Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 8) (July 11, 2002)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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.

_______________________________________/

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

TESTIMONY OF JESSE PRINCE1

VOLUME 8

DATE: July 11, 2002. Morning Session

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer
Circuit Judge

REPORTED BY: Debra S. Turner
Deputy Official Court Reporter
Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida
_________________________________________________

KANABAY COURT REPORTERS
TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT HOTEL (813) 224-9500
ST. PETERSBURG – CLEARWATER (727) 821-3320

Page 1008

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
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.
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

Page 1009

[… Other Court business]

THE COURT: Both sides can ask the witnesses if they have been keeping up with this, and I’ll have to decide what I’m going to do about it.

Okay. Mr. Prince.

(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Okay. Day 31. This is the 11th, right?

MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?

THE COURT: 7/11.

MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.

THE COURT: All right. You may continue, Counselor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in the vein that we just talked, the Judge

Page 1021

and I, have — since you have been back on the stand this week, have you met with any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in this case?

THE COURT: Do you know who the prospective — does he know who they are?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think — well, the next witness is Frank Oliver, and then there’s Mr. Dandar. There’s some secret person that Mr. Dandar hasn’t told us about — maybe he’s told you — and the prior witnesses were Peter Alexander, what, Teresa Summers, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, Bob Minton, other people — Brian Haney. Have you met with any of those people?

A Not anything for the purposes of — that’s been in relationship to this trial. I mean, I was here the day that Mr. Haney was here, and we had lunch when he was testifying. I think I was waiting outside the courtroom or something.

THE COURT: The real question is, Have you discussed with them their testimony or yours?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Have you discussed, since you’ve been back on the stand, your testimony with Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Page 1022

Q Or Mr. Lirot? I’m sorry. I had trouble with his name?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Or Ms. Greenway?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Okay.

A I followed the court instruction in that regard.

Q And have you had an opportunity to visit the — the —

THE COURT: Unless Ms. Greenway is a witness, she could technically — technically I suppose have chatted with her. If people under the rule —

First of all, he’s testified he ought not to be discussing his testimony; the Court instructed him so.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you this. I mean, have you eaten — I mean, have you visited with, you know, Ms. Greenway or Mr. Oliver or anybody like that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Because they’re friends?

A Correct.

Q When’s the last time you saw Mr. Oliver?

A Last night.

Page 1023

Q What were you doing with him last night?

A We had dinner. I invited him to a barbecue.

Q Did you know that he was going to be testifying —

A Yes.

Q — after you?

A Yes.

Q And where was the barbecue?

A My house.

Q And who else was there?

11 A Mr. Lirot, Mrs. Greenway, my fiance.

THE COURT: It — really and truly, this is  not your business. What is your business is whether —

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to ask one last question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you all didn’t talk about the case?

THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.

It’s whether he discussed anything about his testimony. I mean, they can talk about the trial.

They can say — we’re all crazy to think that when most people get together, they don’t say, “What do you think? Is the case going to be ready for trial?” But the question is what’s going on here.

Page 1024

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you talk at all about your testimony or Mr. Oliver’s testimony?

A No. I followed the Court’s instruction in that regard.

Q Now, I touched on this a couple of days ago, but I want to go back for just a minute and see if we can focus more on the dates. After you left the Church of Scientology at the end of October, beginning of November of 1992, there came a time when, in Minneapolis, you became employed by a company called G & B. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And that was a company — is a company that is run by a woman named Dana Hanson. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And she is a public member of Scientology?

A To my knowledge at the time, yes.

Q All right. And you’d started working for her in March of 1994, thereabouts, correct?

A I’d say that’s a fair estimation of when I started working for her.

Q And at first your then-wife had been referred to her to work, right? Is that how it started?

A I believe, yes. I believe you’re correct in that.

Page 1025

Q And the reference came from a staff member in the  Minneapolis Org?

A I’m not sure where the reference came from.

Q In any event, you began to work for this company, right?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed at the company until the fall of 1995, when you were fired, right?

A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.

Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?

A Correct.

Q Now, during this period of time, Ms. Hanson was kind enough, for part of the time, to let you stay in her house. Right?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, during the time that you were employed by Ms. Hanson — oh, by the way, this company was run pursuant to Hubbard technology, correct?

A Not per se, but she wanted it to. She wanted me to run it according to Hubbard technology.

Q And —

A It hadn’t been like that before.

Q And briefly, that means what?

Page 1026

A Getting people to disclose intimate details about themselves because this was, you know, a Scientology belief that, you know, if you tell intimate details about yourself or things that you wouldn’t necessarily want made public, then it’ll somehow make you feel better and increase your production.

Q And —

A That’s one thing. Another part was to sit people down and have them study the writings of Mrs. Hanson concerning how the company should operate and make sure that they understood all the words that she had written.

And also, she wanted me to do like a class, a classroom for doing the TRs, the training routines that I mentioned earlier in my testimony that’s part of Scientology training —

Q Okay.

A — that kind of thing.

Q And the idea was the company would run more efficiently, correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, during the course of your year and a half or so with the company, there came a time when you admitted to Ms. Hanson that you had engaged in extensive unethical behavior, in violation of moral codes that were adhered to by Scientologists pursuant to this Hubbard

Page 1027

technology, correct?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. This is nothing but to try to embarrass and denigrate Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: What’s the point of this?

MR. WEINBERG: The point is that Mr. Prince said on direct that he couldn’t work because of the Church of Scientology, that he lost his job as a result of the Church of Scientology. That’s what he said.

THE COURT: That has nothing to do with this hearing. The objection is sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was the reason that you left in October of ’95?

MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

THE COURT: I’ll allow that.

A I left because I didn’t want to practice — I didn’t want to do that — do the things, the Scientology things, in the company. I just wanted to be normal, just do what a company does, instead of adding a Scientology slant to it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So the Church, no staff member, had anything to do with you being terminated from your job.

You just —

Page 1028

A I think I mentioned I was not terminated from my job, Mr. Weinberg.

Q When you terminated from your job, no staff member had anything to do with it.

A I couldn’t hear you. There was noise going on.

Q I said no staff member in any Church of Scientology had anything to do with you leaving your job. Is that right?

A No. That’s categorically false. Mr. Sutter from the Religious Technology Center, after I would not do the Scientological things in that company, together with Ms. Hanson —

THE COURT: This is just not relevant.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I mean, a lot of that answer —

THE COURT: It is not relevant to this proceeding, so you’re not going to go into why he left the job. It just doesn’t matter.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said yesterday that you had — you accused the Church yesterday of having made you sign undated resignations, resignation letters, which were then dated on the date that you were busted from the RTC.

Correct?

Page 1029

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —

Do we have the resignation letters? Are they in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: While they’re looking for that, Judge, did you say this is Day 31?

THE COURT: If what Mr. Weinberg said yesterday, that that was Day 30, then this would be Day 31. I couldn’t keep up with it.

MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 242 (handing), your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ve showed you what we’ve marked as 242 —

A Yes.

Q — Defendant’s 242. Can you look at those and tell me if those are copies of the three resignation letters which you signed on March 3rd, 1987?

A Yes, they are.

Q Now, you are familiar, are you not, with a dot matrix printer? Do you know what that is? Do you remember the printers back 13 or 14 years ago?

A Yes, I believe I know what you’re talking about.

Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that

Page 1030

these letters were typed on dot matrix printers. They were printed out on dot matrix printers. You can even see on the side, the column, some of the holes? Do you see that?

They line up exactly on the three letters, right?

A Okay.

Q And it’s impossible to have typed up a letter on a dot matrix printer years before and then run it back through and put a date on it years later. That’s impossible, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.

THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?

THE WITNESS: No. But I know the answer to why these documents have this date on here.

THE COURT: Okay. If he can’t answer that question, he can’t answer it.

MR. WEINBERG: I move these into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.

THE COURT: What is the number, please?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in your direct testimony, you made a big

Page 1031

point about the CSWs, the completed staff work, you know, like the purchase orders. Do you know what I’m talking about?

A Yes, I do.

Q And —

A I didn’t make a big deal out of it. I think I explained it.

Q Well, the point was, you said that in order to — for the medical liaison office to buy, you know, chloral hydrate, you would have to have a CSW or purchase order issued. Correct?

A Right.

Q And then you drew some conclusion. Because there wasn’t any purchase order, your conclusion was that that hadn’t happened? Was that what your conclusion was?

A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.

Q In any event, you’re familiar, are you not, with cash floats? Do you know what that is?

A Sure.

Q And are you familiar with the policy that provides for a float for the MLO? Are you familiar with that?

A I am not.

Q Explain to the Court what a float is.

A Well, I mean, if you have a policy there, I mean,

Page 1032

I —

THE COURT: He just wants you to tell me what a float is, if you know.

THE WITNESS: I don’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you just said you did.

A Well, not in the — I don’t think — maybe I misspoke, because I don’t understand the context you’re talking about float here.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll have it marked.

Could you mark this as 243, I believe.

This would be 243, your Honor (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, I’ve handed you a — Defendant’s 243, which is Flag Order 3082R, November 15th, 1971, with regard to medical finance. And do you see that this policy reinstates in every Sea Organization the use of a $1,000 medical float? Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And do you understand what that means?

A Yes, I do. But this does not negate someone else that has a medical emergency, as stated in that CSW exhibit that we put in for medical emergencies, of what it has to

Page 1033

go through.

Q Well, do you understand that what this is saying is that for every Sea Organization, including — which would include Flag Services, correct, Fort Harrison?

A Correct.

Q Right. That for every organization, the MLO, the medical liaison office, has a $1,000 float from which they don’t have to issue these CSWs and purchase orders and can go get what they need? Do you understand that?

A Well, hang on a second, because I’m looking at this second page here, and it says since the medical officer has the authority in the Org more than anyone else under need of these purchases, he does not need division reapproval. He does not have to have a CSW for his money. Division 3 just disburses the money each time. A simple red purchase order stating $1,000 for a medical float is sufficient to get the money.

Now, what this is specifically referring to is a medical officer having this float, but there’s another policy letter in Scientology that’s in Division 3 that has to do with accounting. Even though this medical officer would have this float, he would still have to account in detail where the last $1,000 went as well.

Q Well, look at under “essential data.” Do you see where it says this policy — this medical float policy is

Page 1034

established to prevent the medical officer from having to spend much time or worry on finance?

A Yes.

Q Do you understand that the whole concept of every time I had to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner that needed it, that I would have to fill out some CSW, that that might not be a very efficient way to help people and that that’s what this float policy is all about?

A Well, you know, I understand what you’re saying in theory and, you know, I don’t — I really don’t think it’s a common practice.

THE COURT: Are you saying that when you go back and get more — $1,000 float money that they’re going to want to see what you spent the money for?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And how are you going to account for that? With receipts or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, have you ever been a medical liaison officer?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: I mean, this sounds to me like a petty cash fund of sorts.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —

Page 1035

THE COURT: When you have a petty cash fund, you still — if it’s a $1,000 petty cash fund, you’re going to have to show somebody what it is you spent the money on.

MR. DANDAR: I also object. The last sentence on this document talks about it’s only for the crew. They hadn’t mentioned anything about public members.

THE COURT: Well, you can bring that up on cross-examination.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I was just raising this because of the testimony on direct, that you needed a CSW. This policy says you don’t need a CSW.

THE COURT: I frankly didn’t even remember it, so . . .

MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?

THE COURT: I do now.

MR. WEINBERG: And then I’ll just show you —

Then I’ll mark, just so it’s in the record the — as the next exhibit.

THE CLERK: 244.

MR. WEINBERG: 244, take one second (handing to Court and witness).

Page 1036

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The Modern Management Technology Defined: Hubbard Dictionary of Administration and Management. You know about that dictionary, right, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q If you go to “medical float,” do you see on page 329, it says: “With this float, the medical officer buys doctor-dentist-medical-health specialist visits and treatment, laboratory analysis, X rays, medical equipment essential for a person’s health, medicines, prescriptions, and transportation.” Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So something like a prescription for chloral hydrate would be covered by the medical float, would it not?

A This references this same Flag order. I gave testimony that a Flag order has to do with Sea Org personnel. It has to do with people that are on staff in the Sea Org.

Q So — so the MLO officer has to get a purchase order to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner who is staying at the Fort Harrison, but if he or she doesn’t — if a Sea Org member is at the Fort Harrison? Is that your testimony?

A My testimony is the evidence that you’ve given me

Page 1037

here states specifically that this is how it is done for staff members. The public, being a paying public, certainly have different policies.

THE COURT: To be candid with you, I think it’s been conceded that — by somebody that Lisa McPherson should not have been to the hotel. Hasn’t that been conceded?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don’t think conceded.

I think people were trying —

THE COURT: To suggest that it really ought not to have been taken care of —

MR. WEINBERG: It would have been a smarter thing to be in a different environment.

THE COURT: Right. So you have to assume that the medical that they’re talking about in this — I’ll ask Mr. Prince this.

You have to assume that normally it’s going to be Sea Org members who are going to be taken care of because they’re the ones that would be living in a Scientology facility.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But at some place like Flag, where they have maybe — I guess you have to be a Sea Org member to come there and take the technology courses that they offered.

Page 1038

THE WITNESS: No, you don’t have to be —

THE COURT: Right. So if somebody is there — there, and they have to get a — I mean, I don’t know what — they get sick and somebody is called in and they need some minor medicine, I would assume that they would allow this policy to govern, rather than have to go through all the harangue of whatever it was you were talking about.

But I think that whatever it is, you’re going to still, nonetheless, account for whatever it is you bought out of your petty cash fund or your float fund or whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Sure. And the other thing, your Honor, is that in no way will a Scientology organization pay the medical expenses of a public paying staff member, a public person coming in, using services in Scientology.

You know, the money works the other way. The public gives the money to Scientology. Scientology doesn’t then —

THE COURT: Well, we know they were using Ms. McPherson’s money to pay for certain things because she eventually ran out.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So presumably everything was subject. I mean, if she was really in a bad

Page 1039

situation, a psychotic, where she couldn’t — you know, they apparently were free to use her funds, I guess.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you can’t really tell us, under the circumstances that we’re dealing with here, whether chloral hydrate was necessarily purchased out of the float money or whether it was purchased with this CSW.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Would that be fair?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Just a few more questions, one more area.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.

Yesterday when we talked about this or the day before — I’ve sort of lost count now — you sort of suggested that it was more of a — of a joke, that you really weren’t that serious.

THE COURT: What was a joke?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.

THE COURT: What are you talking about?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I’m sorry, the gun, when

Page 1040

he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.

A I didn’t say anything about a joke. I said I did it out of self-protection.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So —

A That’s the testimony that I gave from this stand.

Q Well, I thought I heard you say that you didn’t really threaten anybody.

A I can’t help what you thought you heard, but I can tell you right now that when — after — what I testified to in this courtroom is that after those people grabbed me and I got away from them, I went to my room and got these weapons to protect myself.

It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.

Q And when you first told — do you remember when you first told this story about guns? That was in the FACTNet deposition, which was the first deposition I think — was that the first deposition you gave after you became a witness against Scientology?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.

THE COURT: No, that’s all right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I’m not sure.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Page 1041

Q All right. Do you remember in that deposition that you said something to the effect that bodies were going to start dropping?

A If you have it, you know, I’d like to see it.

Q Okay.

A If you just have it, you show it to me, and I’ll tell you what I said.

Q We’ll play a short clip, you’ll have it, and then I’ll have a couple of questions.

A Okay.

HE COURT: A short clip from what? A deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Of his deposition. It’s his deposition.

THE COURT: In this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No. It’s his deposition in the FACTNet case. It will take just a minute, I think.

MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m amazed she can pull this stuff up.

THE WITNESS: Right in this room, I’m having a difficult time. I think I’d better go around.

THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.

Page 1042

(The witness left the stand,)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The tape was played as follows.)

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998

A And I went to my room, where I had a loaded .45 and a loaded Mini 14, and I came back to David Miscavige’s office with those guns. And I said, “Which one of you wants to fuck with me now?”

BY MR. ROSEN:

Q And what happened? I’m sitting here with bated breath thinking — to hear the end of the story.

A Well, do you want me to tell it or do you want —

Q No, I’m (unintelligible) the answer to that question that you raised.

A Well, I’m confused now. What question did I raise?

Q You posed a question to Mr. Miscavige that “which one of you wants to F with me now?”

A Right. So at this point Vicki comes running out:

“Jesse, no, no, no, it’s all been sanctioned by Annie Broker. She knows about everything. And Pat Broker. She knows about everything. Don’t do this.”

Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely

Page 1043

changes his tune now: “Oh, Jesse,” you know, “we’ve been friends and we’ve gone through so much. Let’s not go here.

It’s a mistake what we’ve done here. I know you’re upset. Please let’s talk about it.”

And I stood there looking at them with my guns in my hand, wondering. You know, like you can pat a snake on the head, but as soon as you pull your hand back, he going to bite. And I was wondering if that was going to happen to me as I’m sitting here with these guns.

And, you know, David is like pleading. Then it turns into a situation like, “Well,” you know, “we’ve got lots of guns too.”

And I said, “What the hell do you all want to do, have a shootout? Because I’ve got guns here, and bodies are going to start dropping.”

(End of tape. The witness returned to the stand)

MR. DANDAR: I object. It’s apples and oranges. It doesn’t even go to try to impeach the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —

THE COURT: I don’t know what the purpose was, so we’ll hear now.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Yesterday or the day before, July 9th, when I

Page 1044

asked you the question about whether you threatened to kill Mr. Miscavige, you said, quote, “I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige.”

Now, when you told that story to Mr. Rosen at that August 1998 deposition, you said in front of Mr. Miscavige, you know, “Bodies are going to start dropping,” or something like that. Right? I mean, you said that —

A The video speaks for itself, and I don’t contest it. I mean, that’s — what I said is what happened, is what I meant. So you can take it any way you want.

Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —

THE COURT: A what?

MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.

THE COURT: What do we care about this, about these guns?

MR. WEINBERG: About —

THE COURT: About something that went on between him and — way back when.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s just the opposite, your Honor. We don’t believe this incident ever happened and that he just made this up for reasons that one can only imagine when he told this story for the first time in August of 1998. But, your Honor, I mean —

Page 1045

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you. A Mini 14 is an assault rifle, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Bailiff, could I possibly have our model there?

This is just a replica.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s plastic. It’s plastic.

It’s not real.

MR. DANDAR: I just wish — I just wish the St. Pete Times was here with their camera to see this.

I think this is an unbelievable game —

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. DANDAR: — of showmanship. It’s irrelevant.

THE COURT: What is the point?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q (Showing) Is that what you’re talking about?

Something like that?

A Similar to, but not quite.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’m going to give you this back.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you still contend that that’s what you pulled

Page 1046

on Mr. Miscavige and the other twelve people that were there. Right?

A Mr. Weinberg, I stand behind the testimony that I’ve given about that incident in the past and anything I’ve said —

Q All right.

A — in this hearing.

Q And then they just let you go right back to your room and put the guns in your room?

A Correct.

Q And they didn’t take them away from you?

A Correct.

Q And they just stayed there for the next, what, five years?

A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I don’t have any further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Redirect?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, we ought to pick it up right where Mr. Weinberg just left off.

(Mr. Weinberg spoke to Mr. Dandar off the record.)

Page 1047

MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. I just don’t want to interrupt you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When you had these two real guns loaded as you described when you were being, quote, busted, unquote, Mr. Miscavige came right up to you while you held the two guns in your hands, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did you or he laugh?

A Laugh?

Q Laugh.

A Like laugh?

Q Yes, like laugh.

A No.

Q Did Mr. Miscavige say — indicate to you any fear whatsoever?

A No.

Q And then you turned around and walked back to your room?

A Correct. I believe he may have even followed me there. And we then proceeded to that area of the ship where we saw the pictures with the swimming pool, with the mast, and we had a conversation there.

Q Did you sit around the pool?

Page 1048

A Well, actually, there’s an area inside that’s air-conditioned, has a bar in there, and we actually sat in there and drank cold water and ate fruit.

Q And when Mr. Weinberg — or, you said that Vicki Aznaran, the president of the RTC, told you that this had all been sanctioned by Annie and Pat Broker, did she accompany you to the RPF after that?

A Yes, and other people for sure.

Q Because she took the Annie and Pat Broker side, rather than the David Miscavige power struggle side?

A Correct.

Q You’re going to the RPF, Mr. Prince. Did it have anything to do with any mistakes you made in applying the tech of Scientology?

A Absolutely not.

THE COURT: What does this all have to do with anything I’m hearing?

MR. DANDAR: Just trying to straighten out some misconceptions. My computer just went onto standby. That’s not what I wanted to happen. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, when you left Scientology, did you just walk out the door in ’92?

A No.

Page 1049

Q How did you leave?

A I had to basically sign a release saying that Scientology has never done anything wrong with me and has no liability for anything that I may be suffering then or could realize in the future and on and on and on —

THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I wanted to ask him a question about it, and you can see my paralegal is not here, so I’m flying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That release says that you were releasing the Church of Scientology from any and all damages for valuable consideration. There’s two or three paragraphs that say that.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q What valuable consideration did you receive from the Church of Scientology to sign that release?

MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.

He explained —

THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.

THE COURT: Just a second.

Page 1050

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered

by Mr. Dandar. I didn’t go back into it. It’s beyond the scope. But he already — Mr. Prince already explained how much money he got in return for signing the release on direct.

THE COURT: He did?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

MR. DANDAR: Shhh.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought he said a thousand plus dollars.

THE COURT: I don’t remember it, so I’m going to allow him to ask it. I don’t remember it.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I might have brain drain.

MR. DANDAR: I think you’re talking about some meeting in December of ’94.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

MR. WEINBERG: I really think he did, but it doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration

Page 1051

to sign those releases?

A I think I received $2,000.

Q Okay. From whom?

A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.

Q Well, do you have any idea why it’s not mentioned in the release?

A I do not.

THE COURT: Most releases don’t tell you what. Most releases say “ten dollars and other valuable consideration,” don’t they?

MR. DANDAR: Not the ones that I’ve seen, Judge.

THE COURT: Most of the ones I’ve seen do, because I always wondered why they pick ten dollars.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how is it that Ms. Dana Hanson wanted to — picked you to come into her public business and set up her business to run the Hubbard tech?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.

I mean, how is it that this woman —

THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. Quite frankly, I suspect that he’s already testified he was one of the premier experts on the tech. So I mean, I think I can assume that.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. If you can assume that,

Page 1052

I’ll go on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —

THE COURT: I can’t assume that, but, I mean, that is the testimony that he has put forth.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So . . .

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there any other reason as far as you know — without telling us what other people said — is there any other reason as far as you know as to why Dana  Hanson hired you, other than your expertise on the tech?

A You know, there —

THE COURT: If you don’t know —

A I don’t know the reason.

THE COURT: Remember yesterday, that’s a perfectly valid answer in a court of law, “I don’t know.”

THE WITNESS: Yes. I don’t know of any other reason.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you wanted to tell Mr. Weinberg a little while ago why the date of March 3, 1987, appears on all three resignation letters which is Defendant’s Exhibit 242. Why does the date appear on there?

Page 1053

A Because after me and Mr. Miscavige had our little chat on the ship area after the gun incident, he said, you know: “We have your undated resignation, but just help us,” you know, “do everything right now.” You know: “We’re talking again. You’re going to take this fall; you’re going to do this. Would you please just do it again and sign these new ones?”

And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

So that’s why these are signed this way.

Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?

A Yes, correct.

Q Have you seen those? Have they been produced to you ever?

A Not today.

Q Have you ever seen them before this?

A Sure.

Q Where?

A In the Religious Technology Center in my office, where I signed it. I also saw it in David Miscavige’s office on the day that I was removed from the executive position of Religious Technology Center.

Q Okay. So on the resignation letters that are in evidence, those are the ones you actually signed on March 3rd of 1987?

Page 1054

A Correct.

Q Okay. And you did that because your friend David Miscavige asked you to do it?

A Correct.

Q You weren’t threatened and forced to do it?

A Correct.

Q Were you being a good Scientologist when you signed that?

A Absolutely.

Q All right. Now, Mr. Houghton, who is a defendant in this case, who is in the MLO office, who is the one that came up with the idea of using a syringe to get aspirin and Benadryl —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. First of all, to the form; he’s just testifying.

Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.

And thirdly, it’s beyond the scope of my cross-examination. I didn’t ask anything about Mr. Houghton.

THE COURT: I suspect he’s going to go back to the CSW that you felt compelled to raise in some fashion.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —

MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?

MR. WEINBERG: — I object to the form. Then I object to the form, as he’s just making a

Page 1055

speech.

THE COURT: Your objection to form is overruled because he’s not. He’s trying to provide some background to see if this witness can answer a question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Houghton stated on page 71 of his deposition, where the question begins on line 18, as follows.

Question —

THE COURT: You folks back there, I can hear you clear up here, so it must be disconcerting to Mr. Dandar. So keep your voices down. Or you may step out of the room at anytime you need to speak in a loud voice.

Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Question: “And where did you get the money to buy the prescription?”

Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”

Question: “And why did you go to him to get the money?”

Answer: “I didn’t have the personal funds to pay for it. I didn’t know. I don’t know exactly why I went to Alain. I don’t know what events led me up to getting the money from Alain, but I do know that’s where I got the

Page 1056

money.”

The question is, Is Mr. Kartuzinski, back in November and December of 1995, pursuant to his testimony in this case, part of the MLO?

A No.

Q What was he?

A He was the Senior CS —

THE COURT: I’ll tell counsel what you really don’t have to do is ask this witness that. I would know that.

MR. DANDAR: Sorry.

THE COURT: You can save a lot of this for closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: All right. There’s so much of that.

All right. That takes care of this part.

Let’s put this away.

THE COURT: Is this a witness, by chance, that has just come in?

A SPEAKER: (Shook head negatively.) No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome then. I didn’t want somebody to come in that was maybe going to testify.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1057

Q All right. Mr. Prince, in your tenure in Clearwater at the Lisa McPherson Trust, did you ever see the Church of Scientology picketing the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Absolutely. You know — yes. Yes, many times.

Q Would they do it in front of the building, the office?

A They would do it in front of the building. They would do it inside the building. There’s many police reports of Scientologists running and screaming, disrupting activities. Again, my friend — my good friend, Judge Penick, can speak about that. And we watched videos for days. He would be a great witness about that.

Q Okay. All right. Do you know if anyone from the Lisa McPherson Trust hired private investigators to follow Church members around?

A Never.

Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?

A Never.

Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?

A No.

Q Now, even though you left the Church of Scientology, have you ever divulged the confidential PC folders of the people that you either audited or were a case supervisor over?

Page 1058

A No, I have not, never.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg went back and talked to you about your deposition that you gave on behalf of Religious Technology Center, where their former attorney, Joseph Yanny, was suing them or RTC was suing him. I’m not sure.

Do you remember which way that was?

A I don’t remember which way it was going.

Q Okay. But anyway, that was back in 1989, while you were still in your demoted status?

A You know, that had been some years past that, yes.

Q Okay. And when you met — you said you met with Mr. Earle Cooley, the attorney for RTC, before your deposition commenced?

A Correct.

Q Do you also recall meeting with a person by the name of Lynn Farney?

A Yes.

Q And the reason why I know this is it’s in your deposition copy that Mr. Weinberg gave me. Before today — in fact, as you sit here today, have you ever seen a copy of that deposition?

A No.

Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.

Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case

Page 1059

that was taken in ’99, ten years after the RTC deposition.

Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?

A Yes.

Q Did he give you a copy of that deposition back then?

A No.

Q Now, Mr. Farney, do you know — back at the time that he and Mr. Cooley, the attorney, met with you before the RTC deposition, do you know what position he had?

A Mr. Farney had been on a Rehabilitation Project Force with myself. Mr. Lynn Farney is a person that I used to create and establish the Office of Special Affairs at International. I had —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, he just asked him what position he was in at the time that he supposedly had this meeting with him. Now we’re getting the whole history. Can he just answer the question, please?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q At the time of his deposition, what was his position?

A Mr. Farney was working in OSA International. It was my belief that Mr. Farney was working in OSA International.

Page 1060

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I must have missed the beginning of this. What did you initially ask him? If Mr. Farney was —

MR. DANDAR: Part of the meeting preparing Mr. Prince for deposition in the RTC case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: RTC slash Yanny, Y-a-n-n-e-y.

THE WITNESS: Y-a-n-n-y.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Farney is someone that you worked with in establishing the Office of Special Affairs?

A Correct.

Q Do you remember what year that was?

A ’84. ’83, ’84.

Q Okay. And are you aware that Mr. Farney is also the person who met with all the staff members after Lisa McPherson’s death?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —

A No, I was not aware of that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form. He’s testifying.

THE COURT: True. Sustained. However, he wasn’t aware of it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. It’s just —

Page 1061

THE COURT: Remember, questions aren’t evidence, only the answers.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that meeting before your deposition, who instructed you to avoid telling the truth in your deposition?

A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.

THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?

MR. WEINBERG: Bun.

THE COURT: Bun.

THE WITNESS: Rathbun.

THE COURT: B-u-n.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: And it’s Ms. Brooks, not Mrs. Brooks. Never mind.

MR. WEINBERG: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did it surprise you when Mr. Cooley and Mr. Rathbun were giving you instructions on not telling the truth?

A No, it did not.

Q And why is that?

A Because it’s expected.

Q Why is that?

Page 1062

A Because you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect — you know, it’s like placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk being a crime. You have — you are expected as a member of the Church of Scientology to do and say whatever you have to to preserve Scientology, to preserve its leaders.

Q Is that a written policy?

A Probably.

Q And Mr. Yanny —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, could we just identify that policy if that’s a written policy?

He said “probably.”

THE COURT: I assume probably he couldn’t tell us —

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: — or he would have given us a number.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you tell us — without giving a number, but can you tell us generally what policy you’re talking about?

A As I sit here today without the materials, I could not, but I could certainly submit a declaration on it at a later point.

Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?

Page 1063

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I didn’t ask him about —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: I think he already — didn’t you already ask that on direct?

MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, you said —

THE COURT: Didn’t you also testify about the greatest good for the greatest number?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.

THE COURT: So we’ve heard, I think, a lot of that.

MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you working for RTC at the time of that deposition in 1989?

A No, I was not.

Q Well, Mr. Yanny was the former president — or, attorney for RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q Why was he suing RTC? What was that litigation about?

A You know, what I recall about that is that when

Page 1064

Joseph Yanny was hired, he was hired by myself and Ms. Aznaran as the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center. When he was hired —

THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Joseph Yanny, the attorney that was hired.

THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —

Did we mark that as an exhibit at deposition? I’d like to have that marked as an exhibit since it was used. But Mr. Yanny is the one that actually took over questioning of Mr. Prince on the pertinent pages that Mr. Weinberg pointed out, although Mr. Yanny had his own attorney there. He took it over because Mr. Yanny — like me and Mr. Lirot. I have all this stuff in my head and I know what’s going on.

So the transcript — and I’d like to make that — and I will make it an exhibit if it’s not — shows that Mr. Yanny took over the questioning of Mr. Prince in that 1989 deposition.

THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an

Page 1065

exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s why I didn’t do it.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But if you want to make it an exhibit, why, that’s your — you can try to do that.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you stated to Mr. Weinberg —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, let me object. I mean, let me intercede for just a second. Just so it’s clear, Mr. Yanny was the party, was the plaintiff. And I think that was clear, but I’m not sure if it was.

THE COURT: I got it.

MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.

THE COURT: I didn’t realize Mr. Yanny was a lawyer. That’s why I —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you hired Mr. Yanny to be the attorney for RTC?

