Public Policy (January 25, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong 1

Caroline on ESMB: Gerry concluded some time ago that the key to the IRS decision and its cancellation is the “public policy” issue, or actually public policy violations issue. This explains why neither Rathbun nor Rinder have told the truth about their fair gaming of Gerry, Mike Flynn, etc., and have not told the truth about false statements to and dealings with the IRS. From the Introduction to the Armstrong Operation: […]

Wildcat on ESMB: This is good information, thank you! Can you provide a link or clarification about the “public policy” issue? I’m not sure what that is, but am very interested to know more.

Public policy. That principle of the law which holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. The principles under which the freedom of contract or private dealings is restricted by law for the good of the community. The term “policy,” as applied to a statute, regulation, rule of law, course of action, or the like, refers to its probable effect, tendency, or object, considered with reference to the social or political well-being of the state. Thus, certain classes of acts are said to be “against public policy,” when the law refuses to enforce or recognize them, on the ground that they have a mischievous tendency, so as to be injurious to the interests of the state, apart from illegality or immorality. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

To see how “public policy” fits into the Scientologists’ IRS scheme, start with the September 1984 judgment in Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of IRS.2

The US was very aware of the Scientologists’ public policy violations against government, organizations and individuals because of the documents seized in the 1977 FBI raids, and because of testimony of Exscientologists. A broad statement reflecting the US’s knowledge of such public policy violations is provided in the December 1980 Sentencing Memorandum in the US v. Jane Kember & Mo Budlong case.

Thus, as the evidence shows, these defendants orchestrated an elaborate cover-up, beginning in June 1976 and continuing through   June 1977 and, no doubt, thereafter.  In fact, a significant part of the defense they presented at trial — their attack on the integrity and reliability of Michael Meisner — was foreshadowed in the “obstruction documents.”  They presented this Court with a shabby attempt at impeaching Meisner’s credibility by claiming that he stole money from the Church — the same false claim they made against another former Scientologist who had the courage to expose their crimes and thus fell victim to their fair game doctrine. Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rprtr. 797 (Ct. App, 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 1101 (1977).

[…]

Other Crimes Committed by These Defendants

The defendants’ contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their Church from Government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants.  If anything, these documents establish beyond doubt that the defendants, their convicted co-defendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators, as well as their organization, considered themselves above the law.  They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution. [ ] The defendants and their cohorts launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceived to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment. Their targets included, among others, The American Medical Association (AMA) which had branded Scientology’s practice of “dianetics” as “quackery”; the Better Business Bureau (BBB), which sought to respond to private citizens’ inquiries about the courses offered by Scientology, newspapers which merely sought to report the news and inform the public, law firms which represented individuals and organizations against whom Scientology initiated law suits (often for the sole purpose of harassment); private citizens who attempted to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize an organization whose tactics they condemned; and public officials who sought to carry out the duties for which they were elected or appointed in a fair and even-handed manner. To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called “fair game doctrine” could be invoked. [cite]  That doctrine provides that anyone perceived to be an enemy of Scientology or a “suppressive person”  “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without discipline of the Scientologist.  [He m]ay be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed.” [cite] This policy, together with the actions of these defendants who represent the very top leadership of the Church of Scientology, bring into question their claim that their Church prohibited the commission of illegal acts.

[…]

Conclusion

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants engaged in over the years.  It also puts to rest their protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the defendants’ wanton assault upon the laws of this country.  The well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury investigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in response to a Grand Jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive, kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up story, and assisting in the giving of false statements under oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the judicial system of this country.  Their total disregard for the laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out against private and public individuals    and organizations, carefully documented in minute detail.  One can   only wonder about the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their “Red Box” data.  That these defendants were willing to frame their critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks legion for their disdain for the rule of law.  Indeed, they arrogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their personal brand of punishment to those “guilty” of opposing their selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard.  No building, office, desk, or files was safe from their snooping and prying.  No individual or organization was free from their despicable scheming and warped minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes.  It is interesting to note that the Founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his dictionary entitled “Modern Management Technology Defined” that “truth is what is true for you,” and “illegal” is that which is “contrary to statistics or policy” and not pursuant to Scientology’s “approved program.”  Thus, with the Founder-Commodore’s blessings they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed.  The standards of human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system.  In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of “religion.”  That these defendants now attempt to hide behind the sacred principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to privacy — which principles they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with impunity — adds insult to the injuries which they have inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and any other individual or group that might consider committing similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message: criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be tolerated by our society.3

In July 1987, the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 1984 judgment in CSC v. Commissioner. Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground of inurement to L. Ron Hubbard, it did not address the public policy issue.

