: This would have been after he had
20 been on the radio proclaiming that he had the deal?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
22 BY MR. DANDAR:
23 Q What did he say?
24 A He kind of laughed and he said, "I guess I got a
25 little carried away, huh?" Then he had a big smile.
92 1 Q What impression were you left with after that
2 conversation?
3 A That he had done what I thought he would do.
4 Just, you know, take it over. Because he just figured no
5 one would oppose him. He figured he had the power to get
6 what he wanted because you were dependent upon him to
7 finance the case. Most of the other people were dependent
8 upon him for their livelihood. The same way he got them to
9 picket. It is all the same thing.
10 Q Did he ever tell you that rather than just being
11 carried away, did he ever tell you that he actually had an
12 agreement with the estate or with me for the estate to give
13 him any recovery out of the wrongful death case?
14 A No. And, in fact, I called you and asked you, and
15 I called Dell and asked her after that, you know.
16 And you both confirmed it wasn't true. I just
17 wanted to make sure that there wasn't something going on I
18 didn't know about.
Brian Haney hearing testimony of June 19-2002.
Teresa Summers, a former executive of the LMT, also confirmed that there was no
agreement.
4 Q Okay. Did you ever hear anyone at the Lisa
5 McPherson Trust talk about there being some type of
6 agreement between the estate and the trust or Minton to pay
7 the bulk of the proceeds from the settlement or judgment in
8 the Lisa McPherson case to Mr. Minton or the LMT?
9 A Well, I spoke with Stacy about that because I --
10 the allegations were being made, I believe in depositions,
11 that that was the case. And, Mmm, and I did ask Stacy.
12 And she said, "No, you know, certainly that is not
13 true. It is just what the Church is trying to drum up to
14 create problems."
15 Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton talk about that?
16 A I'm sure I did. And he said the same thing, you
17 know, you know, "There is no agreement. It's -- you know,
18 it's just them drumming up stuff."
Summers hearing testimony of June 6, 2002, at 99.
COSFSO's own witness, Michael Garko, Ph.D., Plaintiff's jury/trial consultant, who met
in secret with Minton and Brooks following the April 9, 2002 hearing, who also secretly met with
Mr Weinberg the day before he testified, and who later resigned as the Estate's trial consultant after
testifying in this court, also denied such an agreement existed.
2 Q Dr. Garko, are you aware of any agreement between
3 me or the estate and Mr. Minton or LMT or Stacy Brooks or
4 anybody where the bulk of the proceeds, if that ever comes
5 about in this case, would ever be given to them?
6 A I'm not aware of any such agreement.
7 Q How about just a little bit?
8 A No.
Garko at page 100 on June 11, 2002.
The only agreement concerning the settlement/judgment proceeds is one which exists among
the aunts and uncle of Lisa McPherson. No third party, such as Minton, Brooks, or the LMT, is part
of this family goal, which is to set up a non profit foundation to help those abused by cults, such as
Scientology. This is what Lisa's mother, Fannie McPherson, wanted.
187 10 Q. Now have you or your family agreed to donate
11 the bulk of any recovery to cult awareness
12 groups?
13 A. We've discussed it, yes.
14 Q. Who --
15 A. Fannie wanted us to if there was anything.
16 Q. Who has discussed it?
17 A. My family.
18 Q. Well, who in your family?
19 A. Ann and Fan -- Lee and Sam.
20 Q. Is there a written agreement as to that?
21 A. No written agreement.
22 Q. Well, how much -- how much have you-all
23 decided to donate to cult awareness groups?
24 A. It is a substantial amount.
25 Q. Well, how much?
188 1 A. We have no set amount.
2 Q. Have you reached some understanding with
3 your beneficiaries?
4 A. We have agreed that that is what Fannie
5 would have wanted, and that is what we want
6 to do.
7 Q. How do you know that that is what Fannie
8 would have wanted?
9 A. Because she stated that she wanted --
10 Q. Stated to whom?
11 A. To us.
12 Q. When?
13 A. Before she died.
14 Q. When did you and the other -- and your other
15 siblings reach this agreement?
16 A. When did we reach the agreement?
17 Q. Yeah. To --
18 A. I don't remember when it was.
19 Q. -- distribute a substantial portion of any
20 recovery to a cult awareness group.
21 A. Oh, a few months ago or whatever. I don't
22 remember the date. We have nothing written.
Dell Liebreich deposition, May 24, 1999.
This court correctly held that there is nothing illegal about the Estate wanting to give any
portion of any recovery to any person or group. There is no reason for anyone to lie about this.
Unless of course, one is like Minton, who makes things up to rile up Scientology. Only a group,
such as Scientology, who does not want victims of cult abuse helped, would make such an honorable
goal appear unseemly.
Many times throughout the testimony of Minton, this court stated to Minton that there is no
evidence of an agreement. Minton and Brooks stand alone in this lie.
3. Allegation that Jesse Prince August 99 affidavit is false.
First, notice that Scientology does not attack the statements of fact in Prince's affidavit. It
only attacks his opinion. How can an expert have a false opinion? Weinberg attacks Prince by
calling him a janitor, yet the evidence shows Prince was the auditor of David Miscavige and the
Case Supervisor for the few but celebrated Hollywood members of Scientology.