A Mr. Yanny was — yes, I did, to be the lead counsel for RTC. RTC had other attorneys, but Mr. Yanny

Page 1066

was hired to be the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center at that time.

Q And is it for any particular case?

MR. WEINBERG: Object. Your Honor, I believe this is all beyond the scope. All I did was impeach him on his false testimony, which he admitted was false in that deposition. Now to get to the history of that lawsuit or Joseph Yanny I think is beyond the scope and not relevant to this proceeding either.

THE COURT: I would tend to agree with that, Counsel. You know, if you think it’s relevant and there’s something you can tell me about this, I’ll listen to you. But it’s just another one of these lawsuits, many, many lawsuits.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, do you know whether or not any of the allegations made between RTC and Joseph Yanny had anything to do with Mr. Yanny perjuring himself or suborning perjury?

THE COURT: That would be relevant.

A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You don’t?

Page 1067

A No.

Q All right. Now, did Mr. Yanny have anything to do with any of the Wollersheim litigation?

A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That was a yes or no question, and to — if we get into the details, I’m going to object because it’s beyond the scope and it’s not relevant.

THE COURT: That would be true.

MR. DANDAR: Except he brought up the question, Mr. Weinberg did, about Mr. Prince’s testimony of destruction of the PC folders.

THE COURT: Oh, right.

MR. WEINBERG: And I impeached him on it with the Yanny deposition. He admitted it. He said he lied in the deposition. That’s all I used it for.

THE COURT: Well, I think at this point we’ll see what his question is.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was Mr. Yanny involved in representing RTC against Mr. Wollersheim?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Yanny involved when Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folders were destroyed?

Page 1068

A He had no personal knowledge of it.

Q Was any attorney for Scientology involved in that in any degree?

A The only one that I know of that would have had information about that would have been Mr. Earle Cooley.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, “would have had.”

I mean, is he saying he did have?

THE WITNESS: I can explain if you would like me to.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. Explain it.

A The decision to do this was made in a conference room at Author Services with myself, Vicki Asnaran, Mr. Rathbun was there, Mr. Cooley was there, and this all has to do with —

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor. And this had —

THE COURT: Who else was there?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Lyman Spurlock I believe was there, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mr. Cooley, Marty Rathbun.

And we were sitting in the conference room discussing it. Mr. Starkey may have been there, Mr. Norman Starkey.

THE COURT: This is when you discussed

Page 1069

destruction of these records?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So Mr. Cooley would have heard this? Is that what you’re saying?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?

A As best as I can recall, it was Ms. Aznaran that said, “We have to destroy the folders.” Mr. Miscavige and everyone else agreed, so that’s what was done.

Q And did the folders contain information that would hurt the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, it — apparently, you know, that’s what they felt.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: That’s what you felt too. Right? You were there.

THE WITNESS: Well, I had actually never seen Mr. Wollersheim’s Preclear folders. I had never audited him.

THE COURT: But you didn’t have a problem destroying it.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1070

Q And why didn’t you have a problem destroying his records?

A Because, like every good Scientologist, you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect the integrity of Scientology, its leadership, so that it would carry on because it’s the greatest good. Scientologists believe that Scientology is man’s only answer to freedom.

Q Now, did you have to understand — I’m sorry.

Did I interrupt you?

A No, go ahead.

Q Did you understand at any point in time there was actually a court order to produce the entire PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim after the Church only produced a little bit of it?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, relevancy. He’s already — and beyond the scope and all that —

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.

THE COURT: I’m sustaining it as beyond the scope.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —

THE COURT: I mean, frankly, I think we’ve already been over this.

MR. WEINBERG: I do too. That’s why I objected.

Page 1071

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear it several times.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, our position is no PC folders were destroyed.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that too.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you understand that Mr. Wollersheim was — did allege that his PC folders were destroyed?

THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me ask you this question. This is what I’m leading up to. Mr. Prince, you said that you lied in your deposition in the Yanny vs. RTC case?

A Correct.

Q And you said you sat in this meeting where Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Cooley was at this meeting where a decision was made to destroy evidence of PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim?

A Correct.

Q And Mr. Aznaran is the one who actually went out

Page 1072

to the paper mill and had it pulped?

A Correct.

Q And you did that because you were being loyal to the Church of Scientology?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: It’s irrelevant. Besides that, you’re doing the testimony, and he’s just saying yes.

You need to ask him, Why did you do that?

MR. DANDAR: And he’s answered that.

THE COURT: Yes, he has.

MR. DANDAR: I want to skip — the question is this.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, are you testifying for the Estate of Lisa McPherson or for me because you’re loyal to the Estate, to the cause, or to Ken Dandar?

A No. I’m testifying because it’s the right thing to do. It’s very difficult to divine truth from — I’m not trying to be vicious here, but it’s very difficult to divine truth from Scientology. People that are currently working on this case, they’ll do anything they can to obstruct it. They’ll do anything they can to make sure —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A — that you can’t find out the truth, and —

Page 1073

MR. WEINBERG: He’s going on and on and on.

A — that’s why I do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He was asked a leading question, Are you testifying because you were loyal to the —

THE COURT: Actually, that wasn’t leading because his answer was no.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand he said no. Now he’s going off into some big explanation.

THE COURT: That’s true. If you want to ask him why are you testifying, then he can go on with his explanation.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Why are you testifying in this hearing?

A To give justice and equity a chance — a fair chance, to give all the information, to be able to give the full view of what’s going on. You know, I think it would be fair — it’s only fair that the whole picture is seen.

Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks offered to continue to pay you $5,000 a month if you, quote, went down the road with them, close quote, and lied. Isn’t that true?

A I was promised a lot more than that.

Q What else were you promised to lie?

Page 1074

A Retirement.

Q Did they go into any specific details?

A Financial security that will retire me for the rest of my life.

Q Any dollar figures discussed?

A A quarter of a million. That’s normally what Mr. Minton does when he gives people money.

Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?

A For me to retire for the rest of my life? No. I think I’m too young. I would need more. I would have to need more.

Q And is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks proposed this to you, to lie, that they knew that they wanted you to lie?

A Absolutely. They knew they were lying. They knew we all had to lie. I mean, this is the only thing that they felt they could do to end it, disengage, to be done with it. I mean, there’s only so long you can wrestle with this demon.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: And you don’t need, Mr. Weinberg, when it’s your turn, to get up and respond to that. It’s for money, he testified. So I understand where both of you all are coming from here.

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t even going to make

Page 1075

that point.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.

THE COURT: Well, I saw you getting — fuming, and I was thinking, “Oh, dear.”

MR. WEINBERG: I was thinking about all the calls I have to return.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when you and I met at the mall with Mr. Lirot, Mr. Haverty, and your fiance and you wrote out what’s attached to your declaration, the handwritten note of April 14th, 2002, did I promise you money at all?

A None at all. Money wasn’t even discussed.

Q Did I pay you any money for writing that note?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did I promise to pay you money in the future if you wrote that note?

A No, you did not.

Q And isn’t it true or — what’s the reason why I gave you a retainer of 4,000?

A Because my time is as valuable as anyone else’s.

Q And you’ve been working on this — this hearing preparing documents for me?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You are back now as Mr. Dandar’s

Page 1076

consultant? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And expert?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q I certainly haven’t promised you any retirement money, have I?

A No, you have not.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we have a direct question instead of a leading question?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you were in LMT, did you know that the — and if I asked this, I’ll — I don’t remember asking this — do you know whether or not the LMT received an anonymous $300,000 from Clambake?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope. I didn’t ask about it.

THE COURT: It’s beyond the scope. The truth of the matter is, rather than recall, if this is an area that he thinks is important, I’m going to let him get into it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1077

Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?

A The only — you know, I found out about that —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer the question?

THE WITNESS: I’m trying to answer the question.

THE COURT: Counsel, just let it go, would you?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: We need to get through this.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

A I found out about that whole deal with money coming from wherever it came from when Teresa Summers wrote her resignation letter to Stacy Brooks and I read it, where that was mentioned.

THE COURT: So the truth — you did not know about the 300,000, who it came from. Mr. Minton never discussed this with you —

THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: — is that right?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you ever — while you were with LMT, did you ever hear the phrase “the fat man”?

A No.

Page 1078

Q Okay. Now, with this Key West fishing trip in the summer of 1999, as best I can phrase that, you had already been working for me for a few months, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, the other people that showed up down in Key West, like Mr. Ford Greene, is that someone that you had ever seen me with before that fishing trip?

A No.

Q Did I go on the fishing trip?

A No, you did not.

Q Did I stay with you and Mr. Leipold and Mr. Greene and Mr. Haverty?

A No.

Q Oh, in that release that’s in evidence, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 231, that release language says that you are conceding or admitting that you were not harmed by the Church of Scientology. Do you have any reason to know why that was put in your release?

A Yes. That was put in the release for the same reason that Scientologists are asked to lie. It’s to protect Scientology at all costs.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you on cross if you had any personal knowledge of whether or not David Miscavige was physically at the Fort Harrison Hotel while Lisa McPherson was there in November and December of ’95. Do

Page 1079

you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Prince, would it matter where David Miscavige was physically located as to whether or not he would have knowledge and was personally involved with the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson?

A In my opinion, no.

Q Why not?

A Well, with the state of technology today, it makes no difference whatsoever. But also, based on past experience that I have had with Mr. Miscavige during the Wollersheim case, we were really just a short distance away, and while the hearings were going on, people were calling and reporting all the time. There’s no problem of getting an on-the-ground report immediately in any place in Scientology for Mr. Miscavige.

THE COURT: It is your opinion — I’m sure you’ve probably testified to this, but I can’t remember. I’ve heard from several people. It is your opinion that Mr. Miscavige was kept advised at all times of Lisa McPherson and her situation.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is my opinion that once the situation where she got out of the car and was admitted to the hospital and it became a matter for Office of Special Affairs’ concern, then he

Page 1080

was — he knew about it.

THE COURT: Was it your opinion while she was admittedly PTS-III, undergoing introspection rundown, he would be kept advised of this and the progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or lack of progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —

THE COURT: And that opinion comes from your having been around him when he was head of RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or ASI?

THE WITNESS: Both.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: When Mr. Hubbard was alive and was the head ecclesiastical leader of the Church, would he have been kept advised of PTS Type III introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: He would have taken it over and dealt with it himself.

THE COURT: My question is, Would he have been kept advised?

Page 1081

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?

THE WITNESS: Well, in all honesty, your Honor, I have to answer this and say that towards the end of Mr. Hubbard’s life —

THE COURT: Forget when folks say he was mad. I understood that.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: When he was in charge of the Church and head ecclesiastical leader, would he have been kept advised of that type of situation, with either a public or staff member of Scientology?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any question in your mind whatsoever about that?

THE WITNESS: None whatsoever. He would have taken it over and did it himself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to admit that there’s no written policy in the Church of Scientology to go out and kill somebody, and you said that’s true. Do you recall that?

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q There’s no written policy in the Church of

Page 1082

Scientology to go and kill somebody.

A Well, there’s one thing that came into evidence here. It was the SP declare of — I think I read down the list. It was maybe eight people. And in that —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what came into evidence? The, what, SP?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It was an SP declare. It was a single sheet of a paper by L. Ron Hubbard declaring — I think it was eight people suppressive persons and declared them fair game. And then on one of the lines, L. Ron Hubbard gave instructions whereby he said any Sea Org member encountering any of the above persons is to use process R245 on them.
Process R245 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE WITNESS: — is a process —

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.

This was the document that was not admitted that Mr. Prince is now testifying about. It was the phony document.

MR. DANDAR: Phony —

MR. WEINBERG: And this is way beyond the scope of my cross-examination.

THE COURT: It’s not beyond the scope because you made it clear there’s absolutely no basis

Page 1083

upon which to make the assertions that he has. Now, if he has a basis, he would be permitted to testify. So it’s not beyond the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: This document that he’s talking about is not in evidence.

THE COURT: All right. If that’s true, then he can’t refer to that document.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.

THE COURT: Well, go find it. Let’s take a break and we’ll see whether it is or not. I couldn’t begin to tell you what documents are in and what ones aren’t. But the clerk would have them, whether they were admitted or not.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Before we take a break, let me ask one more question.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your tenure at the Church of Scientology, did you ever see anything in writing called R245?

A Yes. It actually comes from a tape lecture. And I forget which tape lecture it was specifically, but it talks about R245 being an effective exteriorization process, whereby the person takes a .45, puts it to his head — a loaded .45, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger, and blows their brains out. That releases the

Page 1084

spirit from the body.

Q Is that a lecture by — who?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Let’s take our break and let me find that.

THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.

We’ll take 15 minutes.

(A break was taken at 10:25 a.m. until approximately 10:55 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Where is Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may resume the stand.

You all may be seated.

And, Mr. Dandar, did you find whether that was in or out of evidence?

MR. DANDAR: It was out. And for the clerk’s benefit, I still have it, so make sure I give it back to her. Somewhere. It’s on my table.

Here it is. I have this tendency of walking away with exhibits.

THE COURT: Are we having a light show?

MR. DANDAR: They had a TV or a signal that keeps coming in. We started to watch a soap opera there for a minute.

THE COURT: I see.

Page 1085

MR. DANDAR: But I have a videotape of a Boston picket. And the only reason I want to put this on is because Mr. Weinberg used Mr. Prince picketing in his cross-examination. But this shows what happened before the clip-it, the snippet, that Mr. Weinberg showed.

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, this is a different day than the picket that I showed. But he can play it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).

THE WITNESS: It has no audio.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s stop it. Because I did that too.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you know the date of this?

MR. DANDAR: It’s in the beginning of the tape. Just a minute, and I’ll get everything here.

(The tape of the picket was played, entitled “Boston, September 10th, 1998, unedited.”

As noted below, the tape was not reportable and is not transcribed herein.)

THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just put that on to show you it’s not a one-way street.

THE COURT: I understand.

Page 1086

MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: If you didn’t get all that, you can put in the record — because this tape can be put in — that it was just a lot of shouting and carrying on and that you did the best you could.

THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Are you marking that as an exhibit?

THE COURT: Make a copy of it for the record, because there’s no way the court reporter could be expected to get all that. Talk about your proverbial everybody talking at once.

MR. DANDAR: That would be impossible to write down.

THE COURT: Yes, it would.

So I’m sure you did the best you could, but as far as I’m concerned, it could be basically said you must see the tape because it’s everybody talking at once and loud and obnoxious.

MR. DANDAR: Since Mr. Lirot is bringing in our next witness, I’m going to mark it as 135A because he has all of his exhibits premarked —

Page 1087

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: — starting with 136. So the videotape of Boston, September 10th, ’98, is Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?

THE COURT: 9/10/98.

MR. WEINBERG: And you received that into evidence, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, the people that were engaging you and Mr. Minton in that picket, where were they from?

A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you talked about the taped lecture series of Mr. Hubbard where he describes R245?

A Correct.

Q And have you seen that?

A I have seen that.

Q Or heard it, whatever it is. I don’t know what it is.

A Yes, I heard it before, read the transcript.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a TV — which I

Page 1088

believe is a TV interview of Mr. Hubbard where he talks about this policy that he wrote called R245.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Objection, your Honor. It’s not a policy. It’s a mischaracterization of it.

Again, it mischaracterizes the policy of the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, if this is a lecture of Mr. Hubbard, why, what could be objectionable with Mr. Hubbard —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s the characterization of it as a policy.

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.

MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —

MR. DANDAR: I apparently misspoke, I’m sorry. I’ll have Mr. Prince talk about what it is.

As soon as we identify — this is, I believe, Mr. Hubbard speaking, so . . .

THE COURT: What number is it?

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit number? This will be 135B.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask the relevance of playing a 1950 speech of L. Ron Hubbard?

Page 1089

MR. DANDAR: If he’s objecting because of the age of the speech, I think it’s quite clear that the age of any document Mr. Hubbard wrote or spoke about has no significance —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

MR. DANDAR: — in the Church of Scientology. Everything remains the same.

THE COURT: What is it, though? I don’t understand. Is this a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.

MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.

THE COURT: What did he bring up?

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Weinberg brought up on cross that there’s no written policy of the Church of Scientology about killing somebody.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: He objected to that Flag order because it wasn’t properly authenticated. That’s fine. It spoke of R245. There’s another publication we’re going to bring in that is current and published by the Church of Scientology that does mention R245.

MR. WEINBERG: What I had asked, just so it’s clear, was there any policy to kill somebody, and he said no. But secondly —

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

Page 1090

Overruled.

I hope this isn’t terribly long. Is it?

MR. DANDAR: It is. I think it’s 35 minutes.

THE COURT: I’m not going to listen to 35 minutes.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Maybe — what I would like to do over lunch is go down right to the specific area.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, you see, that’s the problem. I understand your Honor doesn’t want to listen to 35 minutes. You shouldn’t have to listen to 35 minutes. But you cannot take a speech and say this is a religious policy and take two minutes out of an entire lecture about religious matters and then play it and pretend that that gives you any idea as to the context of what’s going on.

THE COURT: All right. I’ll listen to the whole thing.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I don’t want — I’m not urging you.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s do this after lunch. Is that all right?

THE COURT: All right. Let’s do it about 4 o’clock.

Page 1091

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll do it after lunch.

MR. DANDAR: I hope Mr. Prince is still not on the stand by 4 o’clock. In fact, I think he should be over quite soon.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, talking about policies of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Prince, are you familiar with the additional steps in evidence, the policy of additional steps of an introspection rundown, where Mr. Hubbard writes that the introspection rundown can be deadly?

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with search and discovery, the PSSSP course, where it states that some psychotics cannot be kept alive?

A Yes, I am.

Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?

A Well, I can tell you a process. If a person is laying unconscious on a bed, you simply give them a command, “Give me that hand,” and then you actually execute that command by taking a person’s hand and putting it in your hand. And once you do that, you say, “Thank you.”

And then you put the hand back and say, “Give me that hand.” And you do that repeatedly, over and over.

Page 1092

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you about the Teresita introspection rundown that you participated in — is it Soboba?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Okay. Is that — was your experience in that introspection rundown similar to what Lisa McPherson experienced?

A I don’t think so.

Q What were the differences?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. “What were the differences,” I mean, he doesn’t have any personal knowledge —

THE COURT: No, but I assume as consultant he read all of the depositions of those who did. So I suspect he can testify about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Did you read the — did you read the depositions or the statements —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — from the persons who were attending Lisa McPherson?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and I read the notes as well.

MR. WEINBERG: On direct, he already did that. I didn’t ask him to — not — to do anything

Page 1093

different on cross, and now Mr. Dandar is asking him to do the same thing that he did on direct.

THE COURT: I don’t recall this on direct.

Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. What is the differences? What are the differences?

A The difference being number one that Teresita was a staff member. Mrs. McPherson was a paying Scientology public. Teresita had no intentions of leaving staff or departing from Scientology. Lisa McPherson did.

Beyond that — and, again, there’s so many records. I mean, it’s stated that she was on the introspection rundown. Yet there is no program, there is no evidence, there’s no invoice, there’s no running form, there’s none of those things in evidence that would be in evidence if a person was on an introspection rundown in fact.

And — but as far as the manifestations of wanting to get out of the room that she was locked in, there’s certainly similarities there. But those are some of the differences.

Q When — to your knowledge, your personal knowledge with Teresita, did people talk to Teresita?

Page 1094

A Yes.

Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?

A I mean, no one held long conversations with her. But just basic civility. You know, you walk in a room and you see a person, you say hi. The person says something to you. You either acknowledge or answer the questions. You know, simple things like that.

Q Did you have to assist in any way or did you see others assist in any way Teresita in drinking water?

A Yes.

Q How did they do it?

A Sit down next to her with a glass of water with ice and a straw and sometimes they put — the girls would do it, and I would do it, you know, put your arm around her. Teresita seemed to like that. She was very childlike at times. And hold the straw to her face, and she would drink through the straw. When she would stop, you know, you would tell her: “You just need to drink a little bit more water because it’s good for you. It’s hot out here; it’s the desert. Be a good girl. Drink a little bit more.” And she would drink it.

Q And did you ever see her do that, as time went on in her introspection rundown, where she wouldn’t drink water on her own?

A Yes. But I certainly wouldn’t have any way of

Page 1095

making her drink water if she didn’t want to drink it.

Q Okay. What I’m saying is, did you ever observe her just pick up, without being coached or coaxed, pick up a glass of water or bottled water and just drink it by herself?

A Oh, sure.

Q Was that in the beginning, the middle, or the end, or throughout?

A You know, with Teresita, I don’t think the water was so much an issue because it — at a point in time she wasn’t aware of it, but as she went through introspection and we sat with her and made her drink it, that she came to understand that it was part of the routine, that she had to drink X amount of water every day or, you know, during certain time periods.

Q You said Mr. Hubbard’s doctor, Dr. Denk, came to see her?

A Yes, he did.

Q How many times?

A Once that I know of.

Q And he administered something to her?

A Yes, he did.

Q All right. After he left, did he leave any medicine behind or something for others to administer to her?

Page 1096

A Yes. There were some pills.

Q Do you know what they were?

A I do not. I do not recall what they were.

Q All right.

A But I know they were to make her sleep.

Q Okay. Did he leave instructions with people how often to give that?

A Yes, he did. I think we were to break the tablets in half, to not give her a strong dose, or even lesser amounts and crush it up and mix it in with a protein drink.

Q Do you know of any licensed medical doctor who came in to see Lisa McPherson?

A No, I do not.

Q Do you know if Teresita received a medical examination by a licensed medical doctor before or during — outside of Dr. Denk? Well, let me start — that was a terrible question.

In addition to giving Teresita prescription drugs, did Dr. Denk examine her?

A Yes, he did. He looked in her eyes, looked in her ears, checked her mouth, you know, pressed certain areas of her body to see if it was sore or she would react, check their feet, check their arms, check their back, check their neck.

Page 1097

Q Okay. Was anything else done as far as the medical exam outside of what you just said?

A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned on cross-examination meeting with me and preparing that handwritten note that’s dated April 14th, 2002, the past year, a typed affidavit.

Why did you prepare a handwritten note?

A I felt it was important to preserve in some fashion what I had discussed with you, what had been going on. And since I had plans to investigate it further, in case something happened to me when I went off to see those people that at least there would have been something left written by me that would have indicated something was going on.

Q Now, the day that you prepared that written statement, that was the night you were supposed to meet with Mr. Rinder?

A Correct.

Q Did I assist you at all in preparing that written statement?

A No, you did not.

Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Page 1098

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. How close were you to me when you wrote that document?

A I separated myself and went to a different table and did the document.

Q Okay. Now, in that affidavit that you prepared — you typed that all by yourself, correct?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?

MR. DANDAR: The —

THE COURT: The last one?

MR. DANDAR: The last one, April 2002, that was actually executed —

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.

THE COURT: What was the date of the last visit with Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks? What was the date?

MR. DANDAR: What was the date? Was it that Sunday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that affidavit, Mr. Weinberg pointed out

Page 1099

on cross that you put in the wrong date. You put in August of 2001, and Mr. Minton told you on the top of the garage about his last check to me of 500,000?

A Correct.

Q As you sit here today, what are you positive about in reference to that conversation with Mr. Minton?

A Everything that I’ve testified to.

Q When did it take place?

A It took place — you know, I can’t say the exact month, you know. I’m sorry, I wish I could do better with that. But I know it was very warm. I know that specifically it was a $500,000 check.

Q If I told you to assume that Mr. Minton only delivered to me one check for $500,000, was this conversation with Mr. Minton before or after he delivered the check?

A After.

Q And do you have any idea if it was before or after he gave a deposition in May of 2000?

A No, I have no idea.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned that, when you met with Mr. Minton after he testified before Judge Baird on April 9th, you then telephoned Frank Oliver?

A Correct.

Q To ask Frank Oliver to call me to have me call

Page 1100

you?

A Correct.

Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —

I asked him the same question, why did you do that, and he explained it.

THE COURT: I think it’s been asked and answered.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Why did you feel your home was bugged?

A Because a person that was hired by Scientology, a private investigator named David Amos, contacted me here in Clearwater, and I went to visit with him in Memphis, Tennessee, and he told me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That’s hearsay, your Honor, whatever — he had some conversation with some guy David Amos.

THE COURT: It’s not introduced as to the truth of the matter asserted. It’s basically as to why he thought his house was bugged, not because it was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then he had a conversation. We shouldn’t get into the details of the conversation, should we? Isn’t that just hearsay?

MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.

Page 1101

THE COURT: I think it’s an exception. One of the exceptions I don’t really understand. I’m going to allow it.

A Mr. David Amos informed me that he had been hired by the Church of Scientology to surveil me, do surveillance on me, and to — what he was looking for, he told me, was that he had been briefed by his Scientology handlers in Los Angeles that Mr. Minton and I were involved in child slavery and we were — had child slaves that we were running around different countries. And Mr. Amos had a street ministry. He’s a very Christian man, and he has a street ministry where he helps abused children.

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear about all that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I need to hear why you thought your house was bugged.

A Anyway, he told me that he was specifically hired to bug my house in Chicago, and when I moved from Chicago to Clearwater, that he was hired to do the same there. And he agreed to come out and show me how he did it and where he did it. And I sent him plane tickets and I sent him money to come out to do that. And at the last minute, he got cold feet and didn’t do it. But I did report it to the FBI, the entire incident.

Page 1102

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?

A Excuse me?

Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?

A Yes, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we get a date of this alleged conversation?

THE COURT: You can when it’s your turn. I don’t care if it’s true. As far as I’m concerned, it’s only why he thought his house was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

THE COURT: Which is an explanation as to why he didn’t call from his house, which is all that’s relevant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: But the testimony, of course, is that he did call from the house. He got the call at the house anyway. That’s what he said.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go to see Agent Strope of the FDLE before or after you went to Dennis deVlaming’s office?

A After.

Q And did you go to Dennis deVlaming’s office before or after you met me at the mall on April 14th?

A Before. I did that the day of the testimony —

THE COURT: He’s already testified about

Page 1103

this.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I wasn’t clear. Okay. All right. And I believe . . .

Your Honor, that’s all the questions I have.

I just want to be able to ask Mr. Prince a question based upon this videotape that I want to play of Mr. Hubbard.

THE COURT: Well, go on ahead and play it now. It’s a good time to do it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. And I’m going to tell you in advance, Judge, I haven’t seen this tape before. So I’m going to play it. It’s represented to me as being Mr. Hubbard talking about this R245.

THE COURT: Well, Lord, let’s hope there’s something in there about it, something that’s relevant.

MR. DANDAR: That’s why I prefer not to do it right now. Let me —

MR. WEINBERG: Could he possibly hand it to us, see if we can identify it?

MR. DANDAR: This is a copy of a copy. This is not —

THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it might be something he had purchased.

Page 1104

THE COURT: No.

MR. DANDAR: No.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I don’t want to leave here at 11:30 if you’ve got 35 minutes of tape you’re going to play. Are you done with Mr. Prince?

MR. DANDAR: Except for this.

THE COURT: All right. Well, put it in. Maybe Mr. Prince will let us know. I mean, I don’t know what Mr. Hubbard —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask — where did Mr. Minton — Dandar get this, is all I’m asking.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview of Mr. Hubbard from a Granada TV station.

THE COURT: It really doesn’t matter how he got it. He doesn’t ask you how you got your stuff.

MR. WEINBERG: No, no. I thought that this was the original lecture, but this is just a — this is actually just an interview, not the lecture.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —

THE COURT: We’ll see what it is, Counselor. Sit down.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: At the expense of your Honor, I just want to point out that television can’t

Page 1105

possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: We didn’t say it was a policy letter. It’s a lectured — of a tape lecture of Mr. Hubbard.

And I don’t know where this is taking me now.

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s not a lecture, you said. It was a television interview.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.

THE COURT: Surely you don’t all care if we watch Mr. Hubbard here for 35 minutes, do you? Then I wish you would sit down and let us watch it.

(The tape from Granada television was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: Tonight, Well in Action has tracked down one of the most elusive men on earth.

This was the end of our search, an ex-(unintelligible) for Royal Scotland, docked at (unintelligible — Deserta?), a small port in North Africa.

On board about 250 people, may be some sort of a crew, and this mysterious man. (Unintelligible) screen man thought he was a great scientist when (unintelligible). Everybody seems to think he’s a millionaire.

Page 1106

These are no ordinary seamen. Their allegiance and devotion to the mysterious man is total. To them, he is My Commodore. The man is L. Ron Hubbard, charmer, science fiction writer, and showman, the creator of Scientology, and the man who is pushing it into its new, more militant phase. He now requires that his crew must have training in judo and weaponry and must be ethically beyond reproach, tough, formidable, and effective. To them he’s a soldier.

One of them wrote: “That which I have really found is the nearness to the greatness, which is Ron, our founder –”

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: “– he, above all, My Commodore –”

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: I don’t know what this is, but this is not Mr. Hubbard talking.

MR. PRINCE: There’s a little preamble, if you will, like a little introductory — this is an interviewer talking, and then Mr. Hubbard comes on.

THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.

Page 1107

MR. WEINBERG: Well, just so the record is clear, we do object to this, to the comments going in the record of this obviously reporter that was doing — I don’t think he was intending to do a favorable piece back in the ’50s with regard to the Church of Scientology. We object to his comments going into evidence. It’s like Dateline, NBC, or something, it sounds like.

THE COURT: I haven’t heard anything offensive yet.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: After several weeks of hunting for him, with the help of almost every radio station along the Mediterranean and beyond, Well in Action at last tracked Hubbard down. Just before dawn on a recent Sunday morning, Hubbard, who finds sleeping difficult, decided at last to speak. He spoke for a long, long time, about his money, his beliefs, his critics, and the new authoritarian structure of Scientology.

But first he spoke about his troubles with the British government. He put on his hat, he smiled, and he began.

MR. HUBBARD: Well, that’s very interesting.

Let’s correct the impression first. You said “you

Page 1108

were in trouble.” Let’s get my relationship to this completely straight. I am the writer of the textbooks of Scientology. About two and a half years ago or so, I even ceased to be a director of organizations.

The government — in the first place, I am not in trouble with the British government, not even faintly. If I went in today or tomorrow through immigration, they would tip their hats and say, “How are you, Mr. Hubbard?” just as they have been doing for years.

THE NARRATOR: The immigration officials might well tip their hats, but they couldn’t let him in. The day we filmed Mr. Hubbard, the home office decided that Britain would be better off without him.

Saint Hill Manor, England, Hubbard’s British headquarters —

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop, stop.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: — has made an income of something like one million pounds —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is not whatever you all said it was. This is more this other person than it is Mr. Hubbard. You — find what it is you want

Page 1109

play for me sometime and play it. I don’t want to hear all this other stuff.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And your objection is sustained as far as this is not relevant. Whoever this is —

MR. DANDAR: That’s it right there? All right.

Go to the beginning of this. All right.

Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: . . . simply to a layman what Scientology is.

MR. HUBBARD: I think that would be a relatively easy (unintelligible) because it’s factually a subject which is designed for the layman, and if you couldn’t explain it to a layman, you would have a very difficult time with it.

The subject name means “steel,” which means knowing how in the fullest sense of the word; “ology,” which is “study of.” So it’s actually study of knowingness. That is what the word itself means.

The —

THE NARRATOR: To me —

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean

Page 1110

very much. (Unintelligible.) What does it do for you in theory?

MR. HUBBARD: It increases one’s knowingness. But if a man were totally aware of what was going on around him, he would find it was relatively simple to handle any outnesses in that.

THE NARRATOR: Even after twelve hours of talking, we never got an explanation from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a fake, a religion —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is beyond —

MR. DANDAR: I apologize to the Court. Let me — let me find the spot that I’m trying to get to.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And if Mr. Weinberg has recross —

THE COURT: Let’s get that done.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll try to get that done.