We conclude that the Church failed to establish that “no part of the net earnings … inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual….” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Because we may affirm the Tax Court on this ground, we do not reach the questions of whether the Church operated for a substantial commercial purpose or whether it violated public policy. 4

Because the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court judgment only on the ground of inurement, it did not mean that the IRS could ignore the other grounds for denial of tax exemption if the Scientologists cured their inurement problem. Hubbard’s death solved inurement. The Scientologists solved their public policy problem by committing more public policy violations against the people who were already victims of the Scientologists’ public policy violations. For corrupt reasons, the US abetted the Scientologists, indeed required such public policy violations.

The Scientologists’ strategy, as has long been known, became to blame their Guardian’s Office for everything off-public policy the Scientologists had been caught doing, disband the GO as a rogue operation, and swear that public policy violations were no longer committed or permitted. The Scientologists, of course, first under Hubbard and then under Miscavige, continued violating public policy unabated, and probably even escalated public policy violating by having the GO to scapegoat.

The blaming of the GO, and the smearing of the Scientologists’ public policy violation victims by association with the GO, is a key theme in the Scientologists’ negotiated submissions to the IRS upon which tax exemption was granted in 1993. The Scientologists, and the IRS, had to deal with the public policy issue that is so prominent in the 1984 Tax Court judgment. These submissions, negotiated to demonstrate that public policy violations had ended with the GO, are actually irrefutable, and astonishing, proof that Scientologists continued violating public policy, directed by the very top leadership of Scientology. 5

There are, naturally, many years of evidence of the Scientologists’ public policy-violating activities since their exemption-reaping submissions. Their actions against me in violation of public policy started during the Hubbard regime and have not stopped throughout the Miscavige regime. In significant part, the Scientologists’ actions targeting me as an SP or enemy comprise a conspiracy against rights (18 USC 241), which clearly is against public policy. The Scientologists’ public policy violations in targeting me in their submissions to the IRS are stunning. In negotiating with the Scientologists to file this material targeting me, by requiring or permitting this material to be filed, and by interference of any kind against me on behalf of the Scientologists ever since, the US has been participating in their criminal conspiracy, and vice versa.

Although in his 2013 book Memoirs Mark Rathbun did not confront his participation in the Scientology-IRS conspiracy, which defrauded Americans and criminally prejudiced the SP class, he did disclose a number of things that are useful in examining certain of the Scientologists’ fact statements in their IRS submissions. Comparing the public policy sections of these submissions with the US’s knowledge of public policy violations as shown in the 1980 US v. Kember sentencing memorandum, and analyzing both fact sets with what Rathbun has disclosed or what is known from other sources, would be a logical next step.

 Notes

GA Letter to Jesse Prince (May 3, 2011)

Dear Jesse:1

I’m writing to ask you to rethink what you’re saying about the people who settled with Scientology. I’m, of course, one of those people, and I know a number of other people in that group very personally. I consequently know quite a bit about that group’s experience, and am able to discuss and defend them or us.

I don’t know how many people reading here know or know of Lawrence Wollersheim, but the above Scientology drill proved to be a complete waste of time. Lawrence would have none of it. Lawrence is the only person I know of in the history of litigation with Scientology that brought his case to court, won the case, got paid for his trouble and NEVER signed a confidential agreement with Scientology about anything period. Lawrence and his team (which I joined in 1998) kicked Scientology’s ass in the courts hands down. Anyone else that I know of has sold a piece of their soul for Scientology’s money by promising to keep quiet. Accepting Scientology’s money in this way in the end proves to be a sellout. By settling money for silence how can you warn others? It’s a selfish decision to know of something that actively hunts and preys on good people just like you and not warn them for money, not to mention the lifetime Scientology tether agreement is always around your neck.2

Some months ago, a longtime friend told me that you were talking smack about me, and the reason you gave for bad-mouthing me was that I had taken Scientology’s money in settlement. I’m hoping to get you to change this computation.