Prince's opinion is that Miscavige and two other executives knew of Lisa's medical
condition and did nothing about it because of concern of a PR Flap. The opinion is based on
Prince's experience in RTC and his knowledge of Scientology policy. This is also confirmed by
Bill Franks, Robert Young, and Hana Whitfield.
Why does Prince conclude management did nothing in the face of an extremis medical
condition?
339 9 So instead of taking this girl to the hospital
10 where she should have belonged, where their own policy says
11 to do, and get her medical treatment, when it was obvious,
12 by the reports that I have seen that she was ill, instead of
13 doing that, no, we're going to keep doing Scientology
14 because that is what it means by Keeping Scientology Working
15 and, you know, what happens happens. Some of them don't
16 make it. Too bad.
17 But the biggest fear for Scientology was to let
18 this girl go, in the state of mind where she was refusing to
19 cooperate with them, caused them more problems than her
20 actual death.
353 20 A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these
21 issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black
22 writing, called staff writing; the only -- this is the way I
23 opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated
24 this way is because she was a threat to Scientology.
25 And Scientology has a principle called the
354 1 greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The
2 dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron
3 Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it
4 was.
5 In Scientology, the overriding principle is to
6 protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to
7 go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what
8 Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them,
9 possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement
10 because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not
11 anything anyone wanted to deal with.
Prince July 8, 2002.
Why is a PR FLAP at the Ft. Harrison Hotel so important?
10 Q Now, have you been inside the Ft. Harrison Hotel?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Is the Ft. Harrison Hotel, within your experience,
13 20 years, someplace that a member who is psychotic would
14 stay?
15 A No.
16 Q Now, you already talked about the Flag having an
17 order?
18 A Right. That is right.
19 Q But are there other reasons why a psychotic
20 wouldn't be inside the hotel?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Why?
23 A Because the Flag -- Ft. Harrison is for public.
24 Usually the wealthiest Scientology public are there getting
25 their services. And they are running around and milling
32 1 about, and you just wouldn't risk -- you would not risk
2 having someone who is crazy get in touch with -- with, you
3 know, these people. You just wouldn't do that.
4 Q People like John Travolta and Tom Cruise stay
5 there?
6 A I have seen John Travolta there. Tom Cruise may
7 not have stayed there. I don't know personally.
8 Q John Travolta?
9 A Yes, John Travolta. I saw Ann Archer there. But
10 not just wealthy stars. Very wealthy people from all over
11 the world. The wealthiest people from Scientology come
12 there.
13 Q The Super Power project in Clearwater for the
14 Church of Scientology, have you heard of that?
15 A Sure.
16 Q Is that that big building they are building on Ft.
17 Harrison?
18 A Right.
19 Q Right across from the hotel?
20 A Yes.
Summers, June 10, 2002, former Commanding Office at FLAG.
Jesse Prince concurs and offers this further explanation.
359 1 this person has just attested to being almost
2 superhuman. This person has been in the community
3 here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations,
4 on behalf of the COSFSO Service Organization, setting
5 up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT
6 committee whose responsibility is to interface
7 Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a
8 low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person.
340
8 Q At RTC, who were the meetings with that you had?
9 A Flaps and handling? They would entail myself,
10 Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yaeger, David Miscavige, Lymon Sperlock,
11 Norman Starkey (phonetic), in some instances the executive
12 director in the national if it had to do with stats. But
13 those were the people that ultimately had to know what was
14 going on.
15 Now, why is COSFSO Service Organization so
16 important? Because the COSFSO Service Organization, when I
17 left here in 1982, made an income of over 2 million a week.
18 So you have an organization here that makes $8 million in a
19 month. This is -- it is the highest income-producing
20 organization within Scientology.
21 It's a major concern that everything is perfect at
22 the COSFSO Service Organization. There is not going to be an
23 instance where no one knows what is going on. So in the
24 staff meetings you talk about flaps and handling.
25 Well, Lisa is a flap. It's reported up the lines
341 1 OSA is there from the very beginning because she is a legal
2 threat because it is a flap. And they are busy reporting,
3 you know, on the legal side of it and what is going on and
4 the repercussions.
5 They are also coordinating and in liaison with the
6 technical area that has the technical program that they are
7 trying to get her through, which in their minds is going to
8 cure her.
9 Everyone knows -- I believe there is also
10 testimony on the -- during the time period that Lisa was
11 going through this trouble, Mr. Miscavige was there. We
12 would often go to the COSFSO Service Organization, to inspect
13 it, to make sure it is running properly, to make sure this
14 technology is being applied 100 percent standard.
Prince at 340, July 8, 2002.
This allegation of perjury incorporates the first allegation above plus the remaining
allegations that Lisa died because her death would be less of a PR FLAP than taking her back to
the Morton Plant Hospital. Jesse Prince is the only Estate witness who worked closely with
Miscavige at RTC. Prince testified that there was a delay in doing anything for Lisa because to take
her back in her deteriorated physical condition to the Morton Plant Hospital would be a huge PR
FLAP. Hana Whitfield concurs that a PR Flap would be a matter of great concern.
154 16 Q And are you familiar with the term "PR flap" in
17 Scientology?
18 A Yes. Public relations flap.
19 Q Would Lisa McPherson, in November of 1995, be
20 considered a PR flap?
21 A I would think so.
22 MR. MOXON: Objection to the form.
23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 A I would think so, definitely.