MR. WEINBERG: I take it the last comment was struck as well. Right?

THE COURT: It certainly was.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, none of this is admissible at this point. I don’t know that

Page 1111

whatever it is they’re trying to find would be admissible.

But you try to find it, Mr. Dandar, over lunch break and we’ll —

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: — listen to it, and then I’ll see.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

You may cross-examine on the redirect.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

HE COURT: It was very brief.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: You have to turn that thing off, because it keeps getting the radio station.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought you were yelling at me.

THE COURT: No. I thought you were yelling at me.

MR. WEINBERG: I looked up there to see if it was 4 o’clock.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you, the first time on redirect, said that Mr. Minton had offered you a lifetime pension to join him, whenever it was, April of 2002. Correct? That’s what you

Page 1112

said?

A Yes.

Q Now — and that typically —

THE COURT: He said “retirement.” I don’t know that if he used the word “pension.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you meant was you’re going to be taken care of the rest of your life?

A I meant what I said, which is I would be retired.

Q All right. And that from your experience it was — the people that fell in that category were the people that got the $250,000. Right?

A I gave examples of other people that have — when Mr. Minton has given money to people to last them, this is what it was.

Q Right, like Mr. Dandar in March got the $250,000.

A No. That was for the case.

Q Now — now, you didn’t — do you remember that affidavit, the May 1st affidavit, that you were asked again about?

A Yes.

Q Nowhere in that affidavit do you say that Mr. Pension — Mr. Minton offered you retirement, $250,000,or a lot of money?

Page 1113

A Well, I’m not sure.

Q You didn’t say that in there, yes or no?

A I’m not sure. I would have to look at the thing.

Q Do you want to do that?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Unfortunately, we had left the documents up there, and they keep getting moved.

THE COURT: This may be it right here. I think I have it still.

THE WITNESS: I could look at that real quick, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to look at my copy?

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. If you would just give me a moment to scan it.

A No, I don’t see that here. No, I didn’t include that in the declaration.

THE WITNESS: Thank you (handing back to Court).

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The truth is, you complained to Stacy Brooks that Mr. Minton had treated you differently and had just nickeled and dimed you over the years. Correct?

A I don’t —

Q Something like that?

A Not quite, no.

Page 1114

Q Well, you were unhappy because you had never been one of the recipients of one of those big $250,000 checks, right?

A I think that — no, that’s incorrect, because the context that we were speaking about is me selling my soul, lying, perjuring myself, lying about Mr. Dandar and whoever else Scientology would want to lie for, because, I mean, you know, they had their shopping list of everything they wanted to be gone. The Wollersheim was one; this was one.

I was supposed to do that. And, you know, I told him: You can’t do that. At no price can you make me turn on people that I have worked with for years for Scientology’s behalf.

And as a matter of fact, I think my statement was I will not help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

Q Now, this is a 16-page affidavit, chockful of all kinds of details. You even detailed that Mr. Minton had told you he offered Mr. Wollersheim $200,000 to try to settle that case, right?

A Correct.

Q You put that in there. But you didn’t think it was important to put in this affidavit that Mr. Minton had offered you a retire- — basically enough money so that you could retire? You didn’t think that was important?

A Well, I admit that that is something that’s

Page 1115

important here, but I did not put it there for whatever reason. I mean, you know, I put down what I put down. So if you want to give me a strike for that, okay.

Q All right. Now, you said today that — on redirect that those three resignation letters — remember the March 3rd, ’87, letters, the ones in your hand?

A Correct.

Q Right? You told Mr. Dandar on redirect that you actually executed those letters on March 3rd, 1987, right?

The ones in your hand.

A Yes.

Q And those letters were actually typed up on March 3rd of 1987, right?

A I have no idea when they were typed.

Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?

A No, I didn’t say —

Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?

A No, I didn’t say who typed it, because I did not type this.

Q No, I didn’t say you typed them up. I said those were actually prepared, the whole letter —

THE COURT: He doesn’t know when they were typed.

MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.

THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.

Page 1116

THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you executed had the date on it already?

A Correct.

Q All right. So — that’s all I’m saying. In other words, the — you didn’t — you aren’t testifying that the — that the resignation letters that you signed were actually — and that, you know, had the date on it were actually prepared a long time before. That’s not what you’re saying?

A No. I made a distinction between the undated resignation that I had signed when I first assumed the position and these ones right here. And I stated why these ones were done, used, instead of the undated ones.

Q Do you remember in your affidavit — and the affidavit we’re talking about is the — that I’m talking about now is the August 1999 affidavit, which is the — the August 20th one, which is the — I call it the murder allegation —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —

THE COURT: You may.

Page 1117

MR. WEINBERG: — is probably the easiest way of doing this.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that in paragraph 14 of — this is the — just so you see it, is your August 20th, 1999.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q You see, just read paragraph 14 down to — it’s short.

A Okay.

Q Read it to yourself.

A Okay.

Q Have you seen that?

A Yes.

Q Now, what you say in this affidavit in paragraph 14 on page 6 is: “I was forcefully removed,” which is, you’ve already testified, on March 3rd. Then you say, quote: “It is my belief that my undated resignation which I signed when I was appointed to the board was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned when I had not.”

So the testimony that you swore to in this affidavit that all that was — that all that happened was — that what happened was that a date was put on something that you had previously signed is absolutely contrary to what you just testified in this court.

Page 1118

Correct?

A What — what I wrote there, I wrote that as my belief. I didn’t recall this, but once it was shown to me and recalled to me, I testified about it. I’m not able to recall every little thing all the time. That was my belief at the time. But then when you showed me this, I remembered more about the incident that happened in 1986.

Q ’87.

A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.

Q So you were wrong in your August 20th, 1999, sworn affidavit?

A Right. In that — in that regard, in that particular regard.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, do you have — can I ask the clerk for a document, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.

I’m going to show him 15B, which is Teresa Summers’ letter.

THE COURT: For the record, you probably ought to say what you said to me.

I don’t know, did you get that, Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder

Page 1119

than I thought.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. I’m showing you the September 7th, 2001, Teresa Summers letter. And I believe you said on redirect that you had learned about the Clambake money and the issues with regard to the Clambake money in — for the first time — or issues with regard to LMT money for the first time in Teresa Summers’ letter, right?

A Correct.

Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?

A Yes, it is.

Q Now, can you look at page 1 of that letter.

A Yes.

Q Paragraph 1.

A Where it says, “Please be advised”?

Q I’m sorry, where it says –subparagraph 1. Do you see where the No. 1 —

A Yes.

Q Where it says, “The revelation –” This is a letter to Stacy Brooks from Teresa Summers, right?

A Correct.

Q “The revelation in your recent deposition that 800,000 was donated to the LMT from foreign sources and that every penny of that money was delivered to Bob Minton is very difficult to make sense of. For at least the last

Page 1120

six months, I have been told by you” all of the LMT funding — I’ve been told by you that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And that’s what you were told as well, correct, that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton?

A No, that’s not what I was told.

Q Now, let me — will you turn to the next-to-last page, please. The last paragraph of the next-to-last page, the one that says “in addition”?

A Yes.

Q Do you see that? Summers says: “In addition, Bob and Jesse were involved with bringing money into the country illegally, and you have never discussed this matter with me.”

A Yes.

Q Do you know what she’s talking about?

A No. And she doesn’t either. I never brought any money into the country illegally.

Q And Ms. Summers is someone that’s worked at the LMT?

A Correct. I can tell you what Ms. Summers is referring to, if you’d like to know.

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.

Page 1121

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: I have no idea why he bothered to bring that out. Maybe he wanted you to look bad or something.

THE WITNESS: Well . . .

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Now, finally, you testified on redirect that the — you testified about the release that you executed with Mr. Rathbun at the end of October, the beginning of November, 1992. Do you remember that testimony?

A In November of 1992, I was not in the Sea Org. I was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q What I’m asking you is, Do you recall on redirect you testified about the release that you executed at the time that you left the Church of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q All right. And your testimony is that you were under duress when you did that. Correct?

A Absolutely, yes.

Q And you executed it in a meeting — in a meeting with Mr. Rathbun, right?

A Correct.

Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?

Page 1122

A No. There were other staff there.

Q Do you remember who else was there?

A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.

Q They were sitting — you were sitting in a meeting with him?

A If I say he’s there, that means that I can see him. That means we’re in the same room or something like that, you know?

Q So you’re saying he was there?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Well, let me show you two — and then it’s your testimony that, at the end, Mr. Rathbun made you put the wrong date on the release. Right? That was your testimony?

A It was convenient for them to have it as November, as opposed to October. I don’t know why. That’s what I —

Q But it was his origination, not yours?

A Correct.

Q Okay. I’m going to play you a short clip from the beginning of this meeting with Mr. Rathbun and then the end of the meeting with Mr. Rathbun.

A You know, I resent that unless you show the whole thing.

THE COURT: I think that’s fair. If you’re

Page 1123

going to show something and suggest whether he was or wasn’t under duress, you have to play the whole meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a long meeting. When I have is the clip, and, you know, we can provide the whole thing if you want it. But what I intend to do on this redirect is to show him the beginning of the meeting, which would indicate he was in the meeting, and the end of the meeting where he signs the —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — release. (Jesse Prince interview with Marty Rathbun, November 1, ’92, was played as follows.)

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. This is Marty Rathbun with Jesse Prince. And Jesse is going out of the Sea Org, and he agreed to have a —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.

(Continuing with tape.)

MR. RATHBUN: — knowledge that he might have about outstanding —

(The playback was stopped.)

MR. DANDAR: Does Mr. Prince know he’s being videotaped?

Page 1124

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, you knew the meeting was recorded. A Not videotaped. And this is the first time I’ve seen this, and this is really gross. This is from a hidden camera.

Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?

A On tape. A tape recording was running, not a video.

Q Is this you?

A Yes, it is. I think it is.

THE COURT: Doesn’t look — I’m sorry, it doesn’t look like him.

THE WITNESS: Let me see. They’re full of tricks.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.

THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, when you hear your voice, I think you can tell.

THE COURT: It does not look like Mr. Prince to me.

THE WITNESS: You know, I really resent this. This is secret. Taping this is exactly what I’ve been saying here. This is exactly what they do, the illegal surveillance. It’s just sneaky all the

Page 1125

time.

MR. WEINBERG: I asked him the question, Did you know you were being recorded?

THE COURT: He said no.

MR. WEINBERG: The answer is yes. I think he said yes.

THE COURT: He knew there was a tape recorder playing. He did not know he was being videotaped.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess the question, your Honor, is once you know that —

THE COURT: Quite frankly, I would resent the tar out of it. I hope there’s none of that going on ever. If you’re going to ever take a picture of me, you’d better tell me, because I would resent the tar out of it, to say nothing of the fact that I’m not certain it’s legal.

So whatever it is, Mr. Prince, you didn’t know anything about this?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. They did not have my permission to do this.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: This is from a hidden, secret camera.

THE COURT: Go ahead and play it. We’ll

Page 1126

decide whether or not it’s legal or not.

(The playback continued.)

MR. RATHBUN: — cases going on or other matters that are involved, illegal or whatever.

MR. PRINCE: That’s right (unintelligible).

MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?

MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. And you’re here of your own free will?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no — nobody is holding anything over your head?

MR. PRINCE: Yes.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?

MR. PRINCE: No threat, no pressure. I know exactly what I’m doing. I’m not sitting here (unintelligible) worrying about legal counsel knowing what the hell is going on. I know exactly what I’m doing in a professional capacity.

MR. RATHBUN: Great. Okay. The first thing we’re going to do was you’ve reviewed a couple of outstanding complaints, which were the RICO case,

Page 1127

which is our —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: You know, I can’t hardly stand this. I can hardly stand this.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to play the end of it.

THE COURT: Well, how in the world can you play something that suggested somebody wasn’t under coercion and not play it? How do I know —

MR. WEINBERG: If we can — we can play the whole —

THE COURT: This is the RICO case? What is your purpose in playing it?

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Prince — Mr. Prince said that there were all kinds of people in the room, that he was being coerced, that it was forced. And there are no people.

THE WITNESS: They left the room.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: They had left the room. This was totally staged, to protect the Church, as I’ve given testimony before: Mr. Prince, this is what you need to do to leave our compound.

So I’m sitting here doing whatever they asked me to do to leave their compound. There’s been

Page 1128

articles in George magazine, press — Riverside Press, and my suit about the coercion. So, you know, and now you’re showing me a secret camera thing? I resent this highly. I really resent this.

MR. DANDAR: We object. And for the record, that sure doesn’t look like Mr. Prince.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know that’s you.

You’ve heard you.

THE WITNESS: Look, I resent this because it was done — not only did everybody leave the room —

THE COURT: You mean there were others there before this started?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Absolutely. They were all standing around in that room. And then it’s like, “Okay, now, let’s get this extra protection in.”

Signing a release for your client wasn’t enough. Signing a release saying that they didn’t harm me or damage me wasn’t enough for them. Now they’ve got to sit down and do this. You know? I really think anybody with common sense knows what’s going on here.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you sign it? The beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting?

A What, the release?

Page 1129

Q Yes.

A Probably at the end. I mean, they wanted me to — this is what I had to do to leave. I had been locked up —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I had to escape from Scientology. They didn’t even know where I went.

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it anymore.

If he didn’t know about it, I don’t want to see it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s all my questions.

THE COURT: As far as I’m concerned, it can be stricken.

MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.

THE COURT: All right.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, do you have that affidavit that’s —

THE COURT: And I might suggest in the future, if you’re going to videotape parishioners, that they be told about it. Quite frankly, that is not very churchly, to be candid.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, just to be clear, it is the Church’s position that Mr. Prince absolutely knew this was being taped and the videotape introductory section of this before the interview

Page 1130

starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.

And it’s his testimony here that he didn’t know about it. That is not — we do not go along with that. I want the record to reflect that.

THE COURT: It’s very odd that someone leaving a Church has to be videotaped.

The truth is, it’s very odd he would have to sign a release. I mean, it’s all very odd.

However, it’s just my suggestion to you so that you don’t ever have to listen to somebody again that you might just want to put it in your release, “I understand that I’m being videotaped as I sign this.”

Then you won’t have to worry about it. I won’t have to hear somebody saying that he resents you taking my picture, for whatever reason.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more about it.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go on ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, I want to direct your attention to paragraph —

THE COURT: I didn’t have to sign a release when I left my church, quite frankly. I left, I went

Page 1131

back, who cared?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your —

THE COURT: Nobody ever sued me either. I never testified against them.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your April 2002 affidavit, paragraph 15 — I don’t have the page numbers on my copy for some strange reason. But the second page of paragraph 15, could you please read the highlighted portion on — beginning —

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?

MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

THE COURT: Okay.

A “Bob told me that I was the one making a big mistake, that if I walked down this road with them, they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life, where we would all live in happiness and prosperity.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What were the details of living a new life in happiness and prosperity?

A Retired, vacationing on the Islands regularly, running around the world, world travel.

Page 1132

Q When you — did the —

THE COURT: What paragraph was that?

MR. DANDAR: It was paragraph 15. If I had the exhibit, I could give you the page number.

THE COURT: It’s all right, paragraph 15.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the second page of paragraph 15. It’s a real long paragraph. It’s lines 19 through 22.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And this wasn’t part of the recross of Mr. Weinberg, so if it’s objected to, I understand. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll object in advance.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when Teresita went insane or psychotic, did she do it like Lisa did, in the middle of the street, in public, or somewhere else?

A She did it — she was at a work station — oh, god, we were in a big time crunch. We were making the first —

THE COURT: We really don’t care about that. Was it out in public or at work?

THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So there was no public PR flap?

Page 1133

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: And outside of wanting to play this videotape, that’s all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your testimony is finished. You may step down.

I don’t know about that videotape either. I have no idea what that is either. So you find whatever it is you want to find, show it to counsel in advance, see what it is, and see if we can make some context out of it and see if it has any relevance.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Now, it’s noontime.

It’s 12:05. We’ll be in recess until 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.

(A lunch recess was taken at 12:08 p.m.)

_______________________________

Page 1134

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record.

WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of July, 2002, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

_________________________________
Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, RDR
Court Reporter

Notes

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 6) (July 10, 2002)

721

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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.

_______________________________________/

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Other Relief.

CONTENTS: Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 6

DATE: July 10, 2002. Morning Session.

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

BEFORE: Honorable Susan F. Schaeffer, Circuit Judge.

REPORTED BY: Lynne J. Ide, RMR.
Deputy Official Court Reporter, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

Kanabay Court Reporters; Serving West Central Florida
Pinellas (727)821-3320 Hillsborough (813)224-9500
Tampa Airport Marriott Deposition Suite (813)224-9500

722

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201
Tampa, FL 33602
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
MR. MORRIS WEINBERG, JR.
ZUCKERMAN, SPAEDER
101 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1200
Tampa, FL 33602-5147
Attorney 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. HOWARD ROSS
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.

THE COURT: Good morning. Mr. Prince. All right. Mr. Dandar, you are standing. You must want something.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we have a proposed order here. I have some responses here. I have declarations of Stacy Brooks and others I want to file. But let’s just go with Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: What day is today? The 10th? I was looking, what is — how many days of hearings is this?

THE BAILIFF: 30.

THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Bailiff says 30. Does anybody —

MR. WEINBERG: Add zero to that. That is where we are.

THE COURT: Is that where we are, 30?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Ross. Are you designated Mr. Minton’s attorney here today?

MR. ROSS: That is correct.

THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.

MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.

MR. ROSS: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?

725

THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.

THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the  scheduled time. I would not assume that is an  abandonment.

MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?

A In this — in this case, yes, I have.

Q In other cases, as well. Correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times

726

in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?

A Correct.

Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?

A I do not.

Q You don’t remember that?

A No, I do not.

THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.

A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,

727

your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.

A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.

Then —

Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —

A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.

Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that  testimony and make corrections. Correct?

A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.

MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be

728

able to review it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it’s amazing I’m being accused of pulling something out of context.

MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”

THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?

Do we have copies of these?

THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —

Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —

THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of

729

PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?

A Mmm, just about. I have it here.

Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.

“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer. No.”

Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say  anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?

A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.

THE COURT: The real question is that was your

730

testimony on that date, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?

A Correct.

Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?

A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.

Q Look at a couple pages earlier.

THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?

MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.

A Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as  opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?

731

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.

Q Let’s see now —

A Or — or manipulation.

Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.

A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years  after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.

Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not  having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.

A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.

I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.

Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that

732

is when you started saying these things, not when you  weren’t being paid.

A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for  Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.

Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.

Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?

A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.

Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?

A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.

Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.

“Question: Now, when you testified — how many

733

times have you testified in your entire career, life?

“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?

“Question: Both.

“Answer: Possibly five.

“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?

“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”

Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

734

A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?

“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell  stories. Yes.”

Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.

Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?

A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.

Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,

“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny

735

deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?

A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm —  decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.

But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that  because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.

I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special  Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.

So technically did I know about it? Yes.

736

Technically did I do it? No.

Q Oh, I see.

A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.

Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer: No.”

That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what  you’re saying?

A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.

Q Is that —

A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.

Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?

Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?

A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.

Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting

737

Scientology.

Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?

A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.

Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.

Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.

738

THE COURT: Sustained.

A Mmm —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?

A Correct.

Q When was this deposition, 1989?

A Correct.

Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?

A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.

Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?

A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.

Q All right, I asked you —

739

A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.

And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.

So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of

740

communication for many years.

But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.

And these are points I have written about as well.

I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.

Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —

A Uh-huh?

Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You  were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?

A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my  position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.

In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.

741

Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.

THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.

A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same  period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was in ’88?

A That was in ’88?

Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?

Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?

A I wouldn’t say that.

Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?

A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.

Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?

A Mmm —

Q Yes, or no?

A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.

742

Q So you were broke in 1997?

A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.

Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?

A Utterly and completely false.

Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?

A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.

Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.

Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?

A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —

743

Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?

“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?

You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.

A Okay.

Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.

A To 16?

Q Yes, just read it out loud.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.

THE COURT: That is true.

A I have read it.

744

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —

THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.

Overruled.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “You ever heard of the GO?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: What was the GO?

“It was Guardian’s Office.

“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?

“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.

“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?

“Answer: I don’t –”

Then there was objection.

A Okay.

Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?

A Yes, that is correct.

745

Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?

A Well, that was true then and it is true now.

Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —

Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —

A Okay.

Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —

A Well, I don’t want to play —

Q Can I ask my question first?

A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —

746

Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO  and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.

A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember  that?

A Yes.

Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?

THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.

THE COURT: Here?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —

THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.

747

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.

And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”

That was your testimony, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?

A Right.

Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.

“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?

“Answer: Not particularly.

“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within

748

Scientology organization referred to as Intel?

“Answer: No, not that I know of.

“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?

“Answer: No.

“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?

“Answer: No.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that truthful testimony?

A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now  that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.

Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of

749

Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?

A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —

Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?

A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your  question with this.

Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?

A Well, you know, I’m —

Q Just answer the question.

A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.

Q You are the trained witness.

A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.

Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?

A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,

750

and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.

So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.

But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.

THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for,  legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?

A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.

Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?

751

A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.

Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?

A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?

Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.

THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: No, there is not.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m

752

wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?

A Mmm, partially right. I — I don’t — don’t remember saying Miscavige was deeply involved with me and Mrs. Aznaran in RTC. I don’t remember —

THE COURT: He did say he reported —

THE WITNESS: Yes, but the other part, I —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were  DIG external at RTC?

A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.

THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.

THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from

753

the –”

THE COURT: Read the question.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.

There was a lot of interruptions.

MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay.

“Answer: So you know from the limited time that I was there in Religious Technology Center myself, I know that — you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service  Organization I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure the whole thing ran smoothly, and the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.”

That is what you said?

A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of  Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —

Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.

A Okay.

754

Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?

A Yes. Yes.

Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —

A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?

Q Yes, 52.

A Okay.

Q Look at Line 15 through 19.

“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.

“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?

“Answer: No.

“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?

“Answer: No.”

A Right.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q Were those truthful answers?

A No, they were not.

Q So you perjured yourself?

A Correct.

755

THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Lie would be fine.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.

THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Fine.

THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was that a lie?

A Yes, it was.

Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?

A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.

Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.

Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?

A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?

756

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.

THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?

A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.

Q Well —

THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —

MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.

THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: In this proceeding?

THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,

757

your Honor, is no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?

THE COURT: Prison camp.

A Prison camp.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.

THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.

Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —

THE COURT: They’re not.

MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —

MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.

MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.

THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.

758

THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.

THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?

A Which time?

Q I mean, did you get meals?

A Which time?

Q You said you were in twice, I believe.

A Right. So you mean both times?

THE COURT: Either time.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Either time.

A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with

759

plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.

Q That was in the ’70s?

A That was ’77.

Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —

A I lost weight there, too, yes.

Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?

A No, not the second time.

Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.

A Yes.

Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?

A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.

Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.

After signing an undated resignation, then you are  allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors

760

or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.

So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”

Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.

So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.

Q All right. That is the gun thing?

A Right.

Q The gun thing?

A Right. We talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was

761

filled in and, therefore, you were removed?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?

A Before —

Q You understood that?

A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?

Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —

A Right.

Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?

762

A Correct.

Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron  Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?

A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —

THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.

THE COURT: Get there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.

Correct?

A That was part of it, sure.

Q And there were trustees?

A Correct.

Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?

A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.

Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?

A No. No. No.

Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had

763

one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?

A No, sir.

Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?

A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.

Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?

A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.

And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.

And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.

Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board

764

member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?

A Correct.

Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?

A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.

Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —

THE COURT: Which deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The —

A I’m not quite there.

Q Okay.

A Okay. I’m there.

Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.

“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector

765

general for external affairs.

“Answer: That’s right.

“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?

“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.

“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”

That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.

“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.

“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?

“Answer: Yes.”

Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?

“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I

766

just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q So that was false testimony?

A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.

Q So is that a definite category —

THE COURT: That was also false, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were coached by who?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?

A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.

THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It

767

should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?

MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.

THE COURT: Okay.

A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?

A Not really.

Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.

A Are we finished with this?

Q Yes, let me take that back.

THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.

MR. WEINBERG: I will.

THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.

768

MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.

MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.

THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?

A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.

THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.

THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.

But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not

769

participate —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.

Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.

THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.

THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?

A Correct.

Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?

A Mmm, more than likely, yes.

Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?

A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.

Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —

770

A Okay.

Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —

A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.

Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And you said no.

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?

A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —

THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Little ones.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?

771

This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’

“Yes. Yes.

“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.

“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a

772

difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.

“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’

“So did I.

“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.

“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.

“And so the first of those goes — goes to —

773

this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.

“There you go.

“The president and chief operating — executive officer.

“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.

“Thank you, Bobby.

“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.

“Sweet.

“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.

“There is one for me. I want to keep that.

“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.

“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.

“We’re not done.

“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,

774

so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?

“So —

“Bravo.

“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort

775

of like —

“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.

“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.

“Okay.

“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.

“The order of the parrot.

“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.

“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —

776

when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.

“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.

“Yes.

“Thank you, sir. Thank you.

“And I want to — I want to —

“The order of the parrots.

“The order of the parrots.

“I want to talk to you about a theme park.

“Yeah. Yeah.

“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.

“Oh, my God.

777

“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —

“The big parrot —

“Look at Peter.

“It’s — you know, the problem is —

“Patricia? Look at Patricia.

“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —

“The standard tech.

“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.

“I don’t know what I would do without him.

“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)

778

“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)

“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)

“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.

“It is perfectly true.

“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine

779

somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)

“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.

“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.

“And — and now. (Inaudible.)

“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —

“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,

780

because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.

“Absolutely.

“None of us.

“For sure.

“There is nothing else to say.

“Bob is the big parrot.

“Definitely.

“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —

“He’s big with presents, you can see that.

“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)

“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.

“Whew.

“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.

781

little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.

“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —

“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.

“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.

“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.

“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —

“Yes, a constant reminder.

“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and

782

that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —

MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.

THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?

A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.

Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the

783

Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?

A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.

I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.

Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?

A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.

Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?

A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.

Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.

Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?

A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,

784

as well, simultaneously.

Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?

A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?

A I believe it was.

Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?

A Yes, I have been with him a lot.

Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?

A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.

And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be

785

the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.

But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.

Q So this was just an aberration?

A No, this was — it was clear what this was.

Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.

Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?

A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.

Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?

A Correct.

Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —

THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?

786

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.

A I know Ray Emmons well.

Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?

A Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?

A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.

Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.

MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than

787

that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.

MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.

THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.

MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.

A Okay.

Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.

A 223? Which one is 223?

Q That is the —

A Okay, I have it here.

Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —

788

THE COURT: It is the long one.

THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —

I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —

THE COURT: Who is this from?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?

A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.

Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?

A Well, you know, okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes. I do.

789

Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.

This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.

MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?

A I have no memory of this.

MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.

THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It is an E-Mail to you.

A Okay.

Q Among other people. All right?

A Okay.

Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”

Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa

790

McPherson Trust, correct?

A Yes, he was.

Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?

A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —

Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?

A No, I do not. Were they asked for?

THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?

A No, I do not.

Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.

Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,

791

participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”

Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?

A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.

I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking  me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?

A No, not at all.

THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just

792

keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.

You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.

It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — that I have let in.

MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?

793

A I have no idea.

Q Well, this is something that you —

A There is no “to”.

THE COURT: It says it is from you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?

THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.

THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —

A The message at the bottom? Oh, I see what you are saying.

Q Do you see?

A Okay.

Q And my question to you is, your advice was, “With regard to the Lisa McPherson Trust, contact Ken Dandar.”

That is what it says, correct?

A Absolutely not.

Q That is not what it says?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. It doesn’t say that,

794

either.

A No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?

THE COURT: What is the date on that?

MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.

THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?

MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.

A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.

795

THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.

MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.

Mr. Moxon, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Fugate. Always trying to save you all some stamp money.

MR. WEINBERG: Everything counts.

THE COURT: Every little bit counts. That is right.

You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: I returned the envelopes to opposing counsel.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: So they can save their stamps.

796

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?

A That is incorrect.

Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?

A No, I did not.

Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?

A Through Mrs. Brooks.

Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.

I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?

THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.

A I left my phone number and she called me.

(Telephone interruption.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the Dateline —

THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the

797

distraction.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?

A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.

Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?

A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.

Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —

THE COURT: A relative of whom?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative

798

tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?

A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.

Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?

A I believe it was.

Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?

A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”

Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?

A No. I had not.

Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?

799

A When I spoke to him.

Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?

A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.

Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?

A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.

Q So you went home after that?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed in touch —

A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.

Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?

A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.

Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?

A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a

800

$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?

Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?

A In —

THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What city? What city?

A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.

Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did —

A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.

Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?

A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.

Q And did you have a check with you? How was it

801

paid for?

A No. I didn’t have a check.

Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?

A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.

Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?

A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.

They needed a car in Boulder —

Q Boulder, Colorado?

A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because  after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.

802

Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?

A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.

Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?

A That is completely false.

Q Now —

A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.

Q Tell me what your next job was.

A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.

Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?

A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.

Q Driving this car?

803

A Correct.

Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?

A Off and on, maybe about three months.

Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A It was just myself.

Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?

A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.

Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?

A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.

Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the

804

time was Bob Minton?

A Mmm, no.

Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?

A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.

Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?

A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.

The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I  met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we  were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.

805

Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?

A Yes, I assume that, yes.

Q You left in 1992?

A Yes.

Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —

Q No, just answer that question.

A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.

Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?

A Correct.

Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?

A As far as I know.

Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had

806

been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?

A In our first meeting?

Q When you —

A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?

Q Yes.

A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.

Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?

A No, she did not.

Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?

A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.

Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?

A No, she did not.

807

Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?

A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.

Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —

THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?

THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?

A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking

808

about it, you know.

Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?

A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.

Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.

So when did that happen?

A You know, I —

THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?

A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?

A Mr. Leipold.

Q He just reached out for you?

809

A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.

Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?

A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.

Q Is there something special in Ohio?

A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.

Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?

A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit

810

with him.

Q He flew you to New Hampshire —

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?

A Stacy Brooks.

Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?

A Actually a couple weeks.

Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?

A Yes.

Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?

A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.

Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?

A No.

Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?

A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was

811

all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.

And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.

Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?

A No. No. I don’t think so.

Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?

A Yes.

Q And —

MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.

THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A It didn’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to

812

Denver?

A Mmm, $10,000.

Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?

THE COURT: What difference does it make?

MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.

THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?

A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.

I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology

813

completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.

Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?

A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.

Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —

A In one of the trips.

Q — just tell me you don’t know.

A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.

Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?

A No, he did not.

Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?

814

A No, it is not.

Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?

A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.

Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.

And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?

A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.

A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.

Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you

815

came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?

A Correct.

Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?

A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.

Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?

A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.

THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?

THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know

816

each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Yes.

Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?

A Yes.

Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you bill him for your time?

A No.

Q You just did this for free?

A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.

817

Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?

A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.

Q Well, didn’t Mr. Minton give you checks in early 1999, $5,000, $6,000 a month?

A No.

Q He didn’t do that?

A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”

Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?

A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a

818

corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.

Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?

A Well, hold on, hold on, hold on. I never even met Mr. Dandar until 1999. So let’s leave 19 —

Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?

A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —

THE COURT: So what is the right date?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?

THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.

819

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?

A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —

THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?

A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?

A Yes.

Q And —

A To the best of my recollection.

Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out

820

Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?

A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.

Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?

A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.

Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?

A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.

Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?

A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.

Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.

A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.

821

Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?

A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —

THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.

THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.

Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that the deal?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: For whatever — for however many

822

hours you worked?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?

A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —

THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All I want to know —

A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —

Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?

A Correct.

Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?