You’ll recall that I was asking you some years back, by e-mail and phone, for a declaration regarding your knowledge of Miscavige’s possession of my manuscript, artwork and other documents that were stolen from my car in 1984. You had told me, I believe in 1999, about Miscavige possessing these stolen materials and talking to you about them, and I was asking you for a declaration concerning that knowledge to help me defend myself in ongoing litigation, and even defend myself in life. A declaration providing your knowledge of Miscavige’s possession of my materials would also have been useful, of course, in any legal action to get my materials returned to me, which I continue to pursue. I mentioned what you had told me in a 2009 letter to Marty Rathbun3, who was obviously more personally involved and knowledgeable about the theft, the thieves, and what Miscavige did with my materials.

I remember too you telling me about how Miscavige used to humiliate Terri for loving me at one time, and you told me other things you had knowledge of. You knew inside that I was a major target of Scientology, and you knew of the attitude and communications about me, and something about the black PR and operations against me. Your knowledge of the Scientology v. Armstrong war in a declaration would have been legally helpful and morally supportive.

Marty Rathbun uses the same “reasoning” to not help me, even to not correct ongoing crimes against me that he perpetrated or participated in and could do something about. Since he began to communicate publicly after claiming to have left the Miscavige Scientology operation, I’ve written Rathbun several letters. He wrote back one nasty e-mail, refusing to help, and providing this “critical difference” between us as a reason: “You sold out twenty-three years ago – and are apparently still mad at yourself for the indelible taint it left. I will never sell out.”

Rathbun’s “logic” is, of course, the logic of sociopaths. Rathbun and his crew fair gamed my attorney Michael Flynn and fair gamed his clients, who were already Scientology victims. Rathbun, et al. insisted that Flynn have his clients sign the cult’s silence contracts, or the Scientologists would continue to fair game him and them. Scientology’s victims, having delivered what Rathbun, et al. wanted, then get attacked by the Scientologists, and in this case even some wogs, for “selling out.” It’s typical of sociopaths to victimize people and then blame their victims for the evil the sociopaths did to them. You, Jesse, were inside the cult, in a high position, and added your weight to the criminal pressure put on Flynn and his clients to sign your cult’s contracts. You were a party and beneficiary in these contracts.

From what I recall of your story, you also signed one or more of Scientology’s silence documents (didn’t we all?) and waited several years to speak out after you left the cult because of your fear that the cult would enforce these documents. You have also acknowledged that you took yourself out of the Scientology conflict for another several years, and have only recently rejoined the conflict. You took off those years, didn’t speak out, didn’t warn people, didn’t help the people asking for your help, and not because you were constrained by a contract, but because of the way you were apparently treated by people you’d helped in the 3 or so years you were speaking out and helping. It seems to me that makes your disparagement of Scientology’s victims for settling with the cult disingenuous, and something to be corrected.

Marty’s boast that he will never sell out is just so much BS. He sold out every day he was inside the cult, and he continues to sell out. Every Scientologist sells out. He knew way more than other Scientologists, and his sell-out is monstrous. He took money from Scientology, and you took money from Scientology. What went with your weekly wages was the agreement to not speak out, to not help Scientology’s victims, to not warn people, but to support their victimization.

Lawrence didn’t sign a settlement contract with the cult, but he has, nevertheless, removed himself from the Scientology conflict, doesn’t speak out, and to that degree doesn’t warn people. Even though he has other reasons than a silence contract to do so, he’s able to remove himself from the Scientology conflict, and to not speak out to warn people, because the cult paid him a great deal of money. I don’t see where not speaking out for one reason is necessarily or automatically morally superior to not speaking out for other reasons. I’m sure Lawrence would understand that and not object. He deserves to be away from the Scientology conflict, as much as any of us.