129 9 THE COURT: I mean, short something Mr. Prince
10 said, which some orders came down from Mr. Miscavige
11 that said murder her, let her die. Frankly, there
12 is no evidence of that.
13 THE WITNESS: There is no evidence of that.
14 THE COURT: There just is not.
15 THE WITNESS: No, and I won't expect there to
16 be that kind of evidence in a preclear folder. And
17 that is the kind of -- Mmm, I wouldn't -- I won't
18 necessarily go that far. I don't personally know
19 Mr. Miscavige. But I do know Mr. Hubbard's -- some
20 of the policies he wrote that went a little
21 overboard.
22 And -- and I know of one instance -- and this
23 goes back a bit into the '70s, I think -- when a
24 Scientologist was dying of cervical cancer in Los
25 Angeles. Her name was Sally Chaleff, C-H-A-L-E-F-F.
130 1 And she had had no medical care so the cervical
2 cancer wasn't caught in time. And -- Mmm -- she was
3 doing very badly. And when visited, she said,
4 "Well, I'm -- I'm just here to die now. That is
5 what I have been told. I'm just here to die."
6 Now, that is the only time I know or have heard
7 that statement.
8 THE COURT: In Scientology?
9 THE WITNESS: In Scientology. I have never
10 seen anything like that in print or in a policy
11 letter.
133 3 In a case such as Lisa's -- in the case of
4 auditing, Mr. Hubbard's belief as reflected in his
5 bulletins, his technical bulletins, was that if I'm
6 suffering with arthritis or whatever and I go and
7 get auditing, I'll get better because the auditing
8 addresses, in my mind, my own impurities,
9 negativities and so forth. But I have created -- it
10 allows me to look at those, remove those and
11 therefore I get better.
12 So everything that happens to one is one's own
13 fault.
14 In the case of Lisa, if she got into the
15 condition that she was of such unsound mind that she
16 couldn't even get an auditing session, it was her
17 own fault. That would be the predominating belief.
18 That was her own fault that she was in that
19 condition.
20 When I got into trouble with Scientology when I
21 was leaving and I left on my own, I was declared a
22 suppressive person; it was my own fault, it was my
23 overts, my misdeeds. It is always the person's
24 fault.
25 So in the case of Lisa, again my surmise, when
134 1 she didn't rapidly get through 00 and 000, she was
2 doing herself in, which is a common expression in
3 Scientology, auditors use it, case supervisors use
4 it; "Oh, this person is just doing himself in, it's
5 his own fault that he's going through all these
6 problems."
7 So even though the lower-level workers -- the
8 watchers who weren't necessarily that trained and
9 aware that heavily of it's always your fault, they
10 were there, they were honestly trying to look after
11 Lisa. That is my belief. They were in there
12 pitching. But higher up the ranks, middle, top
13 management, the opinion may have come about that
14 there is nothing more we can do, there is nothing we
15 can do for this girl.
138 9 THE COURT: -- they would have believed this
10 process would have worked.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, unless it got to a point,
12 your Honor, where Lisa just wasn't getting better,
13 she was deteriorating day by day slowly. And in
14 that case, they would have seen the decline and they
15 may have changed their mind on the fact the
16 introspection rundown is going to work, keep at it.
139 9 I'm just wondering whether
8 or not it is not there, Mr. Kartuzinski lost it, it
9 got lost in the shuffle, what could we have expected
10 to see on this sheet that would be so bad that
11 somebody in the alternative said, "Oh, this is too
12 bad, we're just going to take it out and shred it"?
13 Can you think of anything?
14 THE WITNESS: The only thing I can think of is
15 Mr. Kartuzinski may have ordered she be allowed to
16 die.
17 THE COURT: But you have no evidence of that?
18 THE WITNESS: No, absolutely nothing. And that
19 is just stuff I have heard. But I have no evidence
20 of it at all.
21 THE COURT: You never -- in your time in
22 Scientology, you don't know of any case supervisor
23 ever ordering that.
24 THE WITNESS: Oh, no.
25 THE COURT: As a matter of fact, I would expect
140 1 he would be more -- less than a janitor, if he had,
2 that should not be something he would order, should
3 he?
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 THE COURT: He had to check that with somebody,
6 I would hope.
7 THE WITNESS: He would be in police custody,
8 I'm sure. I don't know, your Honor. I don't know
9 why those reports are not there. My only surmise on
10 it was that Lisa was worsening day by day, and the
11 watch reports that were allowed to remain in her
12 preclear folder were those that, even though they
13 were damaging about how Lisa was doing and not
14 responding and so on, at least some had to be there
15 to show what happened to her, so those were left.
16 But other reports were removed because they showed
17 that -- that the senior superiors were aware of her
18 decline and weren't doing anything adequate to get
19 her to medical health or medical care or what have
20 you.
Whitfield, July 16, 2002.
Hana Whitfield was Registered Nurse, a Class 9 Auditor, worked as Captain of the ship
under Hubbard, and she was Commander Right Arm in the SEA ORG. Her rank was only two
ranks down from Hubbard. At 172-173. She never took money from Minton and was never
associated with the LMT.
19 A So, you know, from the limited time that I was
20 there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know
21 that, you know, there wasn't much about the COSFSO Service
22 Organization that I didn't know about and also had
23 responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran
24 smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly
25 the -- ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.