823

A Correct.

Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?

A And Mrs. Brooks.

Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?

A Correct.

Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?

THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?

MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?

A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it

824

was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.

Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —

THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.

THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?

A Correct.

Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?

A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.

Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?

A Well, you know — come on.

Q Come on yeah?

825

A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?

The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.

Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?

A Correct.

Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?

A Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?

A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.

Q “We” being?

A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.

Q So —

A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —

Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?

A Correct.

Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,

826

as well?

A No.

Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?

A I’m still living here. Yes.

Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?

A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.

Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?

A $50,000.

Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?

A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.

And, you know —

THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.

A Well, you know, we’ve said —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t

827

know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.

A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.

Right?

A Correct.

Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?

A You want to hear this?

Q You asked him for it?

THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.

A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea  of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.

We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of

828

where to put this thing.

And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.

Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.

Q So he paid your moving expenses which —

A Correct.

Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?

A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.

Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.

Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,

829

didn’t he?

A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.

Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?

A No.

Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?

A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.

Q As a job hazard?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?

A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.

Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?

A I think it could have been more.

Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?

A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.

Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?

830

A Correct.

Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?

A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —

Q But you didn’t take one?

A Correct.

Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —

A Oh, okay.

Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?

A No.

Q Okay.

A I did not.

Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?

831

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —

A To the best of my recollection.

MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —

THE COURT: It is all right.

MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.

A Okay.

Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?

832

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q From Mr. Minton again?

A Yes.

Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?

A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?

A Correct.

Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?

A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a

833

stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.

Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —

A No.

Q — Ken Dandar?

A No.

Q Well, what is this work? What is this —

A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.

Q Why was FACTNet paying you?

A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.

Q Now, when —

THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.

834

But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.

THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —

MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.

THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.

That would be rational but —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?

A I assume he did.

Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?

A Up until this very occurrence, yes.

THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?

This —

THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.

835

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —

THE CLERK: 226.

MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —

A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.

MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?

THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You see those?

A Uh-huh.

Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.

Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?

836

A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.

Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.

A Okay.

Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.

A Yes.

Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Correct.

Q You see for the most part these checks are $5,000 a month?

A Correct. I think I can explain what this other one is for, $1,772.

Q What?

A I mean all of $5,000 with the exception of the $1,772 —

Q Is that some expense check?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, the Lisa McPherson Trust actually withheld from your check. Right?

A Yes.

837

Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —

A About 35.

Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.

A Okay.

Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE CLERK: 227.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 227.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.

And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.

838

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?

A Mmm, yes, I do.

Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —

THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —

THE COURT: June ’01.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?

839

A I’m trying to follow.

Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).

August 1 —

A Oh, yeah. Okay.

Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?

A That was the last check. Yeah.

THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?

MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —

THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did — what were you considered at that point when

840

you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?

A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.

All of the other staff had moved.

THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?

A No.

Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?

A No.

Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Who paid you in May of 2002?

A It’s not here?

Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.

A Correct.

Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.

A Correct.

Q So my question is who paid —

841

your money to live in May of 2002?

A I think from the State of Florida.

Q What do you mean?

A I filed for unemployment.

Q Well, how did you do that?

THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.

A Yeah.

Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check.  You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.

Q And who did you say your last employer was?

A Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?

A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.

842

Q Is there some application you have to fill out?

A Online, yes.

Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?

A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.

Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?

A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.

Yes.

Q So you are still on unemployment?

A No.

Q Well, when did that end?

A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he  would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.

So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.

Q And so you notified the authorities of that?

A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.

Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the

843

checks?

A Yes.

Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?

A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —

THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?

THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.

So I got $494 — I believe I received —

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?

A I don’t know.

Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —

A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.

Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?

A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.

844

People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.

THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?

THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.

THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —

THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.

THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?

A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —

Q No, is there some written agreement?

A Oh, no.

Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?

845

A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —

THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was  established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?

A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.

THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?

A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —

THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?

846

A $4,000.

Q Is that just a retainer?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?

THE WITNESS: 150.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?

A No.

THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —

MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.

THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?

MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else give you money?

A The answer is no.

847

MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.

THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.

MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.

THE COURT: I was real excited.

MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have been asked before about —

THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?

848

MR. DANDAR: 226.

THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.

MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —

THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?

A I don’t remember testifying about that.

Q Well, did you go to Key West?

A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.

MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —

MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?

A Vacation.

Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.

849

A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?

THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.

THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.

THE COURT: Then put it up then.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: One series.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?

A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.

I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was

850

discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.

So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.

THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —

THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.

THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

851

THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?

MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you go to Key West?

A Yes.

Q Who sent you to Key West?

A No one sent. I went.

Q Who paid for the trip?

A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —

Q Who — well, who gave you the money?

A I used my own money.

Q Well, where did that money come from?

852

A Money that I earned from working.

Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?

A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as  expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.

Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?

A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —

Q Is that right?

A No, that is wrong.

Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?

A Well, six weeks ago now.

Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?

A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?

Q Now —

A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the

853

behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?

A No, Mr. Dandar was not —

Q Answer yes or no?

A — on the trip. No.

Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?

A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.

Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?

A No.

Q Ms. Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Vaughn Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?

A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?

Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?

A No.

Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?

A No. No.

Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?

A Very little.

854

Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —

A Yes.

Q — with Jesse Prince?

A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.

Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?

A No.

Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?

A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.

Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.

Q We just broke ten minutes ago?

A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.

I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?

Q Okay, take a break.

____________________________________

Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?

A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,

855

said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.

Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?

A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?

Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?

A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.

Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?

A And came and had dinner and left. One time.

Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?

A I don’t know.

Q What do you mean, you don’t know?

A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.

Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,

856

right?

A Oh, come on, please.

Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?

A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.

I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.

Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?

A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —

Q Dinner is usually at night, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you see him the next morning?

A No.

Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?

A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.

Q Was Thom Haverty down there?

A Yes. He was.

Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?

A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.

Q So he just flew in for dinner?

A Came in and left.

Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?

A No.

857

Q Who paid for your trip?

A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —

MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —

THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.

MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.

THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.

MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.

THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —

858

there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.

THE COURT: All right.

If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.

MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —

THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.

I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: It is improper. All right.

MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —

859

THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.

MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?

That is fine.

THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.

THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.

THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.

860

MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.

THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?

“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”

MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.

THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —

A Not this?

Q No, it is not this.

A Okay.

861

Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.

THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.

THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?

A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has

862

done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.

Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?

A You know —

Q Under oath. Correct?

A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.

Q All right, so —

A There is nothing sinister about it.

Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?

A Not to my recollection. No.

Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not.

Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?

A I’ll take your word for it.

863

Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used  about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?

A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?

Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.

A Whose testimony is that now?

Q Mr. Dandar’s testimony, Dr. Garko’s testimony, Mr. Haney’s testimony. That is the testimony.

A Okay.

Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?

THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.

THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.

864

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?

A Correct.

Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on  Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?

A Not that I recall.

Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I recall.

Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I know of.

Q And was it —

A Or not that I recall or have memory of.

Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?

865

A I believe that — that that is correct.

Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?

A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean,  that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.

I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.

Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?

A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.

Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?

A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.

Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.

THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting

866

which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Nothing said it was sinister, except Mr. Dandar already asked Dr. Garko about meetings, Mr. Haney about meetings, Ms. Brooks about meetings, so —

THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —

MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.

You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —

THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —

THE COURT: I mean, you know —

867

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.

MR. WEINBERG: I know that.

THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.

THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.

MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —

THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.

868

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.

THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: Good.

THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —

THE COURT: Please.

MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.

THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.

This is not a de novo hearing —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.

THE COURT: — by the Second District.

MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have

869

Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —

THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.

MR. WEINBERG: But —

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)
______________________________________

870

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, 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.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

Jesse Prince: David Miscavige’s Rise to Corruption (or: Ding Dong the King is Dead)–Reformatted (September 5, 1998)

Title: David Miscavige’s Rise to Corruption (or: Ding Dong the King is Dead)–Reformatted1
Author: jesse.prince@gte.net (Jesse Prince)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 23:15:50 GMT

The following is an account of my opinion based on eye witness events and secret
meetings I either witnessed or actively participated in while I was in the inner
sanctum of the cult known as “The Church of Scientology.” I write this in an
effort to provide an insight into the truth of the actual motives and agenda of
Scientology, which is no religion at all.

On Thursday, August 20, 1998, I attended a hearing at 8:30 a.m. in U.S. District
Court in Denver, Colorado. I had been in deposition all day the day before.
Scientology was deposing me, supposedly concerning the declaration I had filed
in the FACTNet case, but in fact I had been asked very few questions that
related in any way to the FACTNet copyright case. Most of the deposition had
concerned my personal history, much of which had been culled from my pc folders.
It was obvious to me that they were using the deposition to gather intelligence
information about me, which they would then use to discredit me. But I remained
courteous and answered all of their questions as well as I could. I have nothing
to hide. I am not ashamed of anything I”ve done in my life.

The issues before the magistrate were twofold. One was a letter which Lawrence
Wollersheim”s attorney Dan Leipold had sent to Scientology attorney Samuel
Rosen, in which Dan promised to turn the entire transcript of my deposition over
to Ken Dandar, the attorney for Lisa McPherson”s estate, if Rosen dared to bring
up any information from my confidential pc folders. The other issue was the
length of time Scientology would be allowed to keep me in deposition. Dan and my
attorney Ford Greene wanted to limit the amount of time they could keep me;
Scientology wanted unlimited access to me.

So I am sitting in the courtroom next to my friend Stacy Young, who is there as
a director of FACTNet. Suddenly I hear Samuel Rosen say: “Your honor, the
witness they are bringing into this case, Jesse Prince, was second in command of
the Church of Scientology. He signed a confidential non-discolosure agreement
not to divulge any information he obtained as a result of his being second in
command of Scientology.”

Rosen continued to do his best to persuade the magistrate not to allow Dan to
send the deposition transcript to the McPherson case (the outcome was that the
magistrate told Dan not to send the transcripts without getting his OK first,
and, by the way, we convinced the magistrate not to allow them to depose me past
noon of the following day).

But I sat there stunned that I had just heard Scientology admit, on the record,
that I was second in command of Scientology. For me, that was the high point of
the entire deposition experience.

Now let”s go back in time to an afternoon in the late summer of 1984. I am
sitting in one of many legal/litigation meetings at Author Services, Inc., or
ASI. I am in RTC, a nonprofit religious corporation which ostensibly has
absolutely nothing to do wth ASI, a for-profit corporation. But David Miscavige
finds it convenient at the moment to be the Chairman of the Board of ASI, and,
since David Miscavige runs Scientology (no matter where he places himself
corporately), he can order all of us to meet wherever and whenever he wants us
to.

The subject of this particular meeting concerns the LRH probate case in
Riverside, California, and, as always, more corporate “sort-out.” Lawyers have
advised that there is still too much evidence to prove that LRH is incompetent
to manage his own affairs. This is crucial, since the case has been brought by
LRH”s son Nibbs, who has claimed that LRH is incompetent to manage his own
affairs and that his estate is being stolen by the Church of Scientology under
David Miscavige”s leadership. Nibbs is hoping to take over LRH”s assets if he
can prove that LRH is incompetent. So this is a very serious threat.

LRH has repeatedly said he wants different lawyers to represent him, and that he
wants different legal advice on how to win this case against Nibbs. But DM has
decided that the lawyers LRH already has (and who were chosen, of course, by DM)
are the best possible legal counsel. LRH specifically doesn”t like the fact that
these attorneys are advising him to back away from managing Scientology”s
affairs. Part of the reason for this is that DM feels (and has told the
attorneys) that LRH is losing his grip on reality.

In truth, DM was not the only one who knew that LRH was an old man past his
prime, with no real “new ideas” or “brilliant revelations” for quite some time.
All he could do was say the same thing, over and over: “There are more BTs! Many
more than people realize!” Hubbard really was a bit senile at the end there –
his brain pretty well fried by a wide range of drugs which he used for his
“research” — and this scared the hell out of his top messengers and others near
him.

For many years, LRH’s top aide, Pat Broeker, and his wife, Annie Broeker, looked
after the daily care of LRH. Pat was the financial conduit between LRH and the
vast reserves of liquid cash mounting in the multiple corporations of
Scientology which LRH always had at his disposal. David Miscavige would be
called by Pat to bring hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in cash in
briefcases to cover “basic expenses” for LRH and his small crew of four staff.
Often the prearranged meeting place was near Las Vegas. On many of these
occasions, Pat and Dave would go to a casino and gamble away thousands of
dollars of  LRH’s money, just hanging out having a good time together.

But as LRH felt his grasp on the Scientology empire weakening, he became
extremely suspicious of Dave and ordered me to give him a security check to see
if Dave was trying to prevent LRH from having his way with the church as he was
used to having. Basically, LRH was upset that he could not simply romp from one
fake corporation to another, wreaking havoc in his wake, as he had always done.
And he was being advised by attorneys whom Dave had hired that in order to
protect his money, he should disappear for a while. All of these circumstances
added up for LRH, and he was not at all sure he could trust DM. He was afraid DM
was trying to take over. Sure, he had practically raised Dave from a pup, but
still, who could be trusted in this business?

So I was ordered to sec check DM to determine his real motives for passing along
legal advice that he back off from his own church. When I walked into Dave”s
office he was crying like a child who had taken a crap in his pants and now
stank to high heaven. Dave swore up and down to me that he was only following
LRH”s own orders to get an “All Clear” — meaning to get LRH dismissed from all
the outstanding litigation — so that LRH could travel freely again, without
fear of subpoenas or worse.

LRH had been in hiding, not only from the public but also from 95 percent of all
his staff, for the last fifteen to twenty years anyway. Dave was extremely
indignant at being asked such incriminating questions, but because of the
questions I was asking him, he was fairly certain that LRH would soon assign him
to the RPF (the Rehabilitation Project Force, Scientology”s political prison).

In the security check Dave made sure he told me about the trips to the casinoes,
the heavy drinking and the women he and Pat had enjoyed together. Dave freely
confessed his sins and Pat Broeker”s sins as well. He said if he was going to go
down, he was going to make sure Pat Broeker went down as well. He was very
critical of Pat, saying he had a long history of alcohol abuse and recklessly
spending LRH’s money. Of course, the person who received the report of Dave”s
sec check was Pat Broeker. So it didn”t surprise me a bit when Dave and Pat
suddenly became best buddies again. I seriously doubt that anything but reports
full of glowing praise for Dave ever went to LRH. In retrospect I realize both
Pat Broeker and David Miscavige had an interest in keeping the status quo with
LRH, since both of them had dreams of one day being the new dictator of
Scientology once the current Ding Dong king was dead.

LRH went on spending his millions freely on property and “research” (all this
really meant was that he was buying more and more drugs for himself) and buying
exotic animals like buffalo, llamas, swans and  peacocks at the ranch at
Creston.

LRH seemed resigned to follow the legal advice of Dave”s lawyers and stayed away
from Scientology. However, he made it known that he was still very salty about
the whole deal and refused to make contact as he had done in the past.

About a year and a half later he became very ill.

I will continue this story very soon. It is not my intention to post a book on
this newsgroup all at one time. However, I will say this: What I am relating to
you here will never cost you a dime. It will always be free on the internet. I
am not a writer, nor am I trying to be. (And here is a good place to say thanks
to Stacy for being my editor — she”s making sure my posts to you are readable!)
If I could have anything I wanted in return for exposing the true nature of the
inner workings of Scientology, I would ask its current members and staff to run
away as fast as possible to recover their lives. That”s all I want.

Part of the agreement we all made when we became cult slaves was to turn our
backs on our friends and family, so I know that many people literally have no
place to go if they leave Scientology, particularly the Sea Org. But there are
people working to resolve this problem. This will change soon.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jesse Prince

Notes

Stacy Brooks Young: Scientology’s reign of terrorism is at an end (September 3, 1998)

Title: Scientology’s reign of terrorism is at an end
Author: stacy8@gte.net (Stacy Brooks Young)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 05:52:14 GMT

By now everyone should have seen the lengthy message Vaughn posted last night.
For various reasons he did not want to discuss what he has been doing until now,
and I realize this silence has created concern and allowed Scientology to hope
for the worst. But Vaughn is, more than  ever, doing what he does best in this
battle with Scientology. He and I are in daily contact, and I suggest that any
hope Scientology may have had that they could drive a wedge between Vaughn and
me is just as futile now as it ever was when we were inside the cult. It will
never happen.

Now it is time to bring everyone up to date on the relentless campaign of
intimidation and harassment to which both Bob Minton and I have been subjected
recently. It is a campaign which has increased dramatically since Jesse Prince
emailed Bob at FACTNet after hearing about the Dateline program and, shortly
thereafter, met with me in Columbus, Ohio. It will become clear as you read this
report that Scientology is terrified of what Jesse’s information is going to do.
So terrified, in fact, that they have literally made death threats against him.
But let me start earlier.

It began on July 7, while I was in Columbus, Ohio, for a meeting with Brian
Haney and Bob. That evening when I checked my email I found that the executive
director of FACTNet had forwarded a message to me that Jesse Prince had sent to
Bob Minton. In the email message Jesse suggested to Bob that he check with
Vaughn and me about who he was, since the three of us had worked together
extensively when we were in Scientology. He included a cell phone number in his
message. I called him immediately and left a message giving him my hotel phone
number.

I had known Jesse since 1976 in Scientology and was thrilled to see that he was
reaching out to re-establish contact. He had been third in command of
Scientology, under David Miscavige and Vicki Aznaran, from 1982 until he was
busted, along with Vicki and many others (including Vaughn), by DM in 1987.
Jesse had always been a kind-hearted person, even when he had every reason to
advance his own position by becoming one of DM’s vicious lieutenants. Jesse
never crossed that threshold. He always remained my friend and someone that I
and others could trust not to sell us out.

I also knew that Jesse would be David Miscavige’s worst nightmare if he decided
to come forward to expose what he knows about Scientology. He was not just in
the inner circle; Jesse was in the innermost inner sanctum, privy to all of the
illegalities, covert operations, destruction of enemies, and degradation of Sea
Org staff – all order by Miscavige. He was also a direct witness to the rift
between LRH, Pat Broeker and DM which began in 1981 and increased as LRH and
Broeker realized with growing alarm that DM was wresting control of Scientology
away from them. I was electrified at the possibility that Jesse and I might
re-connect. The ramifications for the battle being waged to reform Scientology
were staggering. I knew that if Jesse came forward with the information he had,
it would mean the end of DM’s reign of terror. I also knew that Jesse would be
in serious danger as soon as DM found that that he had contacted me. But Jesse
had always been fearless when I knew him. I hoped he would still be that way.

On Wednesday, July 8, Bob left Columbus in the morning and I spent several hours
finishing up some business with Brian. When I got back to my hotel at 3:30 I had
a message from Jesse Prince asking me to call him on his cell phone. When I
heard Jesse’s voice again, after not having seen or heard from him for nine
years, I literally cried with joy. I called him right away and he answered on
the first ring. He was sitting in a bar in downtown Boston with some friends
when I reached him. We were so happy to hear each other’s voices that we
practically shouted at each other, it was such an emotional moment for us. The
idea that we had both survived so much, and that our friendship had survived all
these years and was as strong as ever, was just too much for us. I was the first
friend Jesse had contacted since he had gone into hiding after he left
Scientology and they began coming after him.

Immediately, without even thinking about it, my support for Jesse was
unconditional. Whatever you need to recover, I told him, I’ll help you get it.
This is how I feel about Jesse and every other victim of the unspeakable abuse
and degradation to which DM subjects his subordinates. I experienced the
nightmare  myself. I know the horror he survived. Jesse is my friend. He is a
decent, kind-hearted, caring person. He’s no angel and never claimed to be, any
more than I am. But I will help him in any way I can. He knows it, and we trust
each other, and nothing Scientology can do will ever drive a wedge between us.

I arranged for Jesse to fly to Columbus that very night. He didn’t even have
time to go back to his hotel to get his suitcase. Brian and I met him at the
airport and when he walked down that ramp I can’t remember ever being happier to
see anyone than I was to see Jesse that night. We stayed up for hours just
catching up on each other’s experiences. He filled in the missing pieces for me
about the dismal failure of the 1987 attempted  coup, when Pat Broeker sent
Vicki Aznaran, Jesse Prince and Spike Bush on a mission to the secret base of
international Scientology management in Gilman Hot Springs to remove Miscavige
from post and take over command of Scientology. I won’t retell the whole story
here because Jesse can do that much better than I, but it answered many
questions that I had had. At the same time, I was able to fill in missing pieces
for Jesse, since I had been in the LRH biography unit in LA under Vaughn and
Broeker at the time, and had therefore been directly and catastrophically
affected by the upheaval caused by their failed coup.

Jesse and I spent all day Thursday together, just catching each other up and
re-establishing our friendship. Jesse told me how difficult it had been for him
to make the transition back to the real world after sixteen years in the bizaare
“through-the-looking-glass” world of the Sea Org. He told me that during the
first five years after he escaped, he felt he had hit rock bottom and it seemed
as if he had suffered just about all the loss possible for him. He said he had
felt as if he had nothing else to lose for a time. He had been forced to declare
bankruptcy in 1994 and start all over again. He said he found that he was so
unsocialized that he literally could not work with other people, because no
matter what he did, he just couldn’t fit in. He said he would experience a
physical revulsion to being around too many people, and sometimes he couldn’t
bear to be around even one other person. To his credit, Jesse started his own
company and was able to pull himself up by his bootstraps and begin the long
journey toward becoming a functioning member of society. By the time he and I
met, Jesse said he felt he was finally gaining some stability personally and
some success in his business. He was coming back to himself, he said, and coming
back to the world, and it was finally OK for him to be doing that.

Jesse told me that for several years after he left, he had avoided any contact
with Scientology or Scientologists to try to separate himself from the deep
deception and delusion that, as far as Jesse was concerned, happens to anyone
who practices and associates with Scientology for any length of time. But at the
end of June, he said, he was in Chicago visiting his family, and his cousin told
him she had seen a program on NBC’s Dateline about a guy named Bob Minton. She
told Jesse that Bob helped people get out of Scientology and exposed the abusive
and deceptive practices of the Scientology cult.

Two weeks later, for the first time ever, Jesse logged onto the Internet. He did
it via a computer at a cyber-cafe in Minneapolis, and he found
alt.religion.scientology. According to Jesse, he could hardly believe what he
was seeing! He had never seen so many people unafraid to stand up and tell the
truth about the misery that families and friends have suffered at the hands of
Scientology. He came across the FACTNet web page and saw something about Vaughn
and me, and that was how it all began. The more we talked, the more Jesse’s
conviction grew that it was time for him to stand up and tell his story and do
everything possible to end the abuse of Scientology. We talked about how
Scientology would go after him, how they would do everything they could to ruin
his life, discredit him, portray him as a criminal, a pervert and worse. He knew
he would be subjecting his own family to harassment and abuse if he took a
public stand against them. And he knew it was very possible he could be in
physical danger. But Jesse’s strength and courage increased before my very eyes.
By Thursday evening, Jesse was committed to exposing the evil of Scientology,
whatever the cost.

Although I didn’t know it until several days later, it was on July 9 that the
Boston Globe published its huge article about Bob’s battle with the Church of
Scientology. It was extremely favorable toward Bob, and extremely critical of
Scientology.

After an emotionally exhausting couple of days with Jesse, on Friday morning,
July 10, I flew to Boston to meet my family for a week-long vacation on Cape
Cod, while Jesse returned home to Minneapolis to prepare for his life to change
radically. We were in touch every day while I was in South Harwich, because as
soon as Jesse touched down in Minneapolis he discovered he was being followed,
and we realized that Scientology had had us under surveillance in Columbus.
Because of the information Jesse has, we had to assume he and I both would at
the very least be under continual surveillance once Scientology found out he had
hooked up with me.

I suggested it would be wise for Jesse to meet with attorney Dan Leipold in
Santa Ana, California, just south of Los Angeles. I thought Jesse should speak
to an attorney as soon as possible about the legal risks to which he was
exposing himself by taking on Scientology. Dan is one of the most experienced
attorneys I know in the strange world of Scientology litigation. He is also
representing Lawrence Wollersheim in the FACTNet litigation and I thought he
would probably be interested in what Jesse knew about possible fraud concerning
the copyrights in question in the FACTNet case. Jesse was extremely apprehensive
about flying to LA, since it was in that city that much of his nightmarish
Scientology experiences occurred. I offered to meet him in LA so that he would
not have to deal with the painful memories alone. He accepted my offer with
great relief and I arranged for both of us to fly into Los Angeles on Saturday
evening, July 18, after my family vacation was over. .

Little did either of us realize that painful memories would be the least of
Jesse’s difficulties during his stay in Los Angeles.

I arrived several hours before Jesse, on Saturday evening, July 18. A dear
friend of both Jesse’s and mine met me at the airport and treated me to a
leisurely dinner until it was time to meet Jesse’s plane. Jesse and our friend
had not seen each other since the late 1970s, so it was a dramatic reunion.
Moreover, they had much to reminisce about, since they were both on the infamous
1977-78 RPF in Los Angeles, when the RPF was forced to renovate the
newly-acquired Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, now known simply as “the Complex” and
best-known for the fact that the entire complex of buildings is painted light
blue. Thirty hours on, three off, that was the schedule during the horrific
sixteen months they spent together in the RPF. Our friend told Jesse the story
of how she escaped, a heartbreaking story Jesse had never heard before, and
Jesse told her what had happened to him after she left Scientology.

The reunion of the three of us was deeply moving. I imagine it to be very much
like the emotion that victims of any totalitarian, terrorist regime must
experience when they are reunited after so many years. For us as former Sea Org
members, our relief was in finding that the three of us had survived with our
sanity at least relatively in tact. We are three of the lucky ones. I have
encountered many former Sea Org members who have seemingly irreparable
psychological, emotional and physical damage, and it is heartbreaking to realize
that they may very well never fully recover. That night Jesse, our mutual friend
and I were poignantly aware of our good fortune.

The next day the harassment began.

Jesse and I took a short drive for some morning coffee at Starbuck’s and quickly
realized we were being followed. We decided to confirm our suspicion by taking a
circuitous route and, sure enough, we confirmed without a shadow of a doubt that
we had tail. There were two different cars on us, and wherever we went one or
the other was always behind us.

The next day we visited a former Scientologist in a suburb north of Los Angeles.
While we were there, a neighbor called to say there were two cars parked outside
of her house, and that a man had actually come to her door trying to get
information about Jesse and me. The neighbor described the cars  for us and gave
us the license plates. She also assured us that she had totally refused to
cooperate with Scientology’s hired thugss.

When Jesse and I left our friend’s house several hours later, sure enough, the
two cars the neighbor had described pulled out and began to follow us. It was
dark by then, and the truth is that neither Jesse nor I see very well at night.
So we got lost several times and ended up driving around in circles trying to
get home. Somehow our tail got in front of us, and we laughed as we pulled up
behind them at a stoplight. When the light turned green, our Scientology friends
sped off into the darkness, undoubtedly embarrassed at their clumsy attempt at
surveillance. By the way, Scientology has no idea how many quiet enemies it has.
The friend with whom Jesse and I were staying had another houseguest at the
time, a non-Scientologist. He jumped right into the fray, directing us to park
our car in a parking lot near our friend’s house, picking us up in his own car,
getting us to lie down on the back seat so the Scientology tails wouldn’t see
us, and safely delivering us home. All the while, private investigators were
circling the house as if we were carrion. And Jesse hadn’t said a word about
Scientology yet!

I had to leave Jesse in LA to go to Wellspring (that will be the subject of a
separate post coming very soon), but Vaughn flew down to be with him so he
wouldn’t be alone. The day after I left, Vaughn and Jesse were at Dan Leipold’s
officeworking on a declaration for the FACTNet case concerning Scientology’s
extensive copyright fraud. Suddenly Jesse heard someone shouting his name
through the window.

“Hey, Jesse! Come out here!” they were yelling. It was obvious that the two
people were OSA operatives, so, of course, Jesse didn’t go outside. One of the
operatives finally opened the door himself and threw a letter addressed to Jesse
inside the door. It was a letter threatening to sue Jesse if he said a word
about what he knew about Scientology. But, as Jesse told me on the phone that
night, it was too late to frighten him. The blanket of fear was being rolled
back, and the war was on.

Two days later Jesse was falsely detained by two private investigators at four
in the morning as he returned to his hotel. As he pulled into the parking lot,
they pulled up behind him so that he couldn’t move his car and handed him
another threatening letter. Jesse lost his temper at them, and one of the PI’s
responded by screaming at Jesse, “You black motherfucker! I’m going to blow your
damn head off!”

As Jesse said later, that PI obviously didn’t realize that as a veteran Sea Org
member, Jesse was quite used to racial slurs. Jesse just watched the guy spit
and stammer, and then he chased him to the highway in his red convertible
Mustang.

Meanwhile, I left Los Angeles and flew to Boston on Friday, July 24. I was
literally exhausted after the harassment Jesse and I had been subjected to in
L.A., and I badly needed a rest. Bob met me at the airport and told me that
someone pretending to be my “travel agent” had called the house in Boston the
night before and told Therese what flight I was coming in on. Although Therese
already knew about the relationship between Bob and me and knew that I was
flying to Boston, having an obvious Scientology operative call her and throw
this in her face had been extremely upsetting for her, particularly because she
was scheduled to leave for England Friday morning with the two girls. Bob told
me about this phone call on the way to his house in Sandown, New Hampshire,
where we planned to spend a quiet weekend before I went to Wellspring. But as
all of you know by now, it turned out to be anything but a quiet weekend in New
Hampshire.

On Saturday afternoon, July 25, Bob and I were swimming in the pool on his
property in New Hampshire. Bob was telling me about a phone call he had received
from high-level Scientology operative Mike Rinder. Bob was telling me that
Scientology had had Jesse and me under surveillance when we met for the first
time in Columbus, Ohio, on Wednesday, July 8, and that the reason he knew this
was that on Sunday, July 19, he had received a telephone call from Rinder.
During the phone call Rinder let Bob know that he was aware that Jesse Prince
had met with me in Ohio, and he demanded to know if Jesse Prince was on Bob’s
payroll, meaning was he now paying Jesse to do anti-Scientology work. Bob told
me he had replied that he was not, but because of that  phone call Bob had known
the harassment of both Jesse and me was going to increase, and that was exactly
what had happened in Los Angeles.

This was at about 5:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon. I suddenly looked up the hill
toward the driveway and saw someone standing at the top of the hill near the
barn, looking down at us in the pool. When another person appeared and began to
shout my name along with outrageous obscenities, we both realized with alarm
that it was Scientologists on Bob’s property.

As Bob wrote in his report to the New Hampshire prosecutor, “At that point I
knew that the Scientologists were trespassing on my property and invading my
privacy for the express purpose of continuing their campaign of harassment and
intimidation against Stacy Young and myself. Having experienced this harassment
for the past year, I was fully aware that these people are fanatical in their
beliefs and that they had been indoctrinated into believing that both Stacy
Young and I were dangerous criminals. There is a policy in Scientology known as
“Fair Game,” which states that anyone who is a threat to Scientology can be
“lied to, tricked, sued, and destroyed” in any way necessary without the
perpetrator being punished in any way. I fully believed this to be the state of
mind of the Scientologists on my property and considered that both Stacy Young
and I were in physical danger as long as these people were trespassing on my
property.

As everyone knows, the final outcome of this incident was that no charges were
filed against Bob and the Scientologists were warned never to set foot on his
property again. But it was an extremely stressful weekend.