You portray Scientology’s victims that settled as taking the cult’s money for their silence, or selling out for money. You also say that the effect of the sellout is because the victims’ knowledge then can’t warn people about Scientology, which actively hunts and preys on good people. The fact is that all the people I know of who settled with Scientology had legal justiciable claims, and it was for the dismissal or removal of these legal claims that the cult paid the settling claimants. The silence conditions of the settlements were severable, and have become virtually meaningless and unenforceable. In any case, all of those settling victims could be subpoenaed, could testify, and their sworn testimony could be used to help other victims or warn people.

Scientology didn’t pay me for my silence. I wasn’t selling my silence. It paid me to dismiss my claims for 12 ½ years of fraud and abuse inside, and 5 years of fair game after leaving. Despite their claims, the cultists did not pay me to continue to be fair gamed the rest of my life. I wasn’t selling my torture. The contractual conditions that silence me, or render me in any way unable to defend myself and my class, are unlawful and lawfully unenforceable. That Scientology and Scientologists have had the California courts rule these unlawful conditions lawful is but another crime in the Scientologists’ global criminal conspiracy.

As a sort of aside, regarding warning people, the fact is that people, largely, in this part of the world, are warned, even Government. Maybe in Third World counties they haven’t been warned, and maybe lots of people haven’t got the warning. But in, for example, your Internet public, they’ve been warned. In the warning department, Scientology is a lot like cigarettes. Nobody has to warn people that they’re harmful or deadly. The question is, now that people have been for years fully warned about cigarettes, and people have been for years warned about Scientology, how do you combat the evils they’ve been warned about?

As you know, when you stopped being an expert witness in the McPherson case, Caroline was suggested by Bob Minton to replace you. Ken Dandar contacted her, asked her to testify, and flew her to Florida in early 2002 to be briefed, familiarize herself with the case, and prepare an expert declaration. She was presented with a non-disclosure agreement, and pressured by Lirot, Dandar and Patricia Greenway to sign. This was also despite the fact that she had agreed to work on the case and testify as an expert without remuneration of any kind. Because of the evil that such contracts do, as you’ve observed, and because of how the “agreement” was going to be applied, Caroline’s and my security would be compromised, so she didn’t sign and didn’t testify. It is my understanding that both you and Hana Whitfield signed such documents. The claimed fact that you had signed was used to pressure Caroline.

She was also being pressured, as part of the “agreement,” to stop communicating on the Internet, stop posting to alt.religion.scientology, and, consequently, of course, to not warn any of the people you’re concerned about who don’t know of Scientology and its active hunting and preying on good people. Caroline asked Dandar if he’d read what she had posted about Scientology or Lisa McPherson on the Internet, and he said he had not, and that he deferred to Ms. Greenway regarding Internet matters.

So, did you sign such a document? What was presented to Caroline to sign follows: mcpherson-silence-contract

I realize it’s hard to think with, and, of course, it flies in the face of your conviction that people who sign Scientology’s silence contracts are selfish and sellouts, but I am actually glad I signed the cult’s contract.4

I’ve written about the contract extensively, including the circumstances, my relationship to my attorney and to the 20 or so settling parties, my attorney’s representations, my reasoning, etc., so won’t rewrite it all here. To better understand what went down, I would suggest this 2004 declaration, particularly paragraphs 108 – 175: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a8/complaint-rpt-doj-2004-02-16.html

The contract is evil, its purpose is evil, how Scientology and Scientologists have used it and still use it is evil. It’s true that I’ve had to take a bunch abuse for signing Scientology’s evil document – lawsuits, judgments, bankruptcy, injunction, fines, jail sentences, threats around the world, a sick black PR campaign, alienation of friends and colleagues, marginalization, loss of opportunities of many kinds, and even the deleterious psychological condition that long term abuse engenders. I have, nevertheless, been very grateful for the message and the courage to sign.

I was positioned as the dealbreaker in a “global” settlement, and my signing was to have fair game end against my attorneys, the other victims and myself. In fact Scientology was promising to end fair game against everyone else forever. It didn’t work out that way for me and for the everyone else, but the 20 victims and a bunch of attorneys could get away from the conflict, which I think they did to one degree or another. The cult, with my attorney’s participation, positioned me to be responsible for the whole settlement for a number of reasons, some of which are probably obvious.