343 3 A And I am saying here today -- and the reason I
4 came to that conclusion -- is by their own written policies
5 that they have written here, you start to see violations.
6 And the reason why is because there was a problem. There
7 was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them.
8 When I did the introspection rundown on the other
9 girl, she was cooperating. She wasn't trying to leave. She
10 was going along with it. She never mentioned that she
11 wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big
12 difference.
13 So now you have a person that wants to leave, has
14 publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to
15 their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no.
16 Q How did you --
17 A Again, there is reference where a person wants to
18 leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her.
19 She's locked in a room. She's terrified. Instead of taking
20 her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get
21 treatment because of her state of mind and because of the
22 way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue
23 the process, and either it works or it doesn't.
344 16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q So I'm assuming I'm accurate in my recollection of
18 what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her
19 deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the
20 estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out
21 of but she would go back into, five days -- the last five
22 days of her life. And in reading -- in what you know and
23 reading what you just told us you read, why is it your
24 opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than
25 take her to the hospital?
345 1 A Because she was not settled with her relationship
2 with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous
3 problems for them. If they would have taken her -- you
4 know, even during the period of time when she was going in
5 and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now,
6 she starts getting treatment, she's getting better, you
7 know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors,
8 "No, I don't want to see them anymore, I have to get away
9 from this."
10 Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is
11 you -- you put together an affidavit that is dated August of
12 1999. Do you recall that?
13 A Yes, I do.
14 Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige
15 and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in
16 RTC. Do you remember that?
17 A Yes. I do.
18 Q And in that affidavit you have come to the
19 conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around
20 and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson?
21 A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better,
22 she gets better.
23 Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?
24 A Not at all. This affidavit came about because --
25 from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months
346 1 studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I
2 came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based
3 on the experience I have within that organization.
4 And the thing that -- that became alarming to me
5 to even point me in this direction is the amount of
6 information that is missing, the amount of things that --
7 that isn't there that would clearly show like what her state
8 of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is
9 missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is
10 hidden. Why is something hidden?
11 In my mind, similar to what happened in
12 Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be
13 harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the
14 survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind
15 of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives.
Prince July 8, 2002.
Under subpoena, another expert, Bill Franks, who never was associated with Minton or the
LMT, also testified that there would have been a delay, i.e., do nothing, due to Lisa being a PR
FLAP, resulting in Lisa falling in between the cracks. That is also intentional medical neglect.
2 Then you have the technology over here, and you
3 have this conflict. And there are all of these
4 different issues, like, is she paid; is she not
5 paid; is this going to be a PR flap; is it not going
6 to be a PR flap? And Lisa McPherson's well-being
7 fell through the cracks, because of this -- this
8 internal tension.
9 It's a mystery to me why -- I mean, their own
10 policy says, "Offload her. We can't deal with
11 this.
Franks at 140, June 13, 2002.
189 19 A Mmm, that a condition of danger had been probably
20 applied -- had been applied here. They were bypassing. All
21 of the decisions had to be made up at Int, wherever Int is.
22 And the people locally who were down in the trenches
23 watching Lisa were probably very upset. But they had no
24 power to make a decision.
25 Why? Because the element of this being a PR flap
290 1 became senior -- a -- of senior concern to any other
2 concerns. Unfortunately, including her health.
...
191 12 Q Per your understanding of Scientology, can you
13 explain why, however, Lisa McPherson would not have been
14 taken back to the Morton Plant Hospital?
15 A Well, I saw the pictures of the body. I mean, the
16 ER doctor had released Lisa to Mrs. Webber. Mrs. Webber was
17 taken off the case.
18 To me, that says the condition of danger had been
19 applied. They didn't want -- and the fact that an OSA
20 representative was there means that -- can you hear me
21 means that this was a PR flap or a potential PR flap. And
22 that took precedence.
23 Q Yes. But why not just take her to Morton Plant
24 Hospital?
25 A Well, I'm assuming -- I mean, look at Lisa
192 1 McPherson. She looked terrible. She certainly looked a lot
2 worse than when they took her the 18th of November.
3 Q Well --
4 A My -- my -- my opinion on this is that as she
5 deteriorated -- in other words, there was no doubt -- we
6 know there was people writing up, hey, this is getting
7 worse, not better. But, Mmm, in a condition of danger, I
8 mean, who is going to go to Int and stick their neck out
9 saying "We better do something"? There is nobody here in
10 Clearwater who can be responsible for taking her to the
11 hospital. And this is a PR flap, foremost.
12 Lisa's individual situation is of less importance
13 now. The PR flap is the primary thing we have to prevent.
203 21 MR. DANDAR: Well, let her die is deciding not
22 to intervene, let her go, not do anything in
23 somebody who obviously needs medical help right
24 away.
25 THE COURT: Okay. You add that caveat to it.
204 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, that I -- that I can see
2 happening. I see that, let's see what happens while
3 we decide what we're going to do about this PR flap.
4 BY MR. DANDAR:
5 Q And so decide not to do anything while we decide
6 what to do?
7 A Right.
8 THE COURT: That you can see happening, as
9 opposed to the other scenario being a decision is
10 made, let her lay there in the bed and die and then
11 we'll deal with it?
12 THE WITNESS: Right.
13 THE COURT: You do not think that would have
14 happened?
15 THE WITNESS: I do not.
Bill Franks, June 13, 2002.