The next day, Sunday, July 26, Bob got a call from Therese in England saying
that a letter had been hand-delivered to her father’s house outside of London.
The letter was signed by Mike Rinder and was filled with terrible information
about a number of people that Bob has assisted, but the majority of the letter
was filled with scurrilous information about me, clearly calculated to upset
Therese as much as possible.

Later that day, Bob drove me down to Boston so I could take a flight to
Columbus, Ohio, and from there I drove south to Wellspring. As soon as I
arrived, I arranged for Jesse to fly to New Hampshire to stay with Bob to make
sure he was safe while I was in Ohio. Jesse flew to Boston on July 27 and was
there until August 8. As I had expected, Jesse and Bob became the best of
friends during the week he stayed there.

Later Jesse would tell me that he was amazed to meet Bob, and utterly surprised
to meet someone who has compassion for people who have had a bad experience that
he has not personally had. As Jesse pointed out, the common reaction of people
toward ex-cult members is that they are strange and somehow basically stupid ,
easily manipulated people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s just plain
bad luck when a person gets into a cult, and it could and does happen to almost
anyone. Bob understands that, and Jesse loves him for it.

As Jesse told me after his trip to New Hampshire, “Bob restored my faith and
belief in humanity. I don’t know how else to describe it beyond that. Bob has
the courage of a lion and the heart and mind of an angel. He is not afraid of
anything I’ve seen yet.”

From New Hampshire Jesse flew to Minneapolis to pack up his things and get ready
for his life to change radically. Vaughn flew to Minneapolis to meet Jesse so
that he would have someone with him while he prepared to move to Boulder. The
most difficult part about getting Vaughn to Minneapolis was that MacPherson, our
85-pound dog, had to go with him. Mac is the dog who was kidnapped last February
and beaten brutally while Vaughn was in Germany testifying against Scientology.
You’ll be glad to know that he has fully recovered from the beating. The only
vestige of it is that he is missing all of his bottom front teeth, but that
doesn’t bother Mac at all. He and Vaughn are inseparable, so, of course, he goes
everywhere Vaughn goes. He is a very large dog (and an excellent watchdog – if
anyone ever tried to hurt Vaughn they would probably lose an arm) so it took a
while to find a crate big enough to hold him, and then we had to find a flight
that would allow him on. But we solved all of these logistical problems and
Vaughn and Mac arrived safely in Minneapolis.

FACTNet purchased a car for Jesse’s use when he got to Minneapolis. Two days
later, one of Scientology’s hired thugs kicked in the passenger door of the car
(there is a picture of kicked-in door on alt.binaries.scientology).

Jesse took Vaughn on a fairly wild journey to Chicago, where he got a chance to
meet Jesse’s Blues/Rock Star brother Ron. In vintage Jesse style, the two of
them ran all around the North and South sides of Chicago, visting old friends
and having a good time meeting new people.

They left Chicago and went to visit Jesse’s daughter and his grandchildren in a
small town in southern Illinois, then headed for Memphis, Tennesse, where
Jesse’s father and sister live. As it happened, Vaughn checked into a hotel
right across the street from Graceland, and it happened to be Elvis week. So
Vaughn enjoyed the Elvis celebration while Jesse had a great time with his
father and sister, whose birthday happened to be just when they were there. The
best part of the trip for Jesse, though, was that he met his great-nephew
Malachi, who is two years old and, according to Jesse, is a “joy to behold.”

While Jesse and Vaughn were ennroute to Denver, I was finishing my stay at
Wellspring. What an incredible place!

Because of several extremely harassive visits from Scientology private
investigator Eugene Ingram a few years back, Wellspring has a gate at the
beginning of their driveway which they kept locked most of the time while I was
there to protect me from being harassed. So my two-week stay was wonderfully
free of Scientologists or private investigators — until Bob Minton arrived
toward the end of my stay. He came to Wellspring so that he and I could speak to
one of the counselors there together. As he drove up to the Wellspring gate he
was met with several scruffy looking individuals who soon made it clear that
they were Scientologists, there to take photographs of Bob and me.

We took down their license plate numbers and reported them to the local sheriff,
who was already familiar with their tactics because of the trouble Wellspring
had had with Scientology earlier. The sheriff was very supportive and told us to
let him know immediately if we had any further instances of being followed or
harassed in any way. We assumed the Scientologists found out that the sheriff
was on the look-out for them, because we didn’t see them again for the duration
of our stay.

When we left Wellspring Bob and I stopped briefly in Washington, D.C., to have
dinner with a high-level media contact, and then on Sunday, August 9, I returned
to Vashon Island and he flew back to Boston.

Vaughn and Jesse made it to Denver in time for Jesse to be deposed in the
FACTNet case in a grueling three-day confrontation with Scientology attorney
Samuel Rosen. I met Jesse in Denver on Tuesday, August 18, so that I could
attend the deposition as a FACTNet director. Also attending were Ford Greene,
representing Jesse, Dan Leipold, representing Lawrence Wollersheim, Lawrence
himself (who is also named in the suit as an individual), and, sitting on
Rosen’s side of the table for Scientology, Mike Rinder and RTC staff member
Allan Cartwright. Jesse was senior to both of these Scientology operatives when
he was in RTC, so it was fascinating to observe these two as they reacted to
Jesse’s testimony. I won’t go into details here about the deposition, because it
will be the subject of another post once Scientology’s protective order is
lifted. I will say, however, that I have never seen anyone treated with more
contempt, discourtesy and blatant racism than Jesse was by Sam Rosen in that
deposition. It was staggering. To Jesse’s credit, he maintained his composure
throughout the deposition and never once rose to Rosen’s bait. Jesse is truly
and profoundly a gentleman.

One night while we were all in Denver, Scientology sent a call girl in on Jesse
to try to entrap him. The woman stole a  $100 bill that Jesse put on the table
to pay for the drink he had bought her in the bar of the hotel where we were
staying. Jesse was so irritated that she had stolen his money!

“Now, I know this girl was being well paid,” Jesse laughingly complained to me
later. “Why did she have to rob poor me?”

Oddly, Scientology also hired a gay man to try to entrap Jesse. Anyone who knows
Jesse Prince at all can tell you that he has never had any interest and probably
never will have any interest in anything but women. As Jesse put it, “With all
the pc folder information they have about me and use against me, I have no idea
why they thought I might go for a gay guy.”

Needless to say, Jesse didn’t fall for either of Scientology’s attempts to
entrap him.

After the deposition Jesse remained in Boulder to begin a thorough debriefing
with Lawrence Wollersheim, and I returned to Vashon Island. (This debriefing
will be the subject of a series of stunning posts in the near future.)

Neither Ford Greene, Dan Leipold, Jesse nor I had been aware of any surveillance
while the deposition was ongoing. But as soon as Ford, Dan and I left and Jesse
was alone in Boulder, the PIs descended upon him in force. Jesse told me that
one day the PIs were following him in such a harassive way that he was forced to
call the police four times. The police ordered a female PI to leave Jesse alone
and watched to make sure she didn’t follow Jesse as he drove away. But when he
arrived at the house where he was staying, the very same female PI was waiting
for him, laughing, in front of the house.

During this same period of time, on Monday, August 24, Scientologists picketed
the financial district in Boston and for several hours distributed fliers
concerning the relationship between Bob Minton and me. It was the distribution
of these fliers that prompted Bob to post his now-famous message on a.r.s. in
which he announced that he and I are getting married. What immediately preceeded
this post was a private email from one of the regulars on a.r.s. attacking Bob
really harshly for “not living up to proper moral standards.” He was extremely
upset by the distribution of the fliers, and the private message just hit him
the wrong way. He tried to reach me before he posted his announcement but I was
in Seattle and unreachable. When he finally reached me in the early evening, he
was extremely upset about what had happened that day and told me the stress of
Scientology’s harassment had nearly broken him. He read me what he had posted
about our relationship. I suppose it was because of the stress of having
Scientology turn our personal lives into a fishbowl that we decided that night
that we would no longer hide our relationship in any way.

The next morning Bob flew into Seattle. I was there to meet him, and as we got
off the escalator from the gate, we nearly ran into four picketers holding signs
about Bob Minton and me. This was the first of a series of pickets which have
happened everywhere we have flown in the past two weeks. Somehow the
Scientologists know when both of us are flying, what airlines we are taking, our
flight number and the gate where we will arrive in the airport. They have met
every plane either of us has taken since Bob’s post on August 23.

They have picketed not only our flghts. Bob was in Seattle from Tuesday, August
24, until Thursday, August 26, when we both flew to San Francisco. While he was
in Seattle the Scientologists picketed the hotel where we were staying in
downtown Seattle and my cat sanctuary on Vashon Island. The hotel security ran
them off at the hotel, and Vashon’s local sheriff ordered them off the island
when he discovered them on Vashon.

On Wednesday, August 25, my assistant at the sanctuary reported to me that she
had received two telephone death threats. The calls seemed to come from two
different people, and both callers assumed that it was I who answered the phone.
The callers said roughly the following:

“Listen, you fucking cunt, you better get that black bastard in the witness
protection program because we’re going to fucking kill him. Do you understand,
you fucking whore?”

Forgive my language, but I want you to have the full impact of these calls. My
assistant was terrified, and Bob and I were both extremely alarmed at this
dramatic shift in Scientology’s approach. I called Jesse and Lawrence
immediately to let them both know Scientology was now threatening to kill Jesse.
Soon afterwards I received two telephone calls from the FBI wanting full details
of the telephone death threats. I spoke to the FBI agents at great length,
briefing them on the full implications of Jesse’s knowledge of Scientology’s
crimes and assuring them that the Scientology leadership is perfectly capable of
murdering Jesse to keep his knowledge from ever surfacing. To my knowledge, the
FBI has had Jesse under surveillance protection ever since and is keeping
detailed records of all the Scientology tails they are able to ascertain.

Bob and I flew to San Francisco on Friday, August 28, to meet with Ford Greene
and several other people. Our departure was not without incident, as a lone
picketer said goodbye to us as we boarded the plane at the Seattle airport. When
we arrived at the San Francisco airport we were confronted with several
picketers with signs about Bob and me. They were extremely rude and continued to
harass us until we reached the baggage claim area of the airport.

The next day Bob and I, along with Grady Ward, Keith Henson, and several others,
picketed the San Franicisco org. Several Scientologists came out and distributed
leaflets about Bob Minton and me to anyone who received a flier about Lisa
McPherson from Grady Ward or a flier about Xenu from Kristi. Kristi, I might
add, is better at working a crowd than anyone I’ve seen at any trade show.
Otherwise, it was a peaceful demonstration that concluded without further
incident.

The next morning Therese Minton called Bob to let him know that Scientologists
had picketed their homes in Boston and New Hampshire, in both locations passing
out fliers about Bob and me. She was angry at the despicable tactics of the
Scientologists and concerned that these fliers were being passed out where
friends of the Minton children might recieve them. Therese had gone out and
photographed the picketers. She was not in the least bit intimidated by them.
She was merely furious at them for their hypocrisy in feigning concern for the
children while doing everything possible to hurt them.

This incident upset Bob a great deal, and after a meeting with Grady, we were
ready for a long walk in downtown San Francisco just to try to relax. We set out
from our hotel toward Fisherman’s Wharf. When we had walked several blocks Bob
decided we should turn back and get a map from the Fairmont Hotel. We were
nearly to the front door of the Fairmont when we suddenly realized that one of
the Scientology operatives we had seen at the org the day before was standing
with his back to us in front of the Fairmont, holding a walkie-talkie to his
mouth, and saying, “They’re heading back toward their hotel now; they’re in
front of the Fairmont.”

We were flabbergasted that we were being stalked like this by Scientology. Bob
was in no mood to be cordial to this Scientology goon. He walked over to him and
demanded to know why he was following us. The Scientologist sneered at Bob and
said, “I’m a citizen of San Francisco. I have as much right to be here as you
do.”

At that, Bob called the San Franicisco police and reported that we were being
stalked, that we had been met at our gate at the San Francisco airport by
Scientologists, that they were stalking us all across the country, meeting us
wherever we fly, and now here they were stalking us through the streets of San
Francisco. We followed this man for many blocks, deep into the heart of
Chinatown, keeping tabs on him until the police could arrive. Every few feet the
Scientologist (we later found out his name was Mark Warlick) stopped and
pretended to be videoing scenes from Chinatown as if he were a tourist. Later
one of the police officers suggested that he was probably erasing the footage he
had taken of Bob and me in case they confiscated his camera. When the police
arrived the officer did take the video camera, although he later returned it.

This Scientologist, Mark Warlick, admitted to the police that he was one of the
people who met us at our gate two days before, so it was obvious to the police
that the Scientologists were harassing us. But when the police sergeant finally
arrived and interviewed both the Scientologist and Bob and me, he came to the
conclusion, albeit reluctantly, that Mark Warlick had not technically broken any
law.

“Listen,” he said to us, “you two are celebrities, and there is just no way to
control what people are going to do when you arrive in town. It’s the same
problem politicians have. People picket them, they follow them, they yell at
them, and what can the police do? Unless these people actually break the law, we
can’t arrest them.”

This was unnerving to hear from a law enforcement officer. Bob and I looked at
each other in dismay as we realized that what this policeman had just told us
was that Scientology would be able to continue to harass us and there was
nothing the law of the United States could do to stop them.

The sergeant did warn Mark Warlick that he had come dangerously close to
breaking the stalking law, and he did tell him to let all the other Scientology
operatives know that if they crossed the line and broke the law they would be
arrested. The sneer on Mark Warlick’s face that he had had when we first saw him
in front of the Fairmont Hotel was definitely gone by the time the police let
him go. But the incident had had a profound effect on Bob and me.

We returned to our hotel room and talked about what had happened. What we
realized was that the only way we can deal with the harassment from Scientology
is to refuse to be intimidated by them in any way.

We went out and purchased a large portfolio case that holds up to ten picket
signs and sticks. When we left San Francisco for Boulder, Colorado, to visit
Jesse and to have a board meeting with Lawrence Wollersheim, we carried our
portfolio case on board the airplane with us. When we landed in Denver, I got
out my digital camera, and Bob carried the portfolio case with him as we walked
out to the gate.

I saw Jesse with several picketers as I rounded the corner to the gate and I
immediately started shooting pictures. Bob pulled out picket signs, handed one
to Jesse and held up one himself, and we immediately turned the tables on these
Scientology picketers. Bob and Jesse were following the picketers and I was
taking photographs of the entire incidents. Bob was announcing to everyone in
the airport that these were Scientologists who were stalking us, following us
everywhere we go and trying to frighten us into silence so we won’t expose the
true nature of their so-called “church.”

We got on the shuttle to baggage claim and noticed that the Scientology
picketers purposely did not get on the shuttle. So when our shuttle arrived, we
waited for the next one. When the picketers got off, we began shooting their
photos again and following them with our own picket signs, again announcing
loudly who they were and why they were there. By the time we were finished with
them, these four picketers had their signs between their legs and they were
running out of the airport.

The next night Jesse, Lawrence, Bob and I had dinner at the Boulderado Hotel. At
a certain point we recognized someone from the ARSCC Boulder Underground
standing outside the restaurant. Bob went out to say hello and when he came
back, he reported that there were approximately seven to ten Scientology PIs
surrounding the hotel, but that the ARSCC Boulder Underground had successfully
scrambled the radio signals of the PIs and disrupted their surveillance so
effectively that most of them had given up and left.

Today I flew home to Seattle and Bob and Jesse flew to Boston. When I arrived on
Vashon Island I was met with picketers right up the street from the sanctuary,
undoubtedly because the sheriff warned them if they trespassed on private
property again he would arrest them.

When Jesse and Bob got off their plane in Boston they were met by seven
picketers, including the DSA Maureen O’Keefe, OSA operative Gerard Renna, Frank
Hall, and several others who have picketed in Boston before.

Immediately Bob pulled picket signs out of his portfolio case and both of them
held picket signs up while Bob also took photos with his digital camera, so he
could download them right away to post on alt.binries.scientology.

Maureen came at Bob with, as he put it, “a stomach that stuck out three feet
from her face,” and holding the taunting a.r.s. post that Bob had sent from the
airplane announcing that he and Jesse were arriving in Boston and providing OSA
with their flight number. Gerard Renna was also trying to get in Bob’s face,
although he is so short that he wasn’t able to reach.

Both Jesse and Bob pointed out to Renna on several occasions that he was in
serious need of mouthwash, as they were having a very difficult time every time
he got close to them.

The Scientologists were extremely hostile all along, but they were unable to
stop the verbal tech of the tag-team duo, Bob and Jesse. Finally in the baggage
claim area the encounter became so boisterous that the Massachusetts state
troopers had to come in to restore order. When they found out that Jesse and Bob
were passengers who had arrived on a flight from Denver, had been stalked
through the terminal, and were trying to pick up their bags, they told the
Scientologists that had they known they were demonstating at the gate or
anywhere in the airport, for that matter, they would have arrested them, as FAA
regulations prohibit such activities.

The Scientologists were removed to a neutral location, where they couldn’t
bother Bob and Jesse while they left the airport.

Bob called Therese from the car and told her what had happened at the airport,
but Therese said she wasn’t afraid of “those fools” and told them to go ahead
and go to the house. But four Scientologist followed Bob and Jesse to a house
they knew Bob no longer lives in, specifically for the purpose of upsetting
Therese and the children. Jesse went outside of the Beacon Hill house and spoke
to the four Scientologists. DSA Maureen O’Keefe told the other three to stay
away from Jesse, but Gerard Renna and the other two Scientologists gathered
round him and listened, spellbound, as he told them the real story of life in
the inner circle of Scientology leadership.

This conversation with Jesse continued until two Boston police cars arrived and
ordered the Scientologists to leave.

From now on, we will document every instance of harassment or attempted
intimidation by Scientology. Soon we’ll have a web page set up that will get
daily updates of harassment from all over the country, complete with photographs
and video footage where appropriate.

The reign of terrrorism by these bullies is at an end.

Notes

Declaration of Vicki J. Aznaran (Sell-out No. 1) (May 19, 1994)

I, VICKI AZNARAN, hereby declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of Texas. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.

2. From 1972 until 1987, I was a member of various Church of Scientology (“Church”) entities. During that time I held a number of important positions in the corporate and ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church, including President of Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) In March of 1987, my husband Richard Aznaran and I left our positions with the Church and returned home to Texas from California.

3. On April 1, 1988, Richard and I filed a lawsuit against several Church entities and individuals in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. We have now settled this case through direct negotiations with Church representatives. This declaration details how we were driven to settlement by the failure of our counsel to adequately litigate our lawsuit and how we were forced to negotiate settlement directly with representatives of the defendants due to our counsels’ failure to properly represent our interests when defendants earlier had expressed interests in settlement.

4. Our lawsuit was filed on April 1, 1988 by the firm of Cummins & White. The suit was finalized and prepared in a rush in an attempt to get it filed before it was barred by the statute of limitations.

5. Additionally, despite the fact that I then testified in

1

deposition about the inaccuracies in the complaint, my counsel did not amend my complaint to correct them. These uncorrected falsehoods placed us at a serious disadvantage as they enabled the defendants to seize upon these points to give the impression that we were changing our testimony and deliberately stating falsehoods.

6. Another defect in the complaint was the amount of money requested, $70,000,000. Seventy million was a highly inflated figure and in fact impaired efforts to settle as the amount was so high. Shortly after the suit was filed, I pointed the high amount out to counsel and was told that it could be adjusted later. It never was.

7. Another liability to the successful prosecution of our lawsuit was the fact that Cummins & White was disqualified from representing us in our case on September 6, 1988.

8. Not being versed in the law, my husband and I relied upon the representations of Barry Van Sickle and Cummins & White that Cummins & White could properly serve as our counsel. This was wrong. Nevertheless Cummins & White expended considerable time and effort to defend their position in this regard, an action which I now understand to have been fought more for their own self-interest than for the advance of my lawsuit. In September 1988 the District Court Judge disqualified Cummins & White as our counsel, specifically finding that Cummins & White was an extension of Yanny’s continuing and improper involvement in our case.

9. Because Cummins & White was disqualified, we were without an attorney in our case for several months and our case

2

was threatened with dismissal. We were forced to expend considerable effort to find new counsel and get him up to speed while the Church continued to litigate our case. To our detriment, and due to the urgency of having to find counsel in an already ongoing case, we were forced to obtain counsel without the necessary resources to adequately litigate the case.

10. Barry Van Sickle’s attempts to settle were very weak and ineffective. In June 1991 Mr. Van Sickle reported to us that he had an offer of $1,000,000 to settle our case and one other. The offered amount for our case was $200,000 which we rejected as being too low. It was a starting point but despite our efforts to get Mr. Van Sickle to do so, he never succeeded in getting a counter offer to us. Further, Mr. Van Sickle told us that we would have to fire our existing attorney, Ford Greene, as the Church supposedly refused to deal with him in settling the case. As a result we did fire Mr. Greene. Then when Mr. Van Sickle from Cummins & White failed to complete the settlement we were again left without an attorney for a time as Cummins & White had been ordered not to represent us in the case as covered earlier in this declaration.

11. After being without counsel for several months, and finding ourselves at a serious disadvantage in complex litigation with the Church defendants, we re-hired Ford Greene to be our counsel, based on an order from the Court.

12. It has been our experience that Greene seriously neglected our lawsuit and systematically worsened its posture until it became virtually impossible to salvage.

13. From approximately February 1989 onward Ford Greene was

3

attorney of record in our lawsuit against the Church. During that time he did virtually no offensive work on the case, and did nothing of substance to advance our litigation position. Before our case was ordered transferred to Dallas, Texas in August of 1992, Greene had only sent out two interrogatories and had did not even take one deposition despite having obtained two extensions of the discovery cut-off. Following the transfer order, Mr. Greene did nothing whatsoever to actually get the case files sent to Dallas, Texas. Meanwhile, no activity has taken place in our case.

14. While representing us, Greene was consistently late in filing papers and in several instances placed our case in serious jeopardy by failing to file needed papers. For example, in December 1990 he neglected.to oppose a major summary judgment motion which the defendants had filed. He also failed to timely file several mandatory pre-trial papers which could have interfered with our ability to effectively put on our case at trial.

15. It was reported to me by Barry Van Sickle that Mr. Green smoked marijuana when he was picked up at the airport by Rick Wynne, a Cummins & White attorney and driven to the office of Cummins & White.

16. Furthermore, Greene did not communicate with us regarding activities in our lawsuit and often could not be contacted for extended periods of time. It is my belief that at least one of these periods of non-communication was due to the fact that he had entered a drug rehabilitation program without even informing us that he intended to do so. Ford Greene did

4

nothing effective to settle our case. In fact, he told me he was worried about settling our case as my husband and I would no longer be witnesses for Gerry Armstrong who is a client of Ford Greene and involved in Scientology related litigation. Additionally, he attempted to bill us for work which he did not do.

17. In fact, Ford Greene solicited us to pay a monthly stipend to him for Gerry Armstrong so he could work on our case. Armstrong was precluded by an earlier agreement from working on Church litigation.

18. Furthermore, like Cummins & White, Greene was aware of the errors in the complaint and never prepared an amended complaint. In fact, he “developed” the case so that the defendants were able to accuse my husband and myself of engineering several contradictory versions of the underlying facts of the complaint. Thus Greene’s “management” of the complaint set us up so that we would be faced at trial with seemingly contradictory positions which would undermine our credibility.

19. Greene’s inactivity, neglect, mismanagement, and failure to communicate with us endangered our lawsuit. In our view, Mr. Greene’s failure to prosecute this case is tantamount to malpractice. Based upon this history, we developed the conviction that Greene would be unable to handle the trial. While we would have preferred to get rid of Greene completely, we hesitated to do so because we knew that it would be extremely difficult for new counsel to rapidly learn the facts of the case on the eve of the trial.

5

20. In an attempt to resolve this dilemma, we hired John Elstead to be our attorney with Ford Greene. Elstead was recommended to us by Margaret Singer, a psychologist whom we intended to use at trial. Like Greene, Elstead has also neglected to prosecute or advance our case.

21. My husband and I have always been willing to settle our lawsuit and, in fact, considered it likely that the case would end through settlement rather than trial. In the summer of 1991 John Elstead contacted counsel for the defendants to see if there was an interest in settlement. Rather than presenting an acceptable demand, indicative of a serious interest in settlement, Elstead demanded $3,300,000. This was rejected immediately by defendants who did not consider it a serious opening demand and did not treat it as a basis for negotiations.

22. In the late summer of 1992, after the case had been ordered transferred to Dallas, Elstead met with the General Counsel for the Church of Scientology International to discuss settlement. He got nowhere.

23. Seeing that the viability of our lawsuit had been seriously endangered through the neglect and malfeasance of our attorneys, my husband and I felt compelled to take matters into our own hands to resolve this litigation in our best interests. In January of 1994 I spoke directly with Mike Rinder, a senior executive of the Church of Scientology International concerning settling the lawsuit. In the course of discussing settlement with him in this and subsequent conversations, I came to realize that my attorneys had blocked possible settlement for several years. Consistently they failed to convey our true interest in

6

negotiating a satisfactory end to the litigation. Shortly thereafter, Graham Berry approached us to see if he could negotiate a settlement on our behalf, by falsely claiming he had been contacted by the church making settlement overtures. Desperate to resolve this matter, I told him to go ahead. Instead of making a serious offers, on February 16, 1994 Berry demanded $3,600,000 for the settlement of our case along with various threats that he was not authorized make. Again this was not a serious attempt to settle.

24. Finally I communicated directly with a representative of one of the Church of Scientology defendant organizations. It was only when my attorneys were no longer need that both sides were able to discover that our positions were not that far apart and settlement talks were feasible.

25. In sum, it has been my observation that the counsel which my husband and I have employed have not only prolonged the litigation of our lawsuit, but have mishandled the development of the case for trial, and interfered with the process of settlement. By their actions described above, my counsel appear to have consistently put their own interests above those of myself and my husband and have failed to adequately carry out their responsibilities as members of the Bar. I am convinced we would not have been able to resolve our case had we not done so directly with the Church.

///

///

///

///

7

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and under the laws of each individual state thereof, including the laws of the states of California and Texas, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 19th day of May, 1994 in Dallas, Texas.

[signed]
VICKI J. AZNARAN

Appellant’s Opening Brief (January 19, 1993)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR

Civ. No. B 069450
(Super. Ct. No. BC 052395)

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff-Respondent
vs
GERALD ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal From

Superior Court Of The State Of California
County of Los Angeles

The Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF1

Ford Greene
HUB LAW OFFICES
California State Bar No. 107601
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ.
P.O. Box 511
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
(213) 459-4745

Attorneys for Appellant GERALD ARMSTRONG

[…]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 4; 1992, Scientology filed its verified complaint for damages and for preliminary and permanent injunction against defendant Gerald Armstrong in Marin County Superior Court Action No. 152229. On March 30, 1992 the Marin court granted Armstrong’s motion to transfer to the Los Angeles County Superior Court where it became Action No. BC 052395. During the pendency of Scientology’s motion for injunctive relief, and in order to maintain the status quo, but specifically stating there was no adjudication on the merits, the Marin Court granted a temporary restraining order (16) 1/ which was ultimately dissolved in Los Angeles.
On May 7, 1992, Scientology filed its Amended Memorandum of

____
1 All citations designated (___) are to the particular sequential page number of the Appendix Filed In Lieu Of Clerk’s Transcript pursuant to California Rule of Court 5.1.

Page 2. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Breach of Contract (1-29), and Armstrong filed his Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (30-50) Scientology replied on May 20, 1992. (51-63) The matter was heard on May 26 and 27, 1992 by the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian (RT 5/26/92 and 1594-1713) who issued a preliminary injunction by his minute order dated May 28, 1992. (1714-17) Notice of ruling was given on June 5, 1992 in conjunction with the posting of a $70,000.00 bond.

Armstrong’s Notice of Appeal was timely filed on July 30, 1992. (1728-30)

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

Since this matter involves the granting of an injunction, it is the proper subject of an appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (f).

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Gerald Armstrong, The Scientologist

In consequence of being a member of the Scientology Organization for 12 years, Gerald Armstrong gained first-hand knowledge regarding both the nature of the organization and the methods of its day-to-day operations. Although Armstrong ultimately learned, that L. Ron Hubbard (“LRH”) was “virtually a pathological liar when it [came] to his history, background, and achievements” (474-75, 485-89, 1004, 1008-14), at the outset of his involvement it was Hubbard’s lies which induced his affiliation. (1004-08, 1067)

Armstrong learned that after inducing the affiliation of its members by various deceptions, Scientology continually “violat[ed] and abus[ed] its own members’ civil rights, . . . with its “Fair Game” doctrine [and] harass[ed] and abuse[ed] those persons not in the Church whom it perceive[d] as enemies.” (474) The “Fair Game Policy,” a part of Scientology’s system of discipline and punishment, states:

Page 3. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

“Enemy – SP (Suppressive Person) Order. Fair Game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

(1036-1037)

Scientology also abused its members’ civil rights through breaching its promises that the personal information it extracted from adherents through “auditing” 2/ would be kept confidential. Instead, it used such information for the purposes of domination, extortion and blackmail. (734-74, 1039-41) Auditing was also employed to eliminate the members’ ability to critically reason, (1038, 1081), despite Scientology’s public claim that its purpose was to free individuals. (1086)

Armstrong possesses first-hand information regarding the visible structure of Scientology, and how the leadership ran Scientology through internal organizations, such as the Guardian’s Office, the Sea Organization and the Commodore’s Messenger Organization, which managed, operated and controlled all of Scientology regardless of any particular corporate designation. (475, 997, 1023-30, 1045-46). He knew that LRH’s representation to the general public and the Scientology membership that “the fees you pay for service do not go to me” was false and that LRH lived in splendor while the organization staff lived like slaves. (1032-34)

Armstrong participated in and drilled hundreds of people in

____
2 During the process of “auditing” in Scientology, a person being “audited,” a “penitent,” communicates to the clergyman, counselor, or therapist, the “auditor,” his innermost thoughts and relates incidents from his life which are emotionally charged, embarrassing or for which he could be blackmailed. The auditor writes down what the penitent says in “auditing reports.” The auditor demands and records details such as time and place when an incident occurred, who was present, who knew about the incident, their relationship to the penitent and their address or general location. These “auditing reports” form, along with the auditor’s notes and instructions made after the auditing sessions, the penitent’s auditing files. (1081)

Page 4. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

institutionalized schemes of practiced deception called “shore stories” or “acceptable truths,” which LRH claimed were required to combat the “enemy.” (1051, 1016-19, 787-88)

Armstrong was assigned to the Intelligence Bureau of the Guardian’s Office 3/ headed by LRH and his wife and then posted as LRH’s communications aide. (996) During this time he coded and decoded Guardian’s Office telexes, and maintained LRH’s operations files including those which ordered infiltration of the federal, state and local government offices, and the theft of documents. Armstrong also handled LRH’s telexes and dispatches ordering corporate manipulations which showed an absence of corporate integrity among the Scientology organizations.(1045-46)

LRH ordered Armstrong and his wife into the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”), which was “a virtual prison Hubbard had created for any Sea Org members whom he considered to be in violation of or ‘counter-intention’ (“CI”) to his orders or policies.” (997; 738; 1048-49) The purpose of the RPF was to control members, who were physically held and not free to leave, break their will and obtain free labor. (740, 1050) Armstrong was imprisoned within the RPF for 17 months on one occasion and 8 months on a second. (739, 997, 999, 1048)

Armstrong personally participated in the massive destruction of evidence ordered in anticipation of a raid by the F.B.I. during which he came across LRH’s life archive. (480-81, 485-86, 1000-01) Throughout 1980 and 1981, Armstrong assembled an
____
3 “The Guardian’s Office is charged with the protection of Scientology. The Guardians handle intelligence matters including covert operations to acquire Government documents critical of Scientology, internal security within Scientology, and covert operations to discredit and remove from positions of power all persons whom Scientology considers to be its enemies.” United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238, 1247, cert. denied (1982) 102 S.Ct. 1971. The Guardian’s Office executed tremendous control throughout all of Scientology, and until 1981, was the most powerful of LRH’s two main control lines. (1023-28)

Page 5. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

archive of 500,000 pages of documentation of LRH’s life, writings and accomplishments. (1003) In October 1980, LRH contracted with an independent author, Omar V. Garrison, to write his
biography. (1004) Armstrong became Garrison’s “research assistant.” (1004; 483-85)

During his biographical research, Armstrong discovered that LRH and Scientology had continuously lied about LRH’s past, credentials and his accomplishments. (486, 1008-14) As the wide gap between LRH’s claims about himself and the reality evidenced by the documentation Armstrong had assembled became manifest, he attempted to convince Scientology executives to change the biographical materials being published and disseminated about LRH so that they would be truthful. (1004; 486-87)

In response to Armstrong’s requests that Scientology tell the truth about Hubbard, a leader ordered that Armstrong be “security checked. (487) Sec checking is a brutally accusative interrogation in which the E-Meter, the electrometer used in Scientology auditing, is employed as a lie detector and tool of intimidation. Upon learning that his sec checking had been ordered, Armstrong and Jocelyn, his wife, left Scientology. (1015)

Following Armstrong’s departure, Scientology sued him, and hired private investigators who assaulted him, ran into him bodily with a car, attempted to involve him in a freeway accident, and followed and harassed him day and night for over one month. Scientology made four attempts to bring false criminal charges against him, destroyed his marriage, used his best friend to set him up in an intelligence operation, and had its members, lawyers and private investigators make false statements against him. (1053, 492-93)

B. Scientology Sues Armstrong The First Time And Loses

On August 2, 1982, Scientology sued Armstrong in L.A.S.C. No C420153 (“Armstrong I“) for conversion of certain papers which he had archived as part of the Hubbard biography project. After a

Page 6. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

lengthy trial, Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., filed his Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong’s favor on June 22f 1984. (467) Rejecting Scientology’s effort to silence Armstrong and his counsel, (see 1202-1226), he stated:

Defendant and his counsel are free to speak and communicate upon any of Defendant Armstrong’s recollections of his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered sealed. . . . defendant and his counsel may discuss the contents of any documents under seal or of any matters as to which this court has found to be privileged as between the parties hereto, with any duly constituted Governmental Law Enforcement Agency or submit any exhibits or declarations thereto concerning such documents or materials, without violating any order of this court.

(469) Judge Breckenridge found the facts presented by Armstrong to be true and incorporated Armstrong’s trial brief as an appendix to its decision. (470) He characterized Scientology as malevolent, in part because the organization “or its minions is fully capable of intimidation [of witnesses, including Armstrong] or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends” (474), and provided the following factual findings:

In 1970 a police agency of the French Government conducted an investigation into Scientology and concluded “this sect, under the pretext of ‘freeing humans’ is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract a maximum amount of money from its adepts by (use of) pseudo-scientific theories, by (use of) ‘auditions’ and ‘stage settings’ (lit. to create a theatrical scene’) pushed to extremes (a machine to detect lies, its own particular phraseology . . ), to estrange adepts from their families and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with this sect.” [footnote omitted] From the evidence presented to this court in 1984, at the very least, similar conclusions can be drawn.

In addition to violating and abusing its own members civil rights, the organization over the years with its “Fair Game” doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization is clearly schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH [L.

Page 7. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

Ron Hubbard]. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

(Emphasis added.) (474)

In contrast to his findings regarding Scientology, Judge Breckenridge found Armstrong and his witnesses to be credible and sympathetic. He wrote:

As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalcis, Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Homer Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence . . . In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved [with the highest echelons of power in] the Scientology Organization, is on one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH [L. Ron. Hubbard], and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description.

(Emphasis added.) (473)

C. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Michael Flynn 4/

Within four months of Judge Breckenridge’s decision, Scientology engaged in a massive “black PR” campaign against Michael Flynn which included the following operation:

The recent efforts of Hubbard and his Organization include procurement through the payment of $25,000 to an individual currently under indictment for perjury and fraud, of an affidavit claiming that I assisted in the forgery of a two million dollar check belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. The affidavit was procured by one Eugene Ingram who has been removed from the Los Angeles

____
4 This section is based upon the Declarations of Michael J. Flynn, Armstrong’s attorney. The Court should note that said declarations, however, were excluded from evidence. The trial court was incorrect however, because said declaration were based upon the personal knowledge of Flynn.

Page 8. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Police Department for aiding narcotics dealers, pimping, and running a house of prostitution. Mr. Ingram procured the affidavit from a citizen of the United Arab Emirates after publicizing a $100,000 reward in full page advertisements in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and other newspapers.

(1183-84) The foregoing facts were found to be accurate in the reported decision, United States v. Kattar (5th Cir. 1988) 840 F.2d 118, 119-22.

D. Scientology’s Attempt To Frame Armstrong

In 1984, after the Breckenridge decision, Scientology also attempted to set up and frame Armstrong, to “dead agent” him. As stated by Scientology in the Miller, Aznaran, and Xanthos litigation (discussed infra.)

Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity.

(1546-50; see also (1320). He had been

“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On November 30, 1984, Armstrong met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom Armstrong thought to be one of his “agents” (but who in reality was loyal to [Scientology]). In the conversation, recorded with written permission from law enforcement, Armstrong stated the following in response to questions by Mr. Rinder as to whether they had to have actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations in Court against [Scientology’s] leadership:

Armstrong: They can allege it. They can allege it. They don’t even have — they can allege it.

RINDER: So they don’t even have to — like — they don’t have to have the documents sitting in front of them and then–

Armstrong: Fucking say the organization destroys documents. . . . Where are the — we don’t have to prove a goddamn thing. We don’t have to prove shit; we just have to allege it.

Page 9. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”

(1353-54)

The “written permission from law enforcement” was fraudulent and made without authority. The bogus document was dated November 7, 1984 on the letterhead of Eugene Ingram. (1572)

By public announcement, Los Angeles Chief of Police, Daryl F. Gates, repudiated the “written permission.” In part, Chief Gates stated:

I have directed an official letter to Ingram informing him that the letter signed by Officer Phillip Rodriguez dated November 7, 1984, and all other letters of purported authorizations directed to him, signed by any member of the Los Angeles Police Department, are invalid and unauthorized.

(1574)

Scientology’s allegations against Armstrong were thoroughly investigated by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and completely and soundly rejected. (1576-87)

E. The Settlement

In the Armstrong I litigation, on both the complaint and cross-complaint, Armstrong was represented by Boston attorney Michael J. Flynn, who also was Armstrong’s employer. (665) In early December 1986, an agreement was reached in Los Angeles by the Scientology Organization and Flynn to settle most of the cases in which Flynn was involved, either as counsel, or as a party. On December 5, 1986, Armstrong, along with nearly a score of other litigants adverse to Scientology – all of whom were represented by Flynn – was flown to Los Angeles to participate in a “global settlement.” (667) When Armstrong arrived in Los Angeles from Boston, he knew that settlement negotiations had been going on for months. (762) Upon Armstrong’s arrival, he was shown a copy of a document entitled “Mutual Release of All Claims and Settlement Agreement” for the first time, as well as some other documents that he was expected to sign.

When Armstrong read the settlement agreement, he was shocked

Page 10. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

and heartsick. The agreement betrayed everything that Armstrong had stood for in his battle opposing Scientology. (760) He told Flynn that the condition, set forth in settlement agreement ¶ 7-D, of “strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the [Scientology organization]” was outrageous and not capable of compliance because it involved over 17 years of his life. Armstrong told Flynn that ¶ 7-D would require him to pay $50,000 if he told a doctor or a psychologist about his experiences over those 17 years, or if he put on a job resume the positions he had held while in Scientology. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to service of process in ¶ 7-H and non-cooperation with persons or organizations adverse to the organization in ¶ ¶ 7-G and 10 were obstructive of justice. Armstrong told Flynn that agreeing in ¶ 4-B to allow Scientology’s appeal of Judge Breckenridge’s decision in Armstrong I to continue without opposition was unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the decision. Armstrong said to Flynn the affidavit that Scientology demanded he sign along with the settlement agreement was false. (668, 759)

Right after Armstrong first saw the document, he was told there were a number of other people with claims against Scientology who had already signed and others were being flown in to sign. (762) Flynn told Armstrong that he, and all the other lawyers, wanted to get out of the litigation because it had ruined his marriage and his wife’s health. Flynn told Armstrong that all the other witnesses upon whom later he would have to depend wanted to settle, too.

In Flynn’s presence, Eddie Walters, another litigant adverse to Scientology, yelled at Armstrong. Walters said everybody wanted out of the litigation, that Armstrong’s objections would kill the deal for all of the them, and that Armstrong’s objections didn’t matter because the settlement was bigger than he was. (762-63) Flynn did not stick up for Armstrong. (764)

Page 11. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Flynn told Armstrong if he did not sign all he had to look forward to would be more years of threats, harassment and misery from Scientology, and everybody else would be very upset. Flynn advised Armstrong that the conditions of the settlement which he found offensive “were not worth the paper they were printed on” and that Scientology’s lawyers were aware of Flynn’s legal opinion and, nonetheless, wanted such language included. (759) Flynn advised Armstrong that in the event that there was further litigation against Armstrong by Scientology, Flynn would still be there to defend him. (768) Armstrong felt “a great deal” of pressure to sign the agreement, and capitulated. (761, 765-66, 772; 670-71)

It was Armstrong’s understanding and intent at the time of the settlement that he would honor the silence and confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement, and that Scientology would do likewise. (672)

On December 11, 1986, Flynn and Scientology attorneys John G. Peterson, Michael Lee Hertzberg and Lawrence E. Heller appeared, ex parte, before Judge Breckenridge, announced that they had settled Armstrong’s Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I (458), and submitted a number of documents for filing. (1235-36, 1238, 1240-41, 1243-45, 1247-49, 1251.) Despite its promises, Scientology never did file the settlement agreement. (1258)

When Judge Breckenridge inquired whether the agreement impacted the appeal of his decision, the attorneys said that the agreement did not (458), despite Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B. (75-76) None of the attorneys advised Judge Breckenridge of their side stipulation that any retrial of Armstrong I ordered by the Court of Appeal would limit damages claimed by Scientology to $25,001, (1253) 5/ and they failed to advise him there was another side

____
5 Said stipulation, signed by Michael Flynn on Armstrong’s behalf and by John Peterson and Michael Hertzberg for Scientology and Mary Sue Hubbard, states: “The Church of Scientology of California, Mary Sue Hubbard, and Gerald

Page 12. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

agreement between Flynn and Scientology attorneys Cooley and Heller whereby they agreed to indemnify Flynn if the Court of Appeal reversed Armstrong I and they retried the case and won. (1255-56)

Moreover, prior to and at the time of the settlement Armstrong was not aware of the side agreements between his lawyers and the lawyers for the organization that considered Gerald Armstrong as their enemy! (712-13, 715; 771-72)

On December 18, 1986, the Court of Appeal dismissed appeal No. B005912 as premature because Armstrong’s cross-complaint remained to be tried. (1260-73) 6/

On January 30, 1987, Scientology filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Memorandum of Intended Decision in Armstrong I. (1279-83) which Judge Breckenridge denied. (1285) Scientology then filed its second appeal in Armstrong I. (1287) On July 29, 1991, the Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Breckenridge’s decision. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.

F. Scientology’s Post Settlement Breaches

1. The Corydon “Dead Agent” Pack

In 1987, less than one year after the agreement was signed,

____
Armstrong, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that in any retrial ordered by any appellate court in Church of Scientology of California v. Gerald Armstrong, LASC No. 420153, the total damages awarded to the Plaintiff Church of Scientology of California and Plaintiff in Intervention Mary Sue Hubbard, combined for any and all causes of action, shall not exceed twenty five thousand and one dollars ($25,001.00).”

6 The Court of Appeal would not have been advised of the resolution of the underlying Cross-Complaint in Armstrong I – on the existence of which it based its order of dismissal of the appeal – because the fate of said appeal was the subject of Paragraphs 4-A and 4-B of the secret agreement.

Page 13. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Scientology distributed a “dead agent” 7/ pack which included an attack on Armstrong. It stated:

“Corydon has used a description of the RPF provided by Gerry Armstrong, among others. Armstrong’s description in this book, however, is completely contrary to his own previous sworn affidavit about the RPF. (Gerry Armstrong’s description of the RPF in Corydon’s book can also be viewed in light of Armstrong’s numerous false claims and lies on other subject matters.)”

(1504) (Emphasis added.)

2. Scientology’s Declarations In The Miller Litigation

In October, 1987, Scientology representative Kenneth Long executed five affidavits in Church of Scientology of California v. Miller, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, No. 1987 C. No. 6140, wherein Long solely discussed his characterizations of Armstrong’s activities that had been at issue in the Armstrong I litigation, and thus included within the scope of the settlement agreement. (See Appendix pp. 1506-23; 1525-44; 1546-50, 1555-62, 1564-70)

Long’s third affidavit falsely charged that:

Gerald Armstrong has been an admitted agent provocateur of the U.S. Federal Government who planned to plant forged documents in [Scientology’s] files which would then be “found” by Federal officials in subsequent investigation as evidence of criminal activity. (1549)

In another affidavit filed in the Miller case on October 5, 1987, Sheila M. Chaleff also falsely stated:

Mr. Armstrong is known to me to be a US government informant who has admitted on video tape that he intended to plant

____
7 “A ‘dead agent’ is a concept created by Hubbard in which an agent who is supposedly spreading stories about you, a lie, an untruth in his story is found. And that is documented. [¶] And then that documented fact is circulated to all of the people to whom the agent has communicated, and then he will become essentially dead, he will be killed by those people who have earlier trusted him. So you’ve destroyed his credibility and as an agent he is dead. [¶] And this pack of materials was a dead agent pack put out to dead agent Bent Corydon. Bent Corydon had written a book about Hubbard, and this is a pack of materials to discredit Bent Corydon.” (791)

Page 14. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

forged documents within the Church of Scientology and then using the contents to get the Church raided where these forged documents would be found and used against the Church.

(1553)

3. Heller’s Declaration And Argument In The Corydon Litigation

On or about November 1, 1989, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc., et al., LASC No. C694401, Scientology attorney Lawrence E. Heller filed a Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Author Services, Inc. to Delay or Prevent the Taking of Certain Third Party Depositions by Plaintiff. (1294-1305) In his memorandum, Heller discussed the “block settlement” of which the Armstrong agreement was a part:

One of the key ingredients to completing these settlements, insisted upon by all parties involved, was strict confidentiality respecting: (1) the Scientology … staff member’s experiences within … Scientology; (2) any knowledge possessed by the Scientology entities concerning those staff members …; and (3) the terms and conditions of the settlements themselves. Peace has reigned since the time the interested parties entered into the settlements, all parties having exercised good faith in carrying out the terms of the settlement, including the obligations of confidentiality. [Original emphasis.]

(1297) In his sworn declaration, attorney Heller testified:

I was personally involved in the settlements which are referred to in these moving papers which transpired some two and one-half years ago. . . . a “universal settlement” was ultimately entered into between the numerous parties. The universal settlement provided for non-disclosure of all facts underlying the litigation as well as non-disclosure of the terms of the settlements themselves. The non-disclosure obligations were a key part of the settlement agreements insisted upon by all parties involved. [Original emphasis.]

(1301-02)

4. Scientology’s Complaint Against The IRS

On August 12, 1991, Scientology filed a complaint styled Church of Scientology International v. Xanthos, et al., in United States District Court, Central District of California, No. 91-4301-SVW(Tx). (1307-47) Therein, Scientology stated:

Page 15. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

The infiltration of [Scientology] was planned as an undercover operation by the LA CID along with former [Scientology] member Gerald Armstrong, who planned to seed [Scientology] files with forged documents which the IRS could then seize in a raid. The CID actually planned to assist Armstrong in taking over the [Scientology] hierarchy which would then turn over all [Scientology] documents to the IRS for their investigation.

(1320)

5. The Aznaran Litigation

On or about August 26, 1991, Scientology filed its Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. United States District Court, Central District of California, No. CV-88-1786-JMI(Ex). (1349¬59) Therein, a Scientology attorney stated that in 1984 Armstrong was

“plotting against … Scientology … and seeking out staff members who would be willing to assist him in overthrowing [Scientology] leadership. [Scientology] obtained information about Armstrong’s plans and, through a police-sanctioned investigation, provided Armstrong with the “defectors” he sought. On November 30, 1984, Armstrong met with one Michael Rinder, an individual whom Armstrong thought to be one of his “agents” (but who in reality was loyal to [Scientology]). In the conversation, recorded with written permission from law enforcement, Armstrong stated the following in response to questions by Mr. Rinder as to whether they had to have actual evidence of wrongdoing to make allegations in Court against [Scientology’s] leadership
• • •

(Ex. E, Declaration of Lynn R. Farney, ¶ 6.) With such a criminal attitude, Armstrong fits perfectly into Yanny’s game plan for the Aznaran case.”
(1353-54)

Armstrong was cleared by the Los Angeles District Attorney after a thorough – and Scientology generated – investigation. (1576-87)

G. Armstrong’s Post Settlement Breaches

Scientology’s position at the hearing below was that Armstrong violated paragraphs 7-G and 7-H of the settlement

Page 16. APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

 

agreement. (81-82) The violations were predicated upon the facts that Armstrong had worked for two days in the office of Joseph A. Yanny and had executed two declarations to be filed in the Aznaran case (122-23; 128; 136-38), had later executed a declaration on Yanny’s behalf that was filed in Religious Technology Center v. Yanny, LASC No. BC 033035, (124-34), and had worked as a paralegal for Ford Greene in the Aznaran case (143
45; 159-64; 169) in which Armstrong filed another declaration on the Aznarans’ behalf. (147-57; RT 5/27/92 at 47)

[…]

Notes

  1. This document in PDF format.

American Lawyer: The Two Faces of Scientology (July 8, 1992)

Notes 1

  1. This document in PDF format.

Aznaran v. Scientology: Brief for Appellees (August 22, 1990)

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.1

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

HUB LAW OFFICES
Ford Greene, Esquire
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, California 94960-1949
Telephone: (415) 258-0360

Attorney for Appellees VICKI J. AZNARAN and
RICHARD N. AZNARAN

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

NO. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE REQUIRED THE NINTH CIRCUIT _________COURT OF APPEALS RULE 28-2.1_________

 

The undersigned counsel of record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran certifies that other than parties to this appeal, the following parties have an interest in the outcome of this case.

– i –

Bent Corydon
Gerry Armstrong Martin Samuels
Marjorie Wakefield Nancy Dincalci
Gabriel Cazares Kima Douglas
Tonja Burden Robert Dardano
William Franks Laurel Sullivan
Homer Schomer Edward Walters
Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne

With the exception of Bent Cordon, the aforementioned parties, all former Scientologists, have executed settlement agreements with Scientology which include releases containing obstruction of justice provisions of the same type and nature Scientology will enforce against appellees Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran if it prevails in the herein appeal. Moreover, pursuant to such agreements, in each court case connected with each said party, with the exception of Bent Corydon, the court file has been sealed.

Attorney of Record for Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran

– ii –

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF CASES…………………… vii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ……. 1
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………… 3
A. Jurisdiction of the District Court …….. 3
B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have
Jurisdiction Over This Appeal ………..
3
1. The Motion For Summary Judgment ……. 4
2. The Motion For Reconsideration ….. 5
3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction … 5
4. The Notice Of Appeal…………. 6
5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final …… 6
6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject For Appellate Review …………… 8
7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation ……… 9
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………….. 13
A. Nature Of The Case…………… 13
B. Factual Background …………… 14
C. The Substance Of The Releases………. 23 23

– iii –

Page
III. THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS …………… 25
A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal………. 25
1. Introduction…………….. 26
2. Standard Of Review…………. 26
3. Preliminary Legal Principles …….. 27
B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void………… 29
C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void………… 32
D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal……………… 34
1. Scientology’s Contentions ……… 34
2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran’s Declarations ……………. 35
a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988……….. 35
b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988……….. 37
c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989……….. 38
d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989………. 40

– iv –

Page
3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989 41
4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation … 45
5. Conclusion…………….. 45
IV. SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED…………. 45
V. STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . …….. 46
A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed …. 46
B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment…………. 48
C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case………….. 50
D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways………….. 51
E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction ………… 52

– v –

Page
VI. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION …………..
54
A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable………. 54
1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For
A Preliminary Injunction ……….
56
2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below
17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction ……..
57
3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm …. 60
B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability ………….. 61
C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit……………. 65
D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment…………. 69
E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits……………… 71
F. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans . . 77
G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest … 78
VII. THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS………….. 80
CONCLUSION 80

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page
Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525………………. 9
Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797……. 16, 44
Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31……. 30, 31
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521…………….. 50
Associated Press v. United States 326 US 1……… 79
Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110 ………….. 57
Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749……………… 7
Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 36 L.Ed.2d 420…………. 47
Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608……………. 30, 31
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 46 L.Ed.2d 659………… 57, 67
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1………………… *, *
C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 154 P.2d 710…………. 73
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 84 L.Ed. 1213……… 57, 62, 68
Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79………………… 51
Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97………… 75

– vii –

Cases Page
Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701…………….. 52
Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328……………. 49
Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) …………. 43
Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273…………….. 54
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402………………… 48
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541…………………. 3
Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401……….. 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41
Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252……………….. 57
Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529……… 74
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 45 L.Ed.2d 648…………. 47
Dymo Industries, Inc. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141…………….. 49
Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34…………… 29
Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347………….. 78
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1……………….. 57, 58
F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426 ……………. 3, 12
Fabrege, Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426……………. 49

– viii –

Cases Page
First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388………………… 27
Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 233 P.2d 606……….. 29
Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212…………….. 70
Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448……………. 71
Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 97 L.Ed. 828………….. 62
Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076………….. 57, 59
Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 57 L.Ed.2d 364………….. 8
Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618 …………… 54
Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704…………. 69
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 99 L.Ed.2d 296………… 8, 13
Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983 …………… 57
Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122……………… 9
Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171……………. 57
In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451……………. 54
International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547…………….. 49
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430………….. 69, 70

– ix –

Cases Page
J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187…………….. 49
Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817…………….. 50
Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349 ….. 75
Kass v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037 ………….. 51
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 US 753…………………. 79
Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105…………….. 7
LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 102 CAl.Rptr. 588……… 27
Le Sportsac, Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602…………… 55
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602………………. 57, 58
Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 308 P.2d 713…………. 28
Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)……………….. 53
Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211……………. 56
Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7……………. 54, 55
Maness v. Meyes (1975) 419 U.S. 449………………… 57
Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270 ………….. 55
Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845…………….. 55

– x –

Cases Page
Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330…………. 46, 47
Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141…….. 79
Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670…………… 53, 76
Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871…… 32, 33
Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
71 Cal.App. 492…………………..
29
Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595…………….. 9
McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 55 L.Ed.2d 593…………. 69
Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268…………… 57
Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130……………. 50
Molko v. Holy Spirit Association (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092……………. 14, 61, 80
Morey v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727………… 30
Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160……………… 7
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 87 L.Ed. 1292…………. 62
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415………………. 57, 58
National Customs Brokers and Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511…………….. 55
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 US 539…………………. 78
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254……………… 57, 58, 79

– xi –

Cases Page
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 53 L.Ed.2d 867…………. 67
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490………”………. 57, 58
Oakland Tribune Publishing Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374…………… 53, 56
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252……….. 28
Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253………… 46
People V. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596 ….. 26
People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69………… 62
Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif .1984) 611 F.Supp. 990………….. 47
Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419 F.Supp. 1251 ………….. 55
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. (1969) 395 US 367…………………. 79
Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI…………. 34
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473……………. 52
Roth v. United States 354 US 476………….. 79
S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945…………….. 50
Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 261 P.2d 721…………. 29
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988…………… 10, 11

– xii –

Cases Page
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 10 L.Ed.2d 965…………. 62
Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22 …………… 46
Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415……………. 50
Sipple v. Chronical Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045…………… 57, 58
Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750…………… 48, 51
Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 US 557………… 79
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452……………… 8
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………….. 57
Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73…………… 57, 58
Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 62 L.Ed.2d 454………. 47, 48
Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127…………….. 9
Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. 80 Cal. 570 …………………… 33
Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453 F.Supp. 25………….. 70
Tiedje v. Aluminium Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 296 P.2d 554…………. 29
Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374………………… 57
Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 6 L.Ed.2d 982…………. 62
United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 88 L.Ed. 1148………….. 62

– xiii –

Cases Page
United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64…………… 43
United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062……………. 42
United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439……………. 70
United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314…………….. 43
United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317…………….. 42
United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 13 L.Ed.2d 733…………. 69
United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9……………… 42
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364…………………… 50
Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823……………… 7
Van Cauwenberghe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 100 L.Ed.2d 517…………. 7
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125…………… 70
Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654…….. 42
Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664………………. 57, 58
Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178………………. 57, 68
Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101……………… 9
Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 93 P.2d 1028……….. 74
White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812……………… 7

– ivx –

Cases Page
Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031……………. 10
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 32 L.Ed.2d 15…………. 61
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331…………. 15, 44, 62-65, 69, 80
Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748………………… 27
Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129……………. 51
Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414………………… 47
Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719…………… 49, 52
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) ………………. 44
§ 201(c) (2) ………………. 44
§ 1510……………….. 42,43
28 U.S.C. § 1291……………… 3, 6, 8, 11
§ 1292(a)(1) …………… 9-11, 13
§ 1332………………….. 3
§ 1927…………………. 80
F.R.A.P. Rule 4……………….. 10, 11
Rule 38………………… 80
F.R.C.P Rule 42(b)………………… 7
Rule 56……………….. 4,7
Civil Code § 1550…………………. 32
§ 1598…………………. 32
§ 1607…………………. 29
§ 1608…………………. 29
§ 1667…………………. 32
§ 1668…………………. 32
§ 3423…………………. 46

– xv –

Treatises Page
Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 …… 27
Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts,
§ 441……………… 27
§ 442……………… 27
§ 429……………… 29
§ 444……………… 27
§ 445……………… 28
§ 611……………… 32

– xvi –

In The

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For The Ninth Circuit

No. 90-55288

VICKI J. AZNARAN and RICHARD N. AZNARAN,

Plaintiffs, Counterdefendants, and Appellees,

-against-

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant,

and

CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AUTHOR SERVICES, INC.,
and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendants, Counterclaimants, and Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals question whether an appeal ostensibly taken from a denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is, in fact, simply a pretext to obtain interlocutory review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment,

1

and would an exercise of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over such an appeal be proper?

2. Do contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct constitute an obstruction of justice, and, if so, are said releases illegal and void?

3. Can contractual releases whose objects are the suppression of evidence of discreditable facts and the suppression of evidence of criminal conduct be specifically enforced?

4. When an organization which ascribes religious status to itself is aware of what it alleges are threats to its First Amendment religious rights arising from and at the outset of tort litigation and waits for 17 months before seeking a preliminary injunction, can it assert such threats are irreparable injury?

5. Does the bare claim of religious status confer an immunity in tort from accountability from the consequences of conduct that is outrageous and coercive?

6. Is Scientology1 necessarily entitled on this appeal to prima facie status as a religion?

7. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary injunction constitute a prior restraint on the Aznarans’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and Associational Privacy?

8. Would judicial enforcement of the releases by preliminary

__________
1Appellants herein are Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International, Church of Spiritual Technology and Author Services, Inc. They will be referred to collectively as “Scientology.”

2

injunction violate the Aznarans’ First Amendment right to Redress of Grievances.

9. Did the district court erroneously apply the law underlying the legal issues in denying Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and therefore abuse his discretion?

10. Is the herein appeal frivolous?

I.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction of the District Court

The District Court properly exercises jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this lawsuit pursuant its diversity jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

B. The Court of Appeals Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal

When the issue is one of appellate jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court of appeals to determine whether jurisdiction is proper. F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associates. Inc. (6th Cir.1987) 815 F.2d 426, 429. Unless subject to a statutory or judicially created exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 states this Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not a “final decision” of the District Court. “The effect of the statute is to disallow appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete … So long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive, there may be no intrusion by appeal.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541, 546.

Although Scientology’s instant appeal is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the practical effect of this

3

appellate review is that Scientology now relitigates, for the fourth time, the District Court’s denial of its mc ion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the purported releases and waivers are valId. Below, after losing its summary judgment motion, Scientology first sought reconsideration. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, Scientology again relitigated the issue by a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thus, through the pretext of this interlocutory appeal, now Scientology will again relitigate the issue of whether the purported releases are valId.

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment

On December 12, 1988, pursuant to the Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Scientology filed its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a separate trial on the issue whether the alleged releases and waivers were valid. (Record No. 140.)

On May 25, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Aznarans’ alleged release and waiver of their right to prosecute this lawsuit by its written Order filed on May 25, 1989. (Record No. 219.) In its decision the District Court specifically found there was a

“genuine issue of material fact [whether the release was an enforceable contract because] . . . plaintiffs were subjected to threats of being sentenced to defendants’ Rehabilitation Project Force, or declared ‘suppressive persons’ and subjected to the ‘fair game policy’ if they did not cooperate in signing the releases. Plaintiffs also provide testimony that they did not sign the releases with their free will and only signed them to get away in relative safety from defendants. Plaintiffs further provide testimony that they

4

were not given the opportunity to confer with legal counsel when they signed the releases and the releases they signed and the releases submitted to the Court are not the same because at the time they executed the releases, they were not given copies of them.” (Record No. 219 at 2:5-3:14.)

2. The Motion For Reconsideration

On June 6, 1989, Scientology filed its motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s Order denying summary judgment. (Record No. 228.) On July 24, 1989, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for reconsideration and specifically found as follows:

“In the instant action, the defendants’ motion for reconsideration merely repeats the arguments made in its original motion for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied. (Emphasis supplied)” (Record No. 238 at 2:10-13.)

3. The Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

On November 9, 1989, not deterred by having suffered two adverse decisions on the issue of the legal effectiveness of the purported releases and waivers, Scientology filed its motion for a preliminary injunction wherein it sought to enforce the terms of the purported release and waiver against the Aznarans. Scientology’s motion also sought a separate evidentiary hearing on the issues raised by the release and waiver. (Record No. 261.)

On January 9, 1990, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing. In its Order denying injunctive relief the District Court specifically found as follows:

5

“In the instant action, defendants’ motion merely attempt[s] to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release. The Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration that the validity of the release is a jury question because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs consented to the release. The Court has also ruled that it would be an unnecessary expenditure of time to have a separate trial on the validity of the release.” (Emphasis added.) (Record No. 2 64 at 2:19-3:2.)

4. The Notice Of Appeal

On February 5, 1990, Scientology filed its notice of appeal (Record No. 267) of the District Court’s Order denying its motion (1) for a preliminary injunction to enforce the releases and (2) for a separate hearing on the validity thereof. Thus, Scientology asks this Court to relitigate the issue a fourth time. This appeal is a transparent ploy to both avoid the consequences of the final judgment rule as it applies to summary judgment orders and to relitigate an issue which thus far in the trial court has been conclusively determined as a proper question for trial.

5. Orders Determining Rule 56 Motions For Summary Judgment Are Not Final

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 confer jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals to review appeals “from all final decisions of the district courts . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Generally, a party may not take an appeal under § 1291 “until there has been a decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ [Citation.]”

6

Van Cauwenberqhe v. Baird (1988) 486 U.S. 517, 521, 100 L.Ed.2d 517.

As a general rule, “the denial of a Rule 56 motion is an interlocutory order from which no appeal is available until the entry of judgment following trial on the merits.” Kraus v. County of Pierce (9th Cir.1986) 793 F.2d 1105, 1107; White v. Pierce County (9th Cir.1986) 797 F.2d 812, 814.

“The denial of a motion for summary judgment because of the presence of genuine issues of fact is not normally appealable. For the moving party is not hereby foreclosed. When the facts are developed, he may still win. Plainly such an order is not final.”

Morqenstern Chemical Co. v. Scherinq Corp. (3rd Cir.1950) 181 F.2d 160, 161. When a summary judgment is denied on the basis of”‘unresolved issues of fact,’ the order is only a pretrial one which does not touch on the merits of the case” Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (8th Cir.1981) 652 F.2d 749, 750 and is not
final. Thus, where “[o]nly [a] procedural aspect or incident was . . . involved, [n]o substantive right of appellant was affected. Without injury to rights, there could not be a basis for any interlocutory consideration.” Upper Mississippi Towing Corp. v. West (8th Cir.1964) 338 F.2d 823, 825.

The substance of the instant appeal is, in fact, taken from the denial of a FRCP Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and a Rule 42(b) motion for a separate trial on the issue of the releases. Contrary to the manner in which Scientology labelled its third motion on the issue of whether the releases were valid as one for a preliminary injunction and for a separate evidentiary hearing,

7

the substance of the summary judgment motion, the reconsideration motion, the preliminary injunction motion and this appeal was, and is the same. The obvious thrust of each of the motions was to judicially validate the releases so as to defeat the Aznarans lawsuit before it could get to trial.

6. Interlocutory Appeals Must Be Strictly Construed; Thus, This Court May Penetrate The Label Of An Interlocutory Order To Determine If It Is The Proper Subject Of Appellate Review

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provide that the denial of an interlocutory injunction in District Court is reviewable pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. “[T]he statute creates an exception from the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals …. The exception is a narrow one and is keyed to the ‘need to permit litigants to effectually challenge interlocutory orders of serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.’ [Citation.]” Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978) 437 U.S. 478, 480, 57 L.Ed.2d 364. Hence, “It must be construed strictly.” Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Technology, Inc. (8th Cir.1987) 828 F.2d 452, 457.

Thus, as when summary judgment is denied, “an order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988) 485 U.S. 271, 279, 99
L.Ed.2d 296. Such orders do not involve irreparable consequence.

This Court enjoys the discretion to determine whether the instant appeal falls within, or is beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. §

8

1292(a)(1) because “Courts examine the effect of an interlocutory order rather than its terminology in determining reviewability under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Matter of Bowoon Sangsa Co. LTD. v. Micronesian Industrial Corp. (9th Cir. 1983) 720 F.2d 595; Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc. (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1127, 1129. Therefore, “the meaning of injunction within § 1292(a)(1) would turn … on the substance . . . [not] on the form of the trial court order.” Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir.1989) 885 F.2d 525, 528. “[A]n injunction is defined not by its title but by its effect on the litigants.” Id. at 529, Fn. 14.

“In considering the application of § 1292(a)(1) to borderline cases . . . [the Court] must be ever mindful that it was intended as a narrow exception to the policy of the basic final judgment rule, ‘a wisely sanctioned principle against piecemeal appeals governing litigation in federal courts.’ [Citation.] The great advantages of that policy in the administration of federal justice dictate against a reliance on the strict letter of § 1292(a)(1) which would cause the exception to encroach unduly on the rule.” (Emphasis added.)

Western Geophysical Co. of America v. Boly Associates, Inc. (2nd Cir.1972) 463 F.2d 101, 104.

The same common-sense rule applies to the Court’s evaluation of the nature of a motion for a preliminary injunction. “The label does not determine the nature of the motion. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman (3rd Cir.1954) 213 F.2d 122, 128.

7. The Instant Appeal Addresses The District Court’s Exercise of Control Over The Parties’ Litigation

Simply because Scientology dubbed its motion as one for a”preliminary injunction” does not necessarily require this Court to

9

exercise its appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial thereof. Although under “normal circumstances” Winfield v. St. Joe Paper Co. (11th Cir.1981) 663 F.2d 1031, 1032, the denial of a preliminary injunction requires review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) , such is not required when a “motion for a preliminary injunction was not made under normal circumstances.” Ibid.

Thus, in Winfield, the court rejected jurisdiction of an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction. It found the appeal “was simply a refiling of a motion which had been denied two years earlier.” Ibid. The court recognized that it was confronted with “a device to extend the period for filing an appeal from thirty days to two years” and to “rule in favor of appellants on this issue would circumvent the policy behind Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ibid. Therefore, “where the motion is simply a ploy” Ibid, designed to subvert a policy behind a rule or statute, an appeal from the denial thereof will not be heard because it is not properly before the reviewing court.

The Seventh Circuit reserves the right “to penetrate through form to substance” in order to dismiss an appeal of an injunctive order brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Suter (7th Cir.1987) 832 F.2d 988, the trial court enjoined Suter from violating the Security Act and he did not file a timely appeal. Thereafter, Suter brought three successive, and unsuccessful, motions to vacate the injunction. He took an appeal from the last denial. The appellate court dismissed his appeal because his briefs in both the district court and the court

10

of appeals revealed “that his only ground for vacating the injunction is that it should never have been entered in the first place.” Id. at 990. The reviewing court found that the motions to vacate were “efforts to create appellate jurisdiction over the injunction after the deadline for an appeal had passed.” Ibid.

The strategy employed by Scientology in connection with the instant appeal is analogous to the conduct rejected by the courts in Winfield and Securities and Exchange Commission. Appellants in those cases employed devices, in the form of injunction related motions, intended to circumvent the policy implemented in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) requiring timely appeals. In our case Scientology has employed the device of a preliminary injunction to circumvent the policy of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to avoid piecemeal appeals and consider only those trial court determinations that are final. Scientology could not properly appeal from either the denial of its summary judgment motion nor its motion for reconsideration. Thus, it cannot legitimately appeal from the denial of a “motion for a preliminary injunction” when the appeal seeks to do indirectly that which the law prohibits it from doing directly.

“Because the civil rules do not explicitly define the extent of the district judge’s discretion in allowing successive pretrial motions or motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order such as a preliminary injunction, early court decisions formulated a requirement that a successive motion state new facts warranting reconsideration of the prior decision. [Citations.] This logic also applies to the interpretation of § 1292(a)(1). . . . The issue here is appellate jurisdiction and the duty of the court of appeals to determine

11

sua sponte if necessary, whether jurisdiction is proper. Mischaracterization by the lower court or by the parties does not affect jurisdictional determinations.” F.W. Kerr Chemical Co. v. Crandall Associate, Inc., supra . 815 F.2d at 428-429.

In Kerr three similar motions were brought, the last two of which were “virtually identical.” Id. at 429. The court stated:

“Parties should not be allowed to harass their adversaries and the courts with a barrage of successive motions for extraordinary, preliminary injunctive relief, secure in the knowledge that they can take an interlocutory appeal when it becomes apparent that they cannot win their war of attrition.” Ibid.

Likewise, in the instant case Scientology should not be allowed to successively relitigate the issue of the validity of the releases in the hope that if enough shots are taken, it will obtain a favorable ruling. Since the nature of the motion for preliminary injunction was, in fact, as found by the District Court, “merely [an] attempt to relitigate the issue of the validity of the release [which] [t]he Court has already determined in ruling upon defendants’ previous motion for summary judgment and motion for consideration”, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should dismiss the instant interlocutory appeal for lack of proper appellate jurisdiction.

The repeated rulings of the District Court consistently reveal that it was exercising its control over the progress of this litigation so as to preserve for the jury’s determination all claims between the adverse parties, to be heard together in the same proceeding. Similarly, the substance of the three motions

12

below, unsuccessfully brought by Scientology, which now culminate in the instant interlocutory appeal consistently reveal its determination to obtain a favorable pretrial ruling that the releases are valid. Therefore, as this Court’s scrutiny penetrates the terminological form Scientology dubs as a motion for a preliminary injunction, logic compels the conclusion that in substance Scientology is attempting to obtain an advantageous, and improper, pretrial ruling via appeal on the releases which in the trial court has thus far been three times elusive.

An analysis of Scientology’s motions and the District Court’s rulings below compels the conclusion that the District Court’s respective rulings on Scientology’s motions for summary judgment, for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction relate “only to the conduct or progress of litigation . . . [which] is not considered an injunction and appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream, supra, 485 U.S. at 279.

Therefore, the herein appeal should be dismissed because it is not properly before this Court. The Court should decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Nature Of The Case

On April 1, 1988, the Aznarans filed their Complaint below for false imprisonment, fraud, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, breach of contract, restitution, breach of statutory

13

duty to pay minimum wages and overtime and constructive fraud. The factual basis of the complaint is predicated upon the Aznarans’ fifteen years in Scientology.
After successfully disqualifying the Aznarans former counsel, the Scientology defendants answered and all except Author Services, Inc., counterclaimed against the Aznarans.

In the District Court, Scientology has consistently, but unsuccessfully, sought to silence and neutralize the Aznarans by acquiring a judicial finding that the “releases” Scientology alleges the Aznarans signed are valid and enforceable.

B. Factual Background

Vicki J. Aznaran and Richard N. Aznaran are married. Formerly, they were among the highest ranking officials in Scientology. Vicki was the President of Religious Technology Center and Richard was the Chief of Security, Worldwide. For fifteen years they were subjected to fraud, coercive persuasion and exploitation at the hands of Scientology. The Aznarans were subjected to coercive persuasion 2 by Scientology without their knowledge or consent.

__________
2
As defined by the California Supreme Court in 1988, what has been called coercive persuasion, thought reform or “Brainwashing is ‘a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.’ [Citation.] The specific methods of indoctrination vary, but the basic theory is that brainwashing ‘is fostered through the creation of a controlled environment that heightens the susceptibility of a subject to suggestion and manipulation through sensory deprivation, physiological depletion, cognitive dissonance, peer pressure, and a clear assertion of authority and dominion. The aftermath of indoctrination is a severe impairment of autonomy of the ability to think independently, which induces a subject’s unyielding compliance and rupture of past connections, affiliations, and associations.” Molko v. Holy Spirit Association [Footnote con’t.]

14

The imposition of such techniques forced them to abandon their identities and submit to Scientology’s authority. They were brainwashed by, among other techniques, being hooked up to a lie detector machine, called an “E-Meter,” whereby they were coercively indoctrinated with the Scientology’s peculiar definitions and meanings of words. This caused them to communicate in a language known only to Scientologists. The result of the indoctrination was blind acceptance of everything that Scientology promulgated, including the dissolution of their marriage. (Record No. 197 at 26, 32-34; Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶14.)

Both Aznarans were continuously subjected to techniques of coercive persuasion through which Scientology coercively inculcated them with its ideology and dominated them. Yielding to Scientology’s coercion, they were subject to Scientology’s domination and almost absolute control. The ideology included the premise that if they dis-affiliated with Scientology, each of them would be deemed a “suppressive person” against whom the “fair game policy” would be employed by Scientology.3

__________
[Footnote con’t.] (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1109. Coercive persuasion often results in “serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide.” Id. 46 Cal.3d at 1118.

3 “. . .'[F]air game’ was a practice of retribution Scientology threatened to inflict on ‘suppressives,’ which included people who left the organization or anyone who could pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a ‘suppressive,’ all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to ‘neutralize’ that individual – economically, politically and psychologically.” Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872, 888. The “fair game policy”, to be enforced against “enemies” or “suppressive persons” states that such [Footnote con’t]

15

After 15 years of deception, coercion, exploitation and abuse, Vicki Aznaran found herself in a potentially life-threatening circumstance at the end of March 1987. Having been incarcerated for almost two months under constantly cruel conditions in Scientology’s forced-labor camp dubbed “Rehabilitation Project Force” in the California desert near Gilman Hot Springs, Vicki’s uterus had become infected. She had been forced to run, not walk, at all times. She was compelled for long hours to perform hard physical labor on a daily basis and sometimes with a jackhammer from 7:00 a.m. until after night fell. She was not allowed adequate sleep or provided adequate food. She was at almost all times guarded by one or two people who constantly watched her, even as she used the bathroom. Additionally, on motorcycles and in jeeps armed security guards patrolled the fenced-in area where Vicki was incarcerated. Letters from Richard Aznaran, her husband, were not delivered and he was prohibited from visiting her.

She was prohibited from reading newspapers or books. At night, she was locked up. Despite her daily requests to see a doctor for her infected uterus and consequential fever, Vicki was denied medical attention. She was in physical pain. (Record No. 197 at 22-25; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.)

Terrified, Vicki managed to escape from the forced labor camp in the desert and fled to Hemet, a nearby town.

__________
[Footnote con’t] person “[m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 443, fn. 1, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797.

16

Scientology leader David Miscavige and chief Security Checker, Ray Mithoff summoned Richard to Hemet where they interrogated him until 5:00 a.m. in an effort to get him to divorce Vicki because she was a “suppressive person.” Richard could not compromise his loyalty to his wife. He told Miscavige and Mithoff that he would try to salvage Vicki. They sent him to the hotel to talk her into returning to Scientology. (Record No. 197 at 25.)

From April 1, 1987 to April 9, 1987, with an exception of a trip to obtain medical attention for Vicki, Richard and Vicki were held at a hotel in Hemet. They had less than $50 between the two of them. They were surveilled 24 hours per day by plainclothes security guards from a local Scientology church. They were supposed to stay in the hotel room unless they specifically left to eat. Richard felt they were physically restrained from leaving the hotel. The Aznarans were told by Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff that they had to remain at the hotel until the Scientology leaders were finished with them and that if they failed to “cooperate” they would be declared to be suppressive persons and subject to the fair game policy. It was reiterated to the Aznarans that the only way to avoid being declared suppressive persons was to “cooperate.” (Record No. 197 at 26-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Vicki and Richard had a plan to leave the control of the Scientologists but only if they could accomplish it without being declared “fair game.” When Scientologists left without approval, they were declared “fair game.” Over the years, the Aznarans had seen what happened to people who were subjected to the fair game

17

policy after they had failed to cooperate with Scientology. The Aznarans knew that if they were not “fair game,” Scientology would “exercise some kind of restraint, whereas with fair game there would be no restraint.” (Record No. 197 at 2 6-29.)

The Scientology security guards held all their personal belongings, including a horse and two dogs, so as to further ensure the Aznarans’ cooperation. Vicki knew of others in the past whose belongings and pets were possessed by Scientology as they were leaving the organization. When such people had not “cooperated”, their pets were given away and belongings destroyed. (Record No. 197 at 26; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 5.)

While in the hotel room, Mark Rathbun and Ray Mithoff for hours at a time subjected both Richard and Vicki to “security checking” and “interviews.” Security checking is a form of interrogation employing the E-Meter lie detector. Security checking was a tool of thought reform and control employed by Scientology. Ray Mithoff was the highest trained and most senior security checker in all Scientology. During the time the Aznarans were confined to the hotel room, one of them would be getting security checked while the other was being interviewed by Mark Rathbun. (Record No. 197 at 28-29; Record No. 259, Exhibit B ¶¶ 3, 3A.)

During the course of the hours of security checking, Richard was reminded how powerful Scientology was and the type of command it could bring to bear upon him should he fail to cooperate fully. Much of the security checking interrogation was directed toward the reasons that the Aznarans wanted to leave Scientology. Specific

18

attention was paid to whether either of them harbored a secret motive for wanting to leave, whether they were going to go to the government with information concerning crimes being committed by Scientologists or their agents, give testimony or otherwise make information public that Scientology wanted kept secret. (Record No. 197 at 22-32; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 6; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 2.) Particular attention was also paid to interrogating the Aznarans on how much they knew about Scientology so the threat of their leaving could be analyzed. It was intimidating to be security checked by Ray Mithoff and the Aznarans “were in terrible fear that [they] would not be allowed to leave.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 3.)

The releases were not negotiated at all. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D ¶ 7.)

The Aznarans never requested any “loan” from Scientology. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.)

A few days before the Aznarans were allowed to leave the hotel, top Scientology leader, David Miscavige, came and spoke with them. In response to Miscavige’s inquiry as to their future plans, Richard told him that they had no specific plans, but intended to stay in Southern California and work something out. Miscavige was adamant that he wanted the Aznarans to “leave Southern California” and avoid contact with people they knew, but wanted them to go to Texas. Richard told him that as he had little money, he and Vicki would have to stay in California long enough to sell their horse and make some money to finance the trip. The following day, at

19

Miscavige’s request, Mark Rathbun suggested to Richard that Scientology purchase the horse from him as well as loan him some money so that he and Vicki could leave immediately for Texas. The Aznarans never requested any loan from Scientology. However, they were told that the reason for the loan was to keep them “out of enemy hands” and to ensure they would not be easy “prey” to those opposed to Scientology. Rathbun’s offer to purchase the horse was for the purpose of expediting our departure from California. Thus, the loan and the purchase of the horse had nothing to do with the releases. Rathbun’s statements to the contrary are false. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at f 7; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7; Record No. 197 at 32. Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 5.) The Scientologists wanted the Aznarans “out of California quickly so we would not be served with any subpoenas in the cases that were going on against them at that time.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at f 7.) Scientology did not pay $300 more for the horse than had Richard; it paid $300 less. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 13.)

That Scientology wanted to indemnify Vicki with respect to any lawsuit wherein she might be named was in order to maintain control over her and prevent her from testifying in a hostile manner in any litigation to which Scientology was a party or to any governmental agency. (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.) With respect to the ongoing case entitled Stansfield. et al. v. Starkey, et al.. wherein Vicki was at that time named as a defendant, Mark Rathbun “specifically brought up the indemnification” and “warned us that we were to contact him should there be any contact concerning this

20

litigation or any other litigation in which Scientology was involved. The purpose was to protect Scientology’s interest however and certainly not ours.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4b.)

There had been a fire at one of the Scientology ranches where Richard had worked. It destroyed all his belongings concerning which a claim was being negotiated with the insurance company. Rather than wait in California, Richard was -given $1,040.90, the value of his belongings destroyed in the fire. His understanding is that the money would later be reimbursed by the insurance company. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 8; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Richard was also paid $387.37 in wages, according to Scientology’s rules, that was owed to him for the pay period immediately preceding his departure from Scientology. However, it did not include any compensation for the many hundreds of hours of work he had performed, but been forbidden to include on his time card during the previous 13 months that he had worked for Scientology leader, Norman Starkey. He was supposed to have received minimum wage. (Record No. 259, Exhibit B at f 9; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 7.)

Through earlier contacts as a staff member with Scientology’s dirty tricks unit known first as the Guardian’s Office and then as the Office of Special Affairs, Richard had seen various policies concerning releases. Releases were to executed by every public and staff Scientologist before and after every single service received. Guardian’s Office personnel and Scientology attorney John Peterson

21

told Richard that the releases were unenforceable and for purposes of deterrence only. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 5; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 4.)

In order to dis-affiliate with Scientology without being declared “suppressive” and thereby subject to “fair game,” the Aznarans did what they were told by the Scientologists. This included signing stacks of documents which they did not, with any care, read. Two of Scientology’s attorneys were also present when the Aznarans complied with Scientology’s orders and signed the papers whatever papers they were given. Richard said all the releases and other papers were “all handed to me at the same time. I just signed them.” (Record No. 197 at 29-30; Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 3.) Vicki said “we were being watched by guards . . . and we were extremely afraid of being declared fair game if we did not cooperate. I was in a very bad physical and mental state and would have signed anything in order to get away.” (Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶ 10.)

Neither of the Aznarans “carefully” read the Mutual Releases and Settlement Agreements. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 4a.) Any statements by Mark Rathbun to the contrary are false. (Record No. 259, Exhibit A at ¶ 2.)

At the time Vicki and Richard signed whatever releases where presented to them at the hotel, it was stressed that if they “spoke to government agents about any ‘confidential information’ [they] had concerning the cult that [they] would be in violation of [their] agreements and that [they] would be sued.” Additionally,

22

they were directed to “withhold information and avoid testimony in any civil litigation where the truth may be harmful to the cult or aid someone else seeking justice.” Richard concluded that “with the purpose of the releases including the withholding of information from lawful authorities, [he] certainly did not feel that they could possibly be legal or binding.” (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 6.)

The Aznarans did not have the benefit of legal counsel. In fact, it was made clear that they could not seek other counsel. Id. Despite their repeated requests for a copy of the releases over many months following the Aznarans’ move to Dallas, Texas, the Aznarans were not provided copies of the papers they had been forced to sign until shortly before the instant lawsuit was filed. (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶¶ 2B, 4; Record No. 259, Exhibit D at ¶¶ 2, 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 13.)

The Aznarans do not believe that the releases and waivers supplied by Scientology in support of itself in the instant lawsuit were the papers that they signed in the hotel room in Hemet. In fact, what Scientology now asserts as the releases include more pages that what Richard recalls having signed (Record. No. 259, Exhibit B at ¶ 2A; Record No. 259, Exhibit A at. ¶ 11; Record No. 197 at 30-31.)

C. The Substance Of The Releases

The alleged releases in question provide, in part, that the Aznarans would be bound as follows:

To “release, acquit and forever discharge . . . the

23

CHURCH . . . from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions and causes of action of every kind and nature, known and unknown, from the beginning of time to and including the date hereof.” (¶ 3 of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Never to create or publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for publication by means of magazine, article, book or other similar form, any writing, or to broadcast, or to assist another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape, any show, program or movie, concerning [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology, or personal or indirectly acquired knowledge or information concerning the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or any entities or individuals listed in Paragraph 1, above. [Plaintiff] further agrees that [he/she] will maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to [his/her] experiences with the Church of Scientology and any knowledge or information [he/she] may have concerning the Church of Scientology . . ..” (¶ 6.C. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

To “not voluntarily assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the religion of Scientology in any proceeding against any of the Scientology organizations, or cooperate with any person adverse to any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, in any proceeding against any of the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above. [Plaintiffs] also [agree] [they] will not cooperate in any

24

manner with any organizations aligned against Scientology and any of the organizations, individuals, and entities listed in Paragraph 1 above, (¶ 6.E. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

Will “not testify or otherwise participate in any other judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding adverse to Scientology or any of the organizations, individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 1 above unless compelled to do so by lawful subpoena or other awful process. Unless required to do so by such subpoena, [plaintiffs] [agree] not to discuss [his/her] experiences or personal or indirectly acquired information concerning the organizations, individuals, or entities listed in Paragraph 1, with anyone other than members of [his/her] immediate family. [Plaintiffs] shall not make [themselves] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this agreement. . .” (f 6.F. of Exhibits B [As to Vicki] and C [As to Richard] to Documents Nos. 110, 111, 112 and 124.)

III.

THE RELEASES ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING AGREEMENTS
THE OBJECTIVES OF AND CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH ARE THE SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OF BOTH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
AND DISCREDITABLE FACTS

A. Illegal Contracts Are Void, Not Enforceable And May Be Challenged For The First Time On Appeal

l. Introduction

Scientology’s indefatigable effort, now through this appeal, has been and is to silence the appellees Aznaran who by first-hand experience possess comprehensive knowledge of the nature and

25

conduct of Scientology. Such knowledge was gleaned first, from the ground up, and later, from the top down. Scientology would have this Court prohibit the Aznarans from providing aid and support to litigants adverse to Scientology, such as Bent Corydon, whom Scientology has harmed. To do this, Scientology would have this Court enforce agreements that are illegal.

Such illegality lies in the agreements’ would-be legal effect: the judicially enforced suppression of any information that would discredit Scientology or expose its criminal activities. Such a legal effect would corrupt and pervert the time-tested and result-approved objective of all judicial proceedings: the search for and ascertainment of truth. Were such to occur, litigation to which Scientology was a party would become a travesty of justice and, for the opposing party, a paradigm of fundamental unfairness.

2. Standard Of Review

With respect to a contract the validity of which is challenged on public policy grounds, “[t]he burden is on the defendant to show that its enforcement would be in violation of the settled public policy of this state, or injurious to the morals of its people.” People v. Reynolds (July 23, 1990) 90 C.D.O.S. 5596, 5597. As to the judiciary, before “labelling a contract as being contrary to public policy, courts must carefully inquire into the nature of the conduct, the extent of public harm which may be involved, and the moral quality of the conduct of the parties in light of the prevailing standards of the community.” Ibid.

26

3. Preliminary Legal Principles

In his work Equity Jurisprudence (4th Ed.1918) § 397 at 738, Professor Pomeroy states:

“Whenever a party, who as an actor, sets the judicial machinery in motion to obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, where a contract is made either (1) to achieve an illegal purpose, or (2) by means of consideration that is not legal, the contract itself is void. Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed. 1987) Vol. 1, Contracts, § 441 at 396. (Hereinafter”Witkin, § ____ at ____.”) Since an illegal contract is void, it cannot be ratified by an subsequent act, and no person can be estopped to deny its validity. Witkin, § 442, at 396; First National Bank v. Thompson (1931) 212 Cal. 388, 405-406; Wood v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1932) 216 Cal. 748, 759 [“A contract void because it stipulates for doing what the law prohibits is incapable of being ratified.”]

A party need not plead the illegality as a defense and the failure to do so constitutes no waiver. In fact, the point may be raised at any time, in the trial court or on appeal, by either the parties or on the court’s own motion. Witkin, § 444, at 397; LaFortune v. Ebie (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 72, 75, 102 Cal.Rptr. 588 [“When the court discovers a fact which indicates that the contract is illegal and ought not to be enforced, it will, of its own

27

motion, instigate an inquiry in relation thereto.”]; Lewis & Queen v. M.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d 141, 147-148, 308 P.2d 713 [“[T]he court has both the power and the duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummation or encouragement of what public policy forbids [and] may do so on its own motion.”].

Thus, the court will look through provisions that may appear valid on their face, and with the aid of parol evidence, determine that the contract is actually illegal or is part of an illegal transaction. Id. 48 Cal.2d at 148 [“[A] court must be free to search out illegality lying behind the forms in which the parties have cast the transaction to conceal such illegality.”]; Witkin, § 445 at 398.

There are two reasons for the rule prohibiting judicial enforcement, by any court, of illegal contracts.

“[T]he courts will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act [because] Knowing that they will receive no help form the courts . . . the parties are less likely to enter into an illegal agreement in the first place.”

Lewis & Queen, supra , 48 Cal.2d at 149 [308 P.2d at 719].

“This rule is not generally applied to secure justice between parties who have made an illegal contract, but from regard for a higher interest – that of the public, whose welfare demands that certain transactions be discouraged.” (Emphasis added.)

Owens v. Haslett (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 829, 221 P.2d 252, 254.

Illegal contracts are matters which implicate public policy. Public policy has purposefully been a “vague expression .

28

[that] has been left loose and free of definition in the same manner as fraud.” Safeway Stores v. Hotel Clerks Intn’l Ass. (1953) 41 Cal.2d 567, 575, 261 P. 2d 721. Public policy means “anything which tends to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to feel is against public policy.” Ibid. Therefore,”[a] contract made contrary to public policy may not serve as the foundation of any action, either in law or in equity, [Citation] and the parties will be left where they are found when they come to court for relief. [Citation.]” Tiedie v. Aluminum Paper Milling Co. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 450, 454, 296 P.2d 554.

“It is well settled that agreements against public policy and sound morals will not be enforced by the courts. It is a general rule that all agreements relating to proceedings in court which involve anything inconsistent with [the] full and impartial course of justice therein are void, though not open to the actual charge of corruption.”

Eggleston v. Pantages (1918) 103 Wash. 458, 175 P. 34, 36; Maryland C. Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. 71 Cal.App. 492

B. If The Consideration In Support Of A Contract Is The Nondisclosure Of Discreditable Facts, It Is Illegal And The Contract Is Void

The consideration for a promise must be lawful. Civil Code § 1607. Moreover, “[i]f any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.” Civil Code § 1608. Fong v. Miller (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 411, 414, 233 P.2d 606. “In other words, where the illegal consideration goes to the whole of the promise, the entire contract is illegal.” Witkin, § 429 at 386;

29

Morev v. Paladini (1922) 187 Cal. 727, 738 [“The desire and intention of the parties [to violate public policy] entered so fundamentally into the inception and consideration of the transaction as to render the terms of the contract nonseverable, and it is wholly void.”].

In Brown v. Freese (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 608, the California Court of Appeal adopted section 557 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts prohibiting as illegal those agreements which sought to suppress the disclosure of discreditable facts. The court stated:

“A bargain that has for its consideration the nondisclosure of discreditable facts … is illegal. … In many cases falling within the rule stated in the section the bargain is illegal whether or not the threats go so far as to bring the case within the definition of duress. In some cases, moreover, disclosure may be proper or even a duty, and the offer to pay for nondisclosure may be voluntarily made. Nevertheless the bargain is illegal. Moreover, even though the offer to pay for nondisclosure is voluntarily made and though there is not duty to make disclosure or propriety in doing so, a bargain to pay for nondisclosure is illegal.” (Emphasis added.)

Brown 28 Cal.App.2d at 618.

In Allen v. Jordanos’ Inc. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 160, 125 Cal.Rptr. 31, the court did not allow a breach of contract action to be litigated because it involved a contract that was void for illegality. In Allen, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract which he subsequently amended five times. Plaintiff, a union member, was entitled by his collective bargaining agreement to have a fair and impartial arbitration to determine the truth or

30

falsity of the allegations against him of theft and dishonesty. The allegations of the amended complaints stated that there had been an agreement between the parties whereby defendant laid off plaintiff, defendant’s employee, and allowed plaintiff to receive unemployment benefits and union benefits. “Defendants also agreed that they would not communicate to third persons, including prospective employers, that plaintiff was discharged or resigned for dishonesty, theft, a bad employment attitude and that defendants would not state they would not rehire plaintiff.” Id. at 163. Plaintiff alleged there had been a breach in that defendants had communicated to numerous persons, including potential employers and the Department of Human Resources and Development, that plaintiff was dishonest and guilty of theft and for that reason had resigned for fear of being discharged for those reasons, that plaintiff had a bad attitude and that defendants would not rehire him. Plaintiff alleged as a result of the breach he suffered a loss of unemployment benefits, union benefits and earnings. The court held that the plaintiff had bargained for an act that was illegal by definition, the withholding of information from the Department of Human Resources Development. It stated:

“The nondisclosure was not a minor or indirect part of the contract, but a major and substantial consideration of the agreement. A bargain which includes as part of its consideration nondisclosure of discreditable facts is illegal. (See Brown v. Freese, 28 Cal.App.2d 608, 618 [83 P.2d 82.].) It has long been hornbook law that consideration which is void for illegality is no consideration at all. [Citation.]” Id. 52 Cal.App.3d at 166.