But I’m actually glad about signing Scientology’s evil contract, and, of course, standing up to the cult’s campaign to enforce it, because it has provided such a very important lesson to the Scientologists. The massive effort to judicially enforce Scientology’s contract has shown, despite the cult’s apparent judicial triumphs, the contract’s utter lawful unenforceability.

The Scientology v. Armstrong case is practically the pinnacle of Scientology depravity, and it is an ongoing crime Scientologists still have to take care of. If I had not signed Scientology’s evil contract it would never have become a public document and warned millions of people about the sociopathic nature of Scientology, and how, even by contract, the cult generates an antisocial nature and anti-human rights actions in Scientologists.

Marty says I sold out and postulates an “indelible taint” onto me to justify not helping correct a serious injustice. I didn’t sell out. Any indelible taint is only in Marty’s mind.

I hope you’ll reconsider your poor view of Scientology’s victims who settle with the cult and stop talking about their experiences and knowledge. In terms of contributions, they’ve done a lot more than the thousands of victims who don’t even file claims that could settle, or don’t even consider themselves victims. In any case, I don’t think it’s right to classify and put down that group of victims for what amounts to more victimization.

I could still use your help with a declaration about my stolen materials, etc.

Gerry

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 2) (July 8, 2002)

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

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

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, JANIS JOHNSON, ALAIN KARTUZINSKI and DAVID HOUGHTON, D.D.S.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Ominbus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

PLACE: Courtroom B, Judicial Building
St. Petersburg, Florida.

BEFORE: Hon. Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Donna M. Kanabay RMR, CRR, Notary Public, State of Florida at large.

160

APPEARANCES:

KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. LUKE CHARLES LIROT
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, PA
112 N East Street, Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602-4108
Attorney for Plaintiff.

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street, Suite 900
Clearwater, FL 33755
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization.

MR. LEE FUGATE and MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR. and ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorneys for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
740 Broadway at Astor Place
New York, NY 10003-9518
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
BATTAGLIA ROSS DICUS & WEIN
980 Tyrone Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33743
Attorney for Mr. Minton.

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

Recess                                                      261             18
Recess                                                       327              1
Reporter’s Certificate                            328              1

0162

(The proceedings resumed at 8:58 a.m.)

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

Are we going to put Mr. Prince back on the stand?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Prince, you want to step forward?

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

And I’m showing you today Plaintiff’s Exhibit 113, entitled Intelligence Actions.

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk  about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this  hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are.  The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good  standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out  of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve  forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

THE COURT: F-i-r-s-t?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The 1st Division of Scientology, which is called Division 1, HCO division. Hubbard Communications Office division.

0242

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m  wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to  similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

MR. DANDAR: I’m handing the witness a hardbound book, Introduction to Scientology Ethics.

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A I do have the instant reference on that right now.

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

MR. WEINBERG: Can we just establish, is he talking about staff members or public members or both?

THE WITNESS: Any member of Scientology, public member of Scientology, it’s a high crime.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’m handing the witness PT/SP course, a booklet that was previously talked about —

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

THE COURT: I think it’s in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: It’s possible. I mean, I’m not sure.

THE COURT: Maybe it isn’t, but I’ve seen that book.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

THE WITNESS: They’re not going to go back to Scientology.

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

Let’s assume, for the sake of your testimony and for the sake of your beliefs and what you told Mr. Dandar, that you are right. That Lisa was saying, “I want to leave,” and they were saying, “No, you can’t leave,” and she said, “I want to

0305

leave.” And therefore — and therefore, they didn’t take her to a medical doctor. Of course, she just came from a medical doctor where she had been seen and had been released. So that could have been one of the reasons.

However, how do you jump from that conclusion to the conclusion that somebody said, “Let her die,” or — not only, “Let her die,” but proceed to assist this along in some fashion; bring an auditor in and cause her to die?

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll explain to you.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: By their own documents, people that get into this state of mind, all of them do not live. Search and Discovery, it says some don’t make it —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

You have a person here who, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, and even the missing evidence — because you know, if everything — again, like the one that I did, okay, well, this girl didn’t want to leave. This little girl didn’t
really know what was going on.