Robert Vaughn Young also filed an affidavit dated October 1999 in support of the Estate's
Motion to add David Miscavige. In this affidavit, he states he reviewed the August 1999 affidavit
of Jesse Prince concerning Miscavige's role and power in Scientology. He also concludes that Lisa
McPherson died to prevent what Scientology perceived as a "PR Flap." This affidavit was signed
by Mr. Young almost two years after his wife left him for Robert Minton. Therefore he certainly
is not testifying for Minton's agenda. Mr. Young re-confirmed this testimony and opinion at the
hearing.
While not preventing a death in order to diminish a PR Flap may seem incredible to those
outside Scientology, only a person with inside information and experience on the thinking of the
Scientology organization, hierarchy and staff can fully explain it. It is not conjecture, it is based on
settled policy written by LRH where no deviation is permitted. The basic concept, as explained by
every former Scientologist, is the "greatest good for the greatest number," combined with an ever-
pressing demand to keep stats up. As Nancy Many explained, there is a certain "moral dilemma"
when this code of Scientology confronts the real world, such as telling the truth. Others can readily
understand the application of this code/policy to explain why Scientology would either not permit
or otherwise take no intervening action for someone to be taken to a hospital if it would show:
the failure of the "tech" of Scientology,
at its "mecca" of perfect application of the "tech," COSFSO,
in the first Scientology city, Clearwater,
Lisa McPherson is a public member,
Lisa had attested to "Clear,"
Lisa took her clothes off in public, and
Lisa had received services at COSFSO from the Senior Case Supervisor, Kartuzinsk
This is indeed a huge PR FLAP for all of Scientology. Lisa's mental condition had become
revealed to the world outside Scientology and this fact caused a crucial shift in dynamics as to how
the problem could be handled internally.
The Estate also called Nancy Many, who spent 10 years as a SEA ORG member, recruited
by Bill Franks, and thereafter 10 years as a public, all the while working as a volunteer for
Department 20. This department was first called the Guardian's Office, then the Office of Special
Affairs. She testified that after she was questioned by her senior at OSA/INT on her intercepted e-
mail to a declared former Scientologist, she received 10 days of unusual screaming auditing in
January 1996. She then had a psychotic break and called OSA/INT.
13 A It was not like any kind of auditing I had ever
14 had before. It was invasive. It was -- I mean, there were
15 times when the auditor was standing, screaming at me. And
16 it went on for day after day after day, for hours and hours
17 at a time.
18 And emotionally I was just getting worse. And I
19 knew after day one, after day one, I knew that this was not
20 meant to help me and that it wasn't helping me. But
21 because in Scientology, if I didn't go back in, they would
22 have put me back on that list. I would have lost my job,
23 my association with them
Nancy Many at 74
Not getting any help, Nancy Many was finally taken to a hospital in restraints. OSA arrived
at the hospital, she was released, and there was an informal "Baby Watch" in her home for two days.
It was not an Introspection Rundown. She continued to get worse, while taking Chloral Hydrate
prescribed by Dr. Megan Shields, MD.., a Scientologist, and Cal Mag , Vitamin B and other herbs,
some of the same medications given to Lisa. Nancy Many worsened the longer she took these items.
So did Lisa. Although Many called OSA for help, none came, except someone to have her sign
releases of legal liability for Scientology. She expected a Scientology program, but none was
offered. Mrs. Many felt abandoned by Scientology, the same abandonment the evidence shows Lisa
suffered as she either "fell through the cracks" or lay in a coma while Miscavige and INT
management concerned themselves with her PR Flap. This is intentional medical neglect.
In this case, we have two sworn statements of Kartuzinski and one of Janice Johnson given
in the criminal investigation denying that Lisa was involved in any religious service. Then during
civil discovery depositions, they say she was in the Introspection Rundown, yet the required
program Kartuzinski claims to have written for this rundown is missing without explanation.
Kartuzinski deposition at 117-118. See also Hana Whitfield, page 114, July 16, 2202. Not only is
there no required program, which Kartuzinski insists he wrote, but there is also no required routing
form. Missing records and the complete failure to follow policy does not occur at COSFSO.
In reference to Lisa McPherson's missing records and reports, the corporate representative,
Ben Shaw, only had this to say:
7 16 Q Are you aware of any paper being removed from Lisa
17 McPherson's PC folders?
18 A Well, I have to answer like this because I was not
19 aware of basically anything about this case until December
20 of 1996. I was -- I came to Clearwater then and I
21 essentially started to assume my functions. So everything I
22 learned has been throughout the process of investigating
23 this case, because this is, as you probably know, one of the
24 main things I have been doing for quite a period of time.
25 I do know from the deposition of Lacey Spencer,
8 1 who was the assistant for Alain, that there was a period of
2 time when she was getting -- collecting reports from those
3 people who were helping care for Lisa, that she kept them in
4 a separate file, and she testified that there were some of
5 them that she shredded, not knowing that anyone wanted to
6 keep them. I don't know what dates there were. I believe
7 there were some from the beginning part of her stay at Ft.
8 Harrison. But, again, she wasn't specific and couldn't
9 recall specifically.
10 Aside from that, I don't know of anything.
Shaw, June 13, 2002.
114 3 A Additionally, there were no -- excuse me -- there
4 were no entries on Lisa's folder summary that an
5 introspection rundown had been done in November or December,
6 or attempted.
7 And there was also no entries on her folder error
8 summary that such had been done or attempted.
9 Q And that is required?
10 A Absolutely. If they're done or attempted, yes,
11 that is required. So that is why I presumed they were in
12 another folder which you hadn't been given.
22 Q Are you familiar with routing forms?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Was a routing form required for a rundown?
25 A When a preclear stops a rundown, yes.
115 1 Q What does that routing form do -- what is the
2 function of the routing form for a rundown?
3 A The routing form routes the person through a
4 number of people to ensure that the service is paid for,
5 that the person has ethics clearance, that everything is in
6 order. So -- and then to the guidance center to get
7 auditing. So there are points on the routing form to check
8 off by each of these people.
9 Q And do you recall seeing a routing form for the
10 introspection rundown or anything happening at the hotel in
11 November, December of '95?
12 A No, there wasn't anything.
13 THE COURT: Should there have been?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, there should have been, your
15 Honor. If such had been attempted.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q Okay. Was there any evidence at all that there
18 was an attempt at an introspection rundown in November and
19 December of '95?
20 A Not that I could find in her preclear folders or
21 in any other notes that I saw.
Hana Whitfield, July 16, 2002.
Just as Nancy Many was "baby watched" after having a psychotic episode with no
Introspection Rundown, so too Lisa may have been "baby watched" without this rundown. This
would account for the absence of the program and Weinberg writing to the police stating no
religious service was involved, Lisa was just a hotel guest.
4. Concealing a secret meeting with Minton to add Miscavige.
COSFSO alleges on 30-31 of its Closing that Miscavige should not have been added since
there was an agreement not to add him. However, the court ruled he was not covered by that
agreement in his individual capacity. Therefore, there is absolute litigation privilege since counsel
and the Estate acted only pursuant to court order. Palmer v. Shelby Plaza Motel, Inc. 443 So.2d 285
(Fla 2nd DCA 1983).
Was there a secret meeting to discuss whether or not to add on Miscavige as a defendant in
the death case? Minton was never at any such meeting, whether it occurred in July or August 1999,
as he testified at the hearing on April 19,2002, or whether it occurred in late fall of 1999, as he
testified in the latter part of May 2002. No one supports this allegation except Minton and Brooks.
Both state that Dandar, Garko, and Prince were at this meeting. But Dandar, Haney, Garko, and
Prince testified that the meeting never took place. Dr. Garko, (after secretly meeting with lead
counsel for COSFSO the day before he testified), is adamant that no meeting took place as described
by Minton and Brooks. Brian Haney, then a consultant to the Estate, also testified that Minton was
not at any meeting to discuss adding on Miscavige. Haney at 180-183, June 19, 2002. Haney had
attended 4-5 meetings in the new offices of Plaintiff's counsel.
Minton, Brooks, and the Defendants also misrepresent the purpose of Minton's trip to
Florida in October 1999: picketing, not some "secret meeting." This picketing is when Minton was
set up by Mr. Howd of OSA, and "bull-baited" into striking Howd. Minton was arrested and the
Estate's counsel was called by Minton to bail him out, since Minton had no attorney in Pinellas
County. It should be noted that Minton first testified that this "secret meeting" took place in July
or August of 1999, before he was briefed that Dandar's office at that time had no elevator!
Arguendo, even if a meeting with Minton took place in October 1999, which Dandar, Haney, Garko,
and Prince deny, there certainly was no need to keep it secret. Counsel moved into those offices on
November 1, 1999. This was the office with an elevator, so Minton's testimony before Judge Baird
of being in this office in July or August 1999 is simply not true.
On page 29 of its Closing, COSFSO refers to Prince's July 9, 2002 testimony at 575-576,
where Prince relays his speaking to Minton and Brooks about adding Miscavige. However,
COSFSO fails to point out the rest of the testimony from 576:17 to 579:16.
576 5 THE WITNESS: You know, later, when we
6 discussed it, when, you know, Stacy -- we went to
7 the office. And Stacy says, "Well, I think, we're
8 going to do this," and he's, like, "Yeah, okay. So
9 what?" Because Mr. Minton always -- you know, he
10 was concerned about what he was doing. Mr. Minton
11 wasn't concerned with what Mr. Dandar was doing
12 or -- or what Mr. Prince was doing or Mr. Brooks
13 (sic). He had his own agenda. When he came down
14 to -- here in Florida, he would be more concerned
15 about what he was doing.
16 BY MR. DANDAR:
17 Q Well, was there a meeting with Mr. Minton?
18 A No.
19 Q Well, what are you talking about when you said
20 Minton -- Mr. Minton didn't care?
21 A I recall Stacy Brooks and myself having a
22 conversation with Mr. Minton, mentioning the fact that we
23 were doing this.
24 Q Oh, okay. Was I there, or Dr. Garko?
25 A No.
577 1 Q All right.
2 A No. And he's like, "Okay. Where do you guys want
3 to eat," type of thing. You know, he just didn't care.
4 "Okay." You know, that's -- "Ken --" "Whatever."
5 Q Did Mr. Minton ever tell you he had an agenda?
6 MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, could we
7 date that meeting?
8 MR. DANDAR: Yeah. Let's date the meeting.
9 MR. WEINBERG: And where it was?
10 MR. DANDAR: Yeah.
11 THE WITNESS: When Stacy and I discussed it, I
12 think it was probably -- some -- maybe a week or
13 sometime prior to the fifth amended complaint
14 actually being filed --
15 BY MR. DANDAR:
16 Q Well --
17 A -- we discussed it.
18 Q -- there were several times that the fifth amended
19 complaint --
20 MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor --
21 A Well, okay. To answer the question, no, I don't
22 know when it was. I just know --
23 THE COURT: No. I think --
24 MR. WEINBERG: My objection was Mr. Dandar
25 prompting him.
578 1 THE COURT: No, he wasn't prompting him.
2 There were several fifth amended complaints. I
3 would like to know.
4 Was it the fifth amended complaint where
5 Mashburn (sic) and -- Rathbun all those other
6 people were added or was it the fifth amended
7 complaint that's now the complaint?
8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor -- I don't --
9 THE COURT: Or do you know?
10 THE WITNESS: I don't have a clear recollection
11 of which --
12 THE COURT: Was this a discussion where it was
13 decided to add Mr. Miscavige as, I guess, chairman
14 of the board of RTC -- I don't know how -- I've
15 never seen that complaint -- or was it before the
16 discussion to add Mr. Miscavige as head of the Sea
17 Org?
18 THE WITNESS: I think it was after the
19 discussion to add -- after it had been resolved that
20 Mr. Miscavige could be added as head of the Sea Org.
21 You know --
22 THE COURT: After it was resolved by whom? By
23 Judge Moody?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. By Judge Moody.
25 THE COURT: Then you had a discussion with
579 1 Mr. Minton about this?
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe he, Stacy and I
3 were in the car, traveling, and we talked about it.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 BY MR. DANDAR:
6 Q So it was after the hearing we had, you said took
7 forever, with Judge Moody?
8 A I know that it became a serious possibility after
9 we exhausted, in front of Judge Moody, every way of whether
10 or not it would be correct or appropriate or even allowed to
11 do it; coming in as head of the Sea Org, when Judge Moody
12 said that it could -- that he could be added as head of the
13 Sea Org, not as COB because of that agreement.
14 Q Right.
15 A Which, you know, I didn't even know about until
16 after the fact.
Prince, July 9, 2002.
There is no need to keep any meeting secret. Dr. Garko mentions one unexpected encounter
with Minton and Brooks where adding Miscavige was discussed after the fact, where Brooks lied
in front of Minton and said that she was not in favor of it.
17 17 BY MR. WEINBERG:
18 Q Did Ms. Brooks say anything that you can recall
19 during the meeting?
20 A Yes. And this is why I remembered this particular
21 interaction.
22 Because as soon as I had finished articulating my
23 position, Ms. Brooks piped up without hesitation and said,
24 "And why did you add him, Ken?" And I remember sort of
25 sitting back and thinking, if I may, "What the hell is she
18 1 doing?" Because it was Ms. Brooks's idea to add David
2 Miscavige. And I was puzzled as to why she said that. And
3 I -- I often thought of it after this interaction. I
4 thought -- I was just bewildered by that and I couldn't
5 understand it.
6 Q Do you recall what if anything Mr. Minton said or
7 did during this meeting?
8 A He didn't say too much, in his very typical
9 fashion. He was quiet, somewhat aloof, and just sort of sat
10 there. He was sitting to my right at the end of the table,
11 just listening, and didn't say much.
Garko, June 11, 2002.
This statement by Brooks to Dandar in front of Garko demonstrates that this encounter took
place after the fact, i.e., after the motion to add was granted, and that Minton was never at any
meeting where it was discussed in advance, since Brooks was a proponent of adding Miscavige
before he was added. By the way, Minton also lied before Judge Baird when he said that Garko was
in favor of adding on David Miscavige. "And all four of those were strongly in favor of adding
David Miscavige." April 9, 2002 at page 18:9-10.
This allegation of perjury is a red herring. The Estate's counsel can meet with anyone to
discuss anything, whether it is Minton or his mechanic! The key issue is whether Minton or the
mechanic makes the decision and interferes without the client's consent. Even though Minton was
never at any decision-making meeting, he concedes that Dell Liebreich was the only one who made
the decisions in the case.
20 At the end of that meeting, I
21 went up to Mr. Dandar and I said to Mr. Dandar,
22 "Look, whatever we decide to do, I will support you
23 fully on it." But it was, you know, his decision
24 THE COURT: I understand what you're saying.
25 THE WITNESS: -- and Dell Liebreich's decision.
Minton at 278, May 21, 2002.
Minton and Brooks stand alone on this lie.
5. Lying about receipt of a UBS check dated May, 2000.
Minton and the defendants argue that Dandar had to know that this UBS check was Minton's
money. Brooks, his mistress, testified she never knew that the Clambake money of $300,000 and
the $500,000 anonymous donation was Minton's money, and we all know she is much closer to
Minton than anyone else. Minton also told this same story to his attorney, Merrett and Merrett also
believed him.
Minton testified at his May 2000 deposition that he loaned $1,050,000 to Dandar.
212 11 Q. Have you given Mr. Dandar any money since
12 January 13th, 1998?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell me all the amounts that you have
15 given him.
16 A. I don't know all the amounts. The total
17 amounts to a little over a million dollars,
18 $1,050,000.
19 Q. Did you make these checks to him yourself?
20 A. Did I what?
21 Q. Did you make the checks to him yourself?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Each check was drawn on one of your
24 personal accounts?
25 A. I believe it was, yes.
213 1 Q. Did you instruct anyone else to write the
2 checks or --
3 A. No.
4 Q. -- did you physically write them?
5 A. I think I physically wrote them all.
6 There may have been a wire transfer in there or
7 two. I don't remember.
Minton May 2000 deposition.
This testimony is inconclusive. Given Minton's statements to Dandar, Prince, and Brooks
that this UBS check was from "friends in Europe," this testimony is truthful. Minton now states at
this hearing that he concealed in this deposition and two subsequent ones that he gave Dandar a
UBS check in May 2000 for $500,000. Per Minton, the concealment was not his idea, but Dandar's
idea to keep this sum hidden from Scientology and Dandar's employees and consultants. Even
without other testimony which contradicts this, since Minton volunteered to tell Scientology about
giving over a million dollars, which Dandar's employees and consultants did not know, then why
not include an additional $500,000? If Dandar wanted Minton to lie, why even mention anything
close to one million? Per court order, up to January 2000, Dandar provided Scientology with copies
of either deposit statements or checks from Minton totaling $750,000 . Minton's accusations make
no sense. The UBS check is not from Minton. There is no independent proof it is Minton's money
since he pled the Fifth Amendment. His testimony must be stricken. City of St. Petersburg v.
Houghton, 362 So.2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Minton's own pattern of conduct and his inability to tell the truth during this hearing leads
to the conclusion that he is not telling the truth now on the source of this check and that he did tell
the Estate's counsel the truth in May 2000 that this check was from anonymous sources in Europe.
Dandar, May 30,2002, at 31:16-17. Furthermore, Minton told Jesse Prince that this check was
from his friends in Europe.
367 2 And he came and he said,
3 "Come here, you guys come out here," because he had a fear
4 that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.
5 And we got in Stacy's car and we went into the
6 city parking lot, which is directly across the street from
7 the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.
8 And he said, "Look, I'm going to tell you guys,
9 you can't tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he
10 doesn't know where it came from. It came from Europe. You
11 know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
12 hope this takes you to trial."
13 That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he
14 didn't want the office to know, you know, Ken didn't want
15 everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this
16 $500,000 came. And -- and, you know, everything with the
17 case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.
368 2 Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?
3 A Europe. People from Europe.
4 Q Did he say to you it was his money?
5 A No. He said he had arranged from some people from
6 Europe who made this money available.
446 5 Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton,
6 for instance, let's go to that night, the Adam's Mark Hotel,
7 where he's talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he
8 told you in the parking lot about it?
9 A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were
10 saying, you know, "Ken is really going to get it. He told
11 me to lie about this check."
12 I said, "Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you --"
13 he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all
14 responsibility is gone. "Hee-hee. Guess what?"
15 "Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot.
16 Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving
17 this check to Ken, Ken didn't know where it was coming from,
18 told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you
19 gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken's fault?"
20 Q What did they say?
21 A They just looked at me like, "Oh, yeah, we forgot
22 about that part." Mmm, they were telling me things like,
23 "We really got him now."
24 I said, "But don't you remember what we did?
25 Don't you remember this is what really happened as opposed
447 1 to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what
2 actually happened?"
3 Q What was their response?
4 A "Hmmm." You know, just "Hmmm." Like, "He's not
5 cooperating."
6 Q So --
7 A So I told him, you know, "Now, you know we were up
8 in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So
9 now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this
10 is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?"
11 THE COURT: What did he say?
12 THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was
13 crazy. And they looked at each other and they
14 changed the subject. We started talking about --
15 Mmm -- what else did we start talking about?
16 They brought up something else that -- the
17 meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want --
18 "they" being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they
19 want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at
20 some meeting that happened where we all said, "Yeah,
21 add Miscavige and don't talk to anybody about it."
22 I am like, "Are you crazy? That didn't happen
23 either."
Prince, July 8, 2002.
Minton also told the same story to his own attorney, John Merrett, about the source of the
anonymous donations to the LMT. There was certainly no motive for Minton to lie then to Brooks,
Prince and Merrett. This is more proof that Minton is lying now for Scientology. Scientology
obtained a copy of this UBS check before Minton could get a copy! Prince at 386-387, July 8,
2002. See also Dandar's testimony elicited by Rosen before Baird confirming this and no
correction by Rosen! April 19, 2002 at 268l. Scientology must therefore not only know the source
of the UBS check, but must have known that Minton would refuse to testify to show proof that this
money is his. Therefore, including this allegation in its motion is frivolous and in bad faith.
Based on the three Second District Court decisions, money to the Estate or its counsel is
immaterial. It can therefore not be a matter of perjury. Argyros v. State, 718 So.2d 222 (Fla 2nd
DCA 1998).
Again Dr. Garko does not support Minton's story in court.
22 Q During -- during this time that you were there in
23 New Hampshire, did you overhear any discussions or
24 conversations between Mr. Dandar and Mr. Minton about money,
25 about getting more money and where the money might be coming
36 1 from? And if so, can you tell us what you remember was
2 being said and what your reaction was to it?
3 A I do remember conversations about money and
4 funding.
5 Mr. Dandar -- despite Mr. Minton's assertion that
6 he's no longer going to fund