31

C. If The Object Of A Contract Is Illegal, The Contract Is Void

The object of a contract must be lawful. Civil Code § 1550. If the contract has a single object, and that object is unlawful, the entire contract is void. Civil Code § 1598. Civil Code § 1667 defines unlawfulness as that which is either “[[c]ontrary to an express provision of the law,” or is “[c]ontrary to the policy of the express law, though not expressly prohibited” or is “[o]therwise contrary to good morals.”
Civil Code § 1668 states:

“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”

Further, an agreement to suppress evidence or to conceal a witness is illegal. Witkin, § 611 at 550. Penal Code §§ 136, 136.1, and 138. In Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308, 196 Cal.Rptr. 871, a licensed physician was alleged to have repeatedly engaged in the sexual molestation of a 14 year old girl. A civil lawsuit arising from the molestations had been settled and the file sealed. In the order dismissing the action by stipulation and sealing the court files, the trial court, at the request of the parties, ordered the parties, their agents and representatives never to discuss the case with anyone. The appellate court found such “confidentiality” was against public policy. That court stated:

32

”The stipulated order of confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial justice shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete evidence in the case from the very public agency charged with the responsibility of policing the medical profession. We believe it clearly improper, even on stipulation of the parties, for the court to issue an order designed not to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the administration of justice [Citation], but to subvert public policy by shielding the doctor from governmental investigation designed to protect the public from misconduct within the medical profession, and which may disclose a professional license of this state was used to establish a relationship which subjected a juvenile patient to criminal conduct. Such a stipulation is against public policy, similar to an agreement to conceal judicial proceedings and to obstruct justice. . . Accordingly, . . . such a contract made in violation of established public policy will not be enforced . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 316-317.

Similarly, in Tappan v. Albany Brewing Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 570, 571-572, the court invalidated a settlement agreement provision. It stated:

“It was contended by the Respondent that this was nothing more than a payment of a sum of money by way of a compromise of litigation, and that such contracts have been upheld. We do not so construe the agreement. It was a promise to pay a consideration for the concealment of a fact from the court and the parties material to the rights of said parties, and which it was her duty to make known. Such a contract was against public policy.”

In the instant case, the releases are void because they violate the public policy prohibiting the obstruction of justice by suppressing evidence of illegal conduct that is criminal and

33

discreditable.

D. The Releases Are Void Because Both Their Object And Consideration Are Not Legal

1. Scientology’s Contentions

Scientology contends that the Aznarans have “blatantly disregarded their promises not to divulge information about the Church and not to cooperate or appear voluntarily in other proceedings against the Church” (Brief for Appellants at 9-10) in the following ways:

(1) From March 18 to 30, 1988, the Aznarans met with Joseph A. Yanny, a former attorney for Scientology who at that time was not (but in the future would be) in litigation with Scientology.

(2) In June 1988, the Aznarans met with reporters for the Los Angeles Times newspaper.

(3) As recently as September 1989, the Aznarans met with and submitted declarations on behalf of Bent Corydon, in the case entitled Corydon v. Church of Scientology International, Inc. et al, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 694 401.

(4) Vicki J. Aznaran met with an attorney in other Scientology litigation, currently before the Honorable James M. Ideman, entitled Religious Technology Center v. Scott, et al, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV 85-711 and 85-7197 JMI and in October 1988 filed a declaration therein. 4

__________
4
For reasons that will become more apparent below, Scientology has not included in its litany of the “breaches” of the “release” it attributes to the Aznarans an interview with agents of the Internal Revenue Service that took place on [Footnote Con’t.]

34

Scientology claims such disclosures constitute irreparable injury because they disclose:

“confidential information about internal Church affairs, including subjects such as internal Church management, structure and activities, and information learned during attorney-client privileged discussions during the time when Vicki acted on behalf of one of the appellants [Religious Technology Center], information as to her own experiences with the Church, including her employment history, her claims in this lawsuit, and information allegedly imparted to her by senior officials of Scientology organizations when she was a fiduciary.”

(Brief for Appellants at 11.)

2. The Substance Of Vicki Aznaran1s Declarations

Vicki Aznaran submitted six declarations concerning which Scientology claims she has breached the “release.” However, as a quick perusal of the substance of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations will illustrate, Scientology’s “releases” are void. At best, the information imparted by Ms. Aznaran concerns facts which discredit Scientology. At worst, such information concerns criminal activity.

a. Declaration Executed October 27, 1988

Vicki Aznaran’s October 27, 1988 declaration in the Corydon litigation was in support of a motion seeking service of a Summons

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] May 19, 1988. (Record No. 168 at p. 2 [Memorandum in Support of Motion for Production of Audio Tape [of I.R.S. interview].])

Similarly, among the complained of “breaches” Scientology has failed to mention an interview between Brett Pruitt, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Aznarans. (Record No. 252 at 3.)

35

and Complaint by publication of defendant David Miscavige. The facts of which Vicki Aznaran had first-hand knowledge which she set forth in her declaration include the following:

¶ 2. As one of the highest ranking members of Scientology and upon the basis of her position in upper management, Vicki was a member of the “Sea Organization” (“Sea Org”) and was familiar with Scientology’s methods of organization, authority and control. The Sea Org would send its members to individual Scientology organizations wherein such Sea Org personnel would exercise “unlimited power to handle ethics [discipline], tech and administration.” Sea Org personnel would be sent to Scientology organizations when said organization were making insufficient profits. Such personnel “can take any action they deem necessary . . . to accomplish their ends. They can control the funds of that organization and its personnel. They can remove personnel and post personnel. They can transfer funds to the Sea Org organizations or spend funds as they see fit.

¶ 3. The real management of all Scientology organizations is comprised of Sea Org members. Scientology management will designate persons to be the “figurehead” officers of its corporations, but they will possess little, if any actual power, over that particular organization. Officers of Scientology corporations are to be mere figure heads; the directors have more power and there are “trustees who are over the very top corporations who can remove directors. These trustees hold the power as regards Scientology’s money, assets, personnel, etc. The top trustees of Scientology when I was director of RTC were David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock and Norman Starkey.”

¶ 6. Spurlock controlled all tax matters for Religious Technology Center, Church of Scientology International/ Author Services/ Inc./ Church of Scientology of California and Church of Spiritual Technology. When Vicki was the president of Religious Technology Center, Spurlock would issue orders to her. Spurlock, Starkey and Miscavige chose the directors, trustees and officers for RTC, CSI and CST.

¶ 7. Starkey and Miscavige supervised and controlled all litigation matters for Scientology. In 1982 both Starkey and Miscavige ordered Vicki to obtain a private investigator to compromise Judge Krentzman of the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, because he “had been giving Scientology unfavorable rulings.” In 1986, they ordered certain

36

Scientology corporations to settle cases in which such corporations had been named defendants. The officers and directors of the corporations did not know the terms of the settlements.

¶ 9. Part of the strategy for the manner in which Scientology manages its enterprises is “to shield its management from legal process. Front men are designated to hold figurehead posts, while real management power is held by others outside the corporate structure. To this end, Scientology will go to extreme lengths to conceal upper management personnel from service of process, subpoenas and depositions. . . For example, in 1984 when the IRS was conducting a criminal investigation against various Scientology entities, the personnel who had knowledge of criminal behavior as regards Scientology’s funds were hidden or sent away. Fran Harris . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. Mark Ingber . . . was sent to Denmark for a year. . . . Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock took great precautions with their travels, offices and residences so that they could not be found or served.”

¶ 12 I have reason to believe that documents which would
normally reflect traditional criteria of the managing agent relationship between Scientology and Mssrs. Spurlock and Starkey have either been concealed or destroyed by Scientology. For example, at Mr. Starkey”s direction, I destroyed such information as it related to the involvement and control over Scientology By L. Ron Hubbard, Mr. Starkey and Mr. David Miscavige.”

(Exhibit A.l to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

b. Declaration Executed November 30, 1988

On November 30, 1988, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. As President of RTC and a member of the Sea Org in 1985 Vicki “attended a Scientology conference on splinter groups, i.e. groups of ex-Scientologists, often called “squirrels.”

¶ 3. This meeting was attended by Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock and David Miscavige. At the meeting Miscavige “ordered that Scientologists be organized and motivated to physically attack Squirrels and disrupt their operations. Bent Corydon . . . was included in this target group.”

37

¶ 4. “This order represented an on-going policy that started before 1985 and was still in effect when I left Scientology in 1987.”
(Exhibit A.2 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

c. Declaration Executed February 8, 1989

On February 8, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation.
Among other things, it stated:

¶ 1. When she was President of RTC, it “claimed to own the various Scientology trademarks and functioned as an enforcer of the ‘purity’ of Scientology as interpreted by its power hierarchy. This enforcement power extended, in diverse ways, over the functioning of supposedly independent Scientology corporations. . . “I also had access to many of the business and litigation secrets of Scientology, including its many dirty tricks projects.

¶ 2. “In 1985, I attended a meeting called by David Miscavige . . . present were Norman Starkey (President of ASI) and Lyman Spurlock. These three . . . were the managing agents of Scientology at that time. . . The meeting was called to discuss legal matters of all the Scientology entities. Most of the important decisions for Scientology corporations ASI (Author Services, Inc.), SMI (Scientology Missions International), RTC (Religious Technology Center), Bridge, CSI (Church of Scientology International), etc.) were handled at meetings like this without the presence or input from the officers of the separate corporations because the control of all Scientology was principally in the hands of Hubbard, Miscavige, Starkey and Spurlock.

¶ 3. “Miscavige told the meeting that Scientology organizations had not been aggressive enough in combatting squirrels (individuals who had broken with the Church of Scientology but were still using ideas similar to Scientology).” Such persons are on “Scientology’s list of enemies and subject to Scientology’s ‘fair game’ policy. ‘Fair game’ is a policy (actually it is a part of Hubbard’s ‘scriptural’ writings) which mandates that the enemies of Scientology may be ‘deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.'”

38

“Miscavige told those at the meeting that they should take the lead from Hubbard’s suggestions of violence and personal attacks against squirrels both as written in the fair game policy and in Professional Auditor’s Bulletin No. 53 in which Hubbard said the way to treat a squirrel is to hurt him to hard that he ‘would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck” and, Hubbard continued, ‘I don’t mean thought-wise.”

¶ 4. Actions against squirrels were commenced and “I received reports of such completed actions. These actions included, but were not limited to burglaries, stealing records, and sending provocateurs to infiltrate squirrel events and to provoke fights. These activities were also directed against Bent Corydon, including break-ins at his office, physical attacks upon him, and the use of spies to infiltrate his group.”

¶ 5. Whenever Scientology discovers that a book critical of it or L. Ron Hubbard is going to be published, “a three pronged attack is set into motion. Scientology’s intelligence arm (now the Office of Special Affairs and previously the Guardian’s Office) commences data gathering including covert operations to obtain data on the author and get a copy of the manuscript, etc. Scientology’s legal staff is activated to determine how to prevent publication by legal means or threats of suit. The public relations staff are also activated … to design plans to attack the author’s credibility …”

¶ 6. In late 1985, “Scientology became aware that Bent Corydon was writing a book critical of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Therefore, the attacks of him became more important and plans were designed to meet the three objectives: legal, intelligence and public relations. This type of plan involved decision making, people and money from several of the ‘separate’ Scientology organizations under the direction of Miscavige.”

¶ 7. “When Scientology organizations undertake illegal operations, little in the way of written records are kept. However, as President of RTC I would regularly receive envelopes with unsigned papers detailing the specifics of operations targeted against enemies and announcing successful actions. I specifically recall seeing one such report outlining the attacks on Corydon on account of his book.”

(Exhibit A.4 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

39

d. Declaration Executed September 26, 1989

On September 26, 1989, Vicki Aznaran executed a declaration on behalf of Bent Corydon that was filed in the Corydon litigation. Among other things, it stated:

¶ 2. Vicki was the President of the Religious Technology Center (RTC) from 1983 to 1987. RTC is the most powerful corporation controlled by Scientology.

¶ 3. One of the “foremost enemies” of Scientology is a person labelled a “Squirrel”, someone who practices Scientology on his own and threatens Scientology’s profitability because Scientology does not get money from such practice. “Squirrels are despised and persecuted in Scientology.”

¶ 4. David Miscavige is the most powerful person in Scientology with whom and other “top officials of Scientology organizations” Vicki attended meetings “to review the status of all Scientology’s activities including its litigation and dirty tricks campaigns against Scientology’s enemies.”

¶ 6. At one meeting in 1984 or 1985 Miscavige instructed those present that “all of Scientology should be more aggressive in their fair game attacks upon and injuries inflicted on Scientology’s enemies, especially squirrels.” “Bent Corydon was a hated squirrel who vexed Scientology’s leadership by his refusal to give up his outspoken position.”

¶ 8. “Miscavige meant all types of attack be used, including physical attacks, defamation, and efforts to cause Corydon to go into bankruptcy” pursuant to Scientology’s “scripture” known as the “fair game” policy which dictates that enemies may be “Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist, without discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, lied to, sued or destroyed.”

¶ 9. Because Vicki was president of RTC she knew “that fair game actions against enemies were commonplace. In addition to the litigation tactics described below, fair game activities included burglaries, assaults, disruption of enemies1 businesses, spying, harrassive investigations, abuse of confidential information in parishioner files and so on.”

40

¶ 11 “Ultimate control of all Scientology corporations rested with Miscavige . . ..”

(Exhibit A.5 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

3. The Substance Of Richard Aznaran’s Declaration Executed October 31, 1989

In the same case in the Corydon litigation, appellee Richard N. Aznaran submitted a declaration dated October 31, 1989, on behalf of Bent Corydon, wherein among other things he stated the following:

¶ When he left Scientology in 1987 he “had been in security and intelligence operations for the most senior management of Scientology for five years.” He “reported to and was directed by David Miscavige” who “particularly detested Bent Corydon an ex-Scientology ‘squirrel’ who had defected in 1982.”

If “I was instructed by David Miscavige . . . specifically . . . “that if I could I was to hurt Corydon physically if I could arrange for it to appear justified.”

¶ “On the next occasion . . . security guards, under my direction, jostled Corydon and placed him under ‘citizens arrest1 for trespassing. In actual fact Corydon never set foot on our property not did he represent any harm or threat of harm.”

¶ “Later, Miscavige called me to his office . . . and was yelling at me and threatening me with loss of my position and with ethics conditions [discipline] for not having carried out Miscavige’s instructions.”

“The bottom line was that Miscavige wanted Corydon physically and mentally punished.

(Exhibit A.6 to Appellees’ Request for Judicial Notice.)

If this Court enforced the “releases,” Corydon would not have the benefit of the Aznarans’ voluntary cooperation in the form of sworn statements. Were Corydon deprived of such cooperation, the result would be “to subvert the truth and pervert justice through fraud, trickery and chicanery at the hands of unscrupulous

41

[persons].” Von Kessler v. Baker (1933) 131 Cal.App. 654, 657, 658 [Agreement was void “as tending to obstruct and impair the administration of justice, and therefore as contrary to public policy.”].

4. The Aznarans’ Interviews With Agents Of The Internal Revenue Service And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation

On May 19, 1988, the Aznarans were interviewed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for eight hours on the subject of their knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 168 at 3:12-4:27.) In addition to this, an F.B.I, agent named Brett Pruitt interviewed Vicki Aznaran for six hours in 1988 on the subject of her knowledge of Scientology. (Document No. 246 at 3:3-9.)

Obstruction of criminal investigations is included within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 which “was designed to deter the coercion of potential witnesses by the subjects of federal criminal investigations prior to the initiation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. San Martin (5th Cir.1975) 515 F.2d 317, 320; United States v. Siegel (2nd Cir.1983) 717 F.2d 9, 20-21. Its purpose is to “extend protection . . . afforded witnesses, jurors and others in judicial, administrative and congressional proceedings to ‘potential informants or witnesses’ and to those who communicate information to Federal investigators prior to a case reaching court.” United States v. Kozak (3rd Cir.1971) 438 F.2d 1062, 1065.

Scientology has a history of implementing strategies to avoid accountability for its criminal conduct. Thus, in relation to

42

Scientology in United States v. Hubbard (D.C.D.C. 1979) 474 F.Supp. 64, 75, Judge Richey found a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510. He stated:

“When an organized group [Scientology] attempts to prevent one of its members from withdrawing from a conspiracy, surrendering to federal investigators, and detailing the criminal offenses committed by the other members of the group, plainly a violation of section 1510 is made out.”

The information possessed by both Vicki and Richard Aznaran pertains to both criminal conduct perpetrated by Scientology including the secreting of witnesses during I.R.S. investigations and the destruction of documents. Judicial enforcement of the”releases” would conflict with the intent and purpose of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1510. As was the case in Hubbard, Scientology’s attempts to judicially enforce the “releases” are further attempts to prevent witnesses or participants, including the Aznarans, from withdrawing from the conspiracies of Scientology by sealing their lips, from communicating with federal investigators and from detailing the
criminal activities of the enterprise. Moreover, where funds are provided to one with “the specific intent to buy his silence,” United States v. Lippman (6th Cir.1974) 492 F.2d 314, 318, both bribery has been perpetrated and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510.5

__________
5 Given Scientology’s tradition as set forth in various official reports and the former high rank of the Aznarans with their concomitant knowledge of Scientology’s activities, it would be consistent for Scientology to attempt to obstruct justice by attempting to silence the Aznarans. See Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 T.C. 381, 443, aff’d 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir.1987) [“[Scientology] has violated well-defined standards of public policy by conspiring to prevent the IRS from assessing and collecting [Footnote Con’t.]

43

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) bribery of a witness is defined, in pertinent part, as follows:

“Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person . . . with intent to influence such person to absent himself [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), in pertinent part, defines bribery of as witness as:

Whoever directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person . . . for or because of such person’s absence [from a trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, congressional committee, agency, or officer authorized to take testimony].”

The “releases” are intended to obstruct justice and suppress evidence. Only information compelled by subpoena can be disclosed and that can take place only after either one of the Aznarans”shall not make [himself/herself] amenable to service of any such subpoena in a manner which invalidates the intent of this
agreement.” Even if the federal obstruction statutes are not violated, the “release” comes so close to the line as to indisputably violate the public policy prohibiting the suppression

__________
[Footnote Con’t.] taxes due from [Scientology].”]; United States v. Heldt (1981) 668 F.2d 1238 [Scientology criminal convictions in connection with the burglary of and conspiracy against the I.R.S.]; Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444, 129 Cal.Rptr. 797 [Former Scientologist falsely accused of grand theft and subjected arrest and imprisonment in consequence of application of “Fair Game Policy”]; Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra , 212 Cal.App.3d at 888 [Retributive conduct per the “Fair Game Policy” constitutes modern day parallel to the inquisition of the middle ages.]

44

of evidence of discreditable facts or criminal conduct.

5. Conclusion

It is indisputable that the violations of the releases, solely as they apply to Corydon. concern the disclosure of both discreditable facts and criminal activity orchestrated by Scientology’s leaders. It is clear that the object of the “releases” was to prevent such information from ever seeing the light of day. It is equally clear that the “consideration” for the “benefits” Scientology claims the Aznarans have received was the nondisclosure of facts which tend to both discredit Scientology and reveal that it is an organization that is, in substantial part, criminal in nature. Therefore, the “releases” which Scientology would have this Court compel enforcement by reversing Judge Ideman’s denial of preliminary injunction, are void. Similarly, the “releases” intended to prevent the Aznarans from cooperating with federal agencies investigating Scientology. Thus, the “releases” could in fact violate federal statutes prohibiting the obstruction of justice.

IV.

SCIENTOLOGY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO A MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; THUS IT WAS PROPERLY DENIED

In essence, Scientology has sought judicial relief in order to compel the Aznarans’ specific performance of the alleged”releases.” Scientology would have the Court force the Aznarans to drop their lawsuit and to remain mute in relation to their knowledge of the wrongdoing of Scientology. Such would constitute specific performance of the “releases.”

45

Civil Code § 3423 provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specific

ally enforced. Scientology could never obtain specific performance of the releases at issue because, as shown above, those releases are voId.
In this regard, the California Court of Appeal stated:

“courts will not compel parties to perform contracts which have for their object the performance of acts against sound public policy either by decreeing specific performance or awarding damages for breach. [Citation.] Ordinarily, the parties to a contract, void because contrary to public policy will be left where they are, when they come to the court for relief.”

Stanley v. Robert S. Odell & Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 521, 218 P.2d 162, 169; Owens v. Haslett (1950) 221 P.2d 253, 254.

Therefore, upon this ground as well, the denial, below, of preliminary injunction sought by Scientology is justified

V.

STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Appellate Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Must Be Narrowly Circumscribed

The grant of a preliminary injunction is a “drastic and unusual judicial measure,” Marine Transport Lines v. Lehman (D.C.D.C. 1985) 623 F.Supp. 330, 334, and “an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted as an exception rather than as the rule.” Sid Berk, Inc. v. Uniroyal. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 425 F.Supp. 22, 28.

“The award of such relief is not a matter of right, even though the petitioner claims and may incur irreparable injury. The matter is

46

addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and absent a strong showing of need, it need not be granted. Yakus v. United States (1944) 321 U.S. 414, 440. Where an injunction may adversely affect a public interest, the Court, in its exercise of discretion, may withhold such relief even though such denial may prove burdensome and cause hardship to the petitioner.” Marine Transport, supra , at 335.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits. When mandatory, rather than prohibitive, relief is sought, those seeking relief must “clearly establish that a change in the status quo is warranted.” Perez-Funez v. District Director, I.N.S. (C.D.Calif.1984) 611 F.Supp. 990, 1001.

The purpose and scope of appellate review of a preliminary injunction is the propriety of its issuance:

“While the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in light of the applicable standard constituted an abuse of discretion.” (Emphasis Added)

Brown v. Chote (1973) 411 U.S. 452, 457, 36 L.Ed.2d 420 See also Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. (1975) 422 U.S. 922, 931-932, 45 L.Ed.2d 648.

The Supreme Court has affirmed this standard in a case in the face of a claim wherein First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were asserted to have been implicated as the basis for “different treatment.” Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. California (1979) 444 U.S. 1307, 1308, 62 L.Ed.2d 454. The Supreme Court stated:

“[A] trial judge’s determination of a

47

preliminary injunction should be reversed by this Court or by other appellate courts in the federal system only when the judge’s ‘discretion was improvidently exercised.’ [Citations.]” Id. at 1307.

The Court specifically rejected arguments by the Synanon Church that review of a district court’s decision was subject to a different standard of review simply because a church contended an impact upon its Constitutional Rights.

“Applicants contend, however, that by reason of the fact that they are a church, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution they are somehow entitled to different treatment than that accorded to other charitable trusts. But we held only last Term that state courts might resolve property disputes in which hierarchical church organizations were involved in accordance with ‘neutral principles’ of state law. [Citations omitted.]” Id. at 1307-1308.

B. To Establish An Abuse Of Discretion Requires A Stringent Showing Of A Definite And Firm Conviction That The District Court Committed A Clear Error Of Judgment

Generally speaking, for the court of appeal to determine whether the District Court has abused its discretion it must:

“Consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. . . the [reviewing] court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the [district court].”

(Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416; See, Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc. (9th Cir.1982) 686 F.2d 750, 752. Thus, a ruling on a preliminary injunction “will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had
applied the law to the facts of the case. [Citation.]”

48

International Moulders v. Nelson (9th Cir.1986) 799 F.2d 547, 550.

Indeed, when deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, the District Court “is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult questions of law or disputed questions of fact.” Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapewriter, Inc. (9th Cir.1964) 326 F.2d 141, 143.

The standard of review for an exercise of discretion in the denial of a preliminary injunction was clearly stated by this Circuit in Chism v. National Heritage Life Insurance Co. (9th Cir.1982) 637 F.2d 1328. In Chism, the district court, in an exercise of its discretion, entered an order of dismissal against the plaintiff for failure to comply with the court’s rules. The Ninth Circuit upheld the sanction of dismissal as being within the sound discretion of the trial court. It stated:

“The rule in this circuit, often reiterated, is that the trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless we have ‘a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors. [Citations omitted.] In applying the quoted standard of review, we must remember that the district court, not this court, exercises the discretion.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1331.

Furthermore, the trial court’s findings regarding disputed facts are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous. See, J.B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc. (9th Cir.1975) 523 F.2d 187; Fabrege Inc. v. Saxony Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1979) 605 F.2d 426. Therefore, provided that the District Court has not based
its decision to deny a preliminary injunction “on a clearly erroneous finding of fact” Zepeda v. United States I.N.S. (9th

49

Cir.1983) 753 F.2d 719, 725, such that “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. 333 U.S. 364, 395, the reviewing court is “bound by the district court’s resolution of conflicting evidence and other
findings of fact.” Jones v. Pacific Intermountain Express (9th Cir.1976) 536 F.2d 817, 818.

C. Review Of A Preliminary Injunction Does Not Serve The Purpose Of A Preliminary Adjudication Of The Merits Of A Case

The Ninth Circuit has noted that review of a preliminary injunction is much more limited than review of a permanent injunction:

“Our review of the district court at this stage of the proceeding is very limited. . .. The district court’s grant of the injunction must be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.”

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Intern, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 521, 523; Accord, S.E.C. v. Carter Hawley Hale Stereo, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 760 F.2d 945; Miss Universe, Inc. v. Fisher (9th Cir.1979) 605 F.2d 1130, 1133-1134, 1135 fn. 5.

A preliminary injunction is merely “an equitable tool for preserving rights pending final resolution of the dispute.” Sierra On-Line v. Phoenix Software. Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 739 F.2d 1415, 1423. Thus, appellate review:

“of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is therefore much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction where all conclusions of law are

50

freely reviewable.” (Emphasis added.)

Sports Form, supra , 686 F.2d at 752.

The Supreme Court has stated:

“Preliminary injunctions are appealable to protect litigants from the potential irreparable consequences of erroneously issued injunctions, not to give litigants a preliminary opportunity to appeal their cases on the merits.” (Emphasis added.)

Carson v. American Brands. Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 79, 83-86, In fact, “where the granting of a preliminary injunction would give to a plaintiff all the actual advantage which he could obtain as a result of a final adjudication of the controversy in his favor, a motion for a preliminary injunction ordinarily should be
denied.” Kass v. Arden-Mayfair. Inc. (C.D.Calif.1977) 431 F.Supp. 1037, 1041.

Unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial judge made a clear error of judgment such as to render the discretionary denial of a preliminary injunction clearly unreasonable, the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction must be upheld.

D. The Reviewing Court May Reverse The Denial Of A Preliminary Injunction Only For An Abuse Of Discretion In Any Of Three Ways

The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the District Court and will be reversed only if the District Court abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1129, 1132. A district judge may abuse his discretion in any of three ways:

51

“(1) he may apply incorrect substantive law or an incorrect preliminary injunction standard; (2) he may rest his decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction on a clearly erroneous finding of fact that is material to the decision to grant or deny the injunction; or (3) he may apply an acceptable preliminary injunction standard in a manner that results in an abuse of discretion.” Zepeda, supra . 753 F.2d at 724.

Thus, a district court’s order is reversible for legal error if the court failed to employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction or, if in applying the appropriate standards, the court failed to apply the proper law in connection with the underlying issues in the litigation.

Finally, where the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction is based upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, it is reversible. Id. at 724-725; Accord, Chalk v. United States District Court (9th Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 701, 704. Legal issues underlying the preliminary injunction decision are reviewed de novo. Republic of Philippines v. Marcos (9th Cir.1987) 818 F.2d 1473, 1478.

E. The District Court Standard For The Determination Of A Preliminary Injunction

In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one of two tests. Under the first test, the court may issue a preliminary injunction if it finds that:

“(1) the [moving party] will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the [moving party] will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the [non-moving party] will not be harmed more than [the moving party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. [Citation omitted.]”

52

Alternatively under the second test:

“A court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates ‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. [Citation omitted.] Under this last part of the alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits. [Citation omitted.] There is one additional factor which we must weigh. In cases … in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction. [Citation omitted.]”

Martin v. International Olympic Committee (9th Cir.1984) 740 F.2d 670, 674-675. The two formulations of the alternative test”represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases [Citation.] Under any formulation of the test, there must be a demonstration that there “exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, Inc., supra . 762 F.2d at 1376.

Also, in certain cases, “the public interest is an important factor.” Lopez v. Heckler (9th Cir.1984) 725 F.2d 1489, 1498, vacated on other grounds 463 U.S. 1328, 83 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).

53

VI.

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A. Scientology’s 17 Month Delay In Seeking Injunctive Relief Precludes A Finding That Any Harm It Claims Is Irreparable

A preliminary injunction is an “an exceptional remedy [to be] granted only in exceptional circumstances where its compulsory quality is appropriate.” In re Talmadge (N.D. Ohio 1988) 94 B.R. 451, 454. It is sought upon the theory

“that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the plaintiff’s rights. By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need for speedy action and cannot complain of the delay involved pending any final relief to which it may be entitled after a trial of all the issues.”

Gillette Company v. Ed Pinaud, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 178 F.Supp. 618, 622; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust (2d Cir.1985) 756 F.2d 273, 276. Thus, party resisting a motion for a preliminary injunction may argue that the lapse of time between the filing of an action and moving therein for a preliminary injunction indicates an absence of any injury that is irreparable. In order to be effective, such delay need not rise to the level required to assert the equitable defense of laches.

“Although a particular period of delay may not rise to the level of laches and thereby bar a permanent injunction, it may still indicate an absence of the kind of irreparable injury required to support a preliminary injunction.”

Id. 756 F.2d at 275-276. In Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macv & Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d 7, a case trademark infringement case, plaintiff sought to enjoin certain conduct of defendant concerning

54

which it had been aware at the time it filed its lawsuit. It waited seven months before moving for a preliminary injunction. Reversing the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the Second Circuit found even though there was not a defense of laches, plaintiff had not been entitled to a preliminary injunction. It
stated:

“Lack of diligence, standing alone, may, however, preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief, because it goes primarily to the issue of irreparable harm . . ..”

Id. 762 F.2d at 8.

In Le Sportsac. Inc. Dockside Research, Inc. (1979 S.D.N.Y.) 478 F.Supp. 602, plaintiff delayed nearly one year before seeking relief by way of preliminary injunction. The trial court stated”[d]elay of this nature undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests there is, in fact, no irreparable injury.” Id. 478 F.Supp. at 609. See, Manhattan Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Bass (S.D.N.Y. 1981) 524 F.Supp. 1270, 1275 [Deprivation of constitutional rights failed to overcome unjustified delay in seeking preliminary injunction.]; Programmed Tax Systems, Inc. v. Raytheon Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 419
F.Supp. 1251, 1255 [Ten week delay after commencement of action “evidences a lack of irreparable injury and constitutes a separate ground” for denial of preliminary injunction.]; Marine Electric Railway v. New York City Transit Authority (E.D.N.Y. 1982) 17 B.R. 845, 856 [Three month delay in bankruptcy proceeding before seeking preliminary injunction: “Such a delay negates the very purpose for which an injunction serves.”]; National Customs Brokers and

55

Forwarders v. U.S. (CTT 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1511, 1517 [While plaintiff’s exhaustion of alternative remedies “cannot be faulted the court is not convinced that each step towards a preliminary injunction has been pursued at a pace consistent with a necessity for immediate action to prevent further harm.”]

The Ninth Circuit applies the same rule. In Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City or Las Vegas (9th Cir.1984) 745 F.2d 1211, this Circuit held that a “delay in seeking a preliminary injunction is a factor to be considered in weighing the propriety of relief. . . By sleeping on its rights a plaintiff demonstrates the lack of need
for speedy action. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 1213. Thus, a plaintiff’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (9th Cir.1985) 762 F.2d 1374, 1377.

1. Scientology’s Contentions Of Irreparable Injury Submitted In Support Of Its Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

Scientology, in its “Brief for Appellants”, asserts that it suffers irreparable injury for the following reasons:
The instant litigation implicates what Scientology describes as “complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendant’s religious practices and beliefs.” (Appellants’ Brief at 3 3.)

“Litigation of such issues as religiosity, the truth or falsity of religious doctrine, and the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices would constitute a highly intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters” in violation

56

of Scientology’s contention it is entitled to First Amendment protection; (Appellants Brief at 33.) 6
That the instant lawsuit constitutes “harassing litigation”, a deterrent to the exercise of First Amendment rights. 7

However, Scientology’s contentions that it suffers such harms, which