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

THE COURT: When you say that, you meant she was really out of it mentally.

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

THE WITNESS: Crazy. Barking like a dog, you know, doing —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

When she started to come out of it, she certainly wanted to leave. She was certainly demanding to leave. But she was not allowed to leave until she had signed releases that released the Church of Scientology and related  organizations with any liability concerning her condition.

So in other words, she signed away, you know, “what happened to me is an anomaly. It had nothing to do with my studies and training or experience in Scientology, and they have no liability for me getting into this.” This is something that’s

0307

demanded of a person who finishes that rundown, to release any liability.

Here you have a person that isn’t in that position. And it is my belief, because there’s so many —

THE COURT: What position is she in? Tell me how her position differs from —

She’s still crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well — hold on. Because when she was released, they didn’t say she was crazy, from the hospital. That was not a diagnosis that Lisa was given when she left Morton Plant Hospital.

THE COURT: But you have to admit, from the — from the — from the reports that were in there from some of the workers, she started staring at a lightbulb; she started talking about she was L. Ron Hubbard, and she started acting crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, that’s when they brought her in there.

THE COURT: Right. And that’s when she began the introspection rundown perhaps, right?

THE WITNESS: Well, come on, Judge. Let’s back up on this. Because you just said medically she was not diagnosed as being insane. The — the medical

0308

records didn’t say, “Hey, this is a person we got to Baker Act. This is a person that’s mentally ill.”  Didn’t say that, okay? So I think it’s wrong to assume that. And the reason why I think it’s wrong —

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

THE COURT: — was — let me ask you, Mr. Prince, what’s the difference in the lady that you took care of and how she started barking like a dog — and you say she was crazy —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: — and what you read in the reports of Lisa McPherson, where she was crawling on the floor, humping the floor, carrying on like a crazy person?

THE WITNESS: After she had been in their — incarcerated. And I think by the fact of incarceration, it tipped her over the edge.

THE COURT: Well, you think that same thing happened with the lady you were watching?

THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. No. I mean, she was literally sitting in a chair, you know, fine, one moment, and then the next moment somebody went over to see what she was doing and she peed herself

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

THE COURT: Could that have been like Lisa McPherson, who was all right, released from the hospital, went to the Ft. Harrison, and then just kind of went like this, and all of a sudden she was crazy?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. And I’ll tell you why.

Because by the fact of incarceration, it already pushes a person further than, maybe, where they were. I mean, she’s locked in a little room.

No one’s talking to her. She’s feeling horrible. She’s already wanting to go home —

THE COURT: She’s a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: You were a Scientologist. That’s part of the procedure.

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. See, that’s another myth, now. Because you’re a Scientologist it does not mean that one day you are going to know, when they lock you in a room, because you studied it, this is what they — what’s going to happen to

0310

people that do this. There is no place, no — absolutely no place that gives clear instructions on what happens to a person should they experience this and Scientology decides to take them in and put them through this routine.

You find that out after the fact, after the fact it’s been determined that you have a mental problem.

You see —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: If the church doesn’t believe in psychiatrists and psychologists and they don’t believe in mental health treatment in the — in the traditional form —

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: That’s a very basic tenet of the church.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. It would be like a Christian Scientist. They would know that they don’t believe in medical treatment, at least in part. So if you’re a member of the Christian Scientists, you know that you believe that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

THE COURT: Okay. Well, there has to be some folks that become mentally deranged, who are Scientologists, so they know that there’s some other treatment, just like you would know, if you were in the — in the Christian Scientists, if there’s a belief of laying on of hands and God will heal you — So they’ve got to be told there’s some substitute for somebody —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, they’re not. They are not told that. It’s just simply not true. You don’t find it out until after the fact. There’s no course —

Say I’m a public member of Scientology, wants to do auditor training up to class 4. They go and they train and they — they get their certificates and stuff like that. There is no class that says, “Okay. If this happens to you, this is the exact procedure.”

That was something that was developed during the time when the introspection first came out. But then this is something that moved totally off and away from anything that public people could see or

0312

even staff would know. They were isolated and hidden from view.

And then normally, the person doesn’t do any more Scientology after introspection rundown. And I know several cases after that — of that.

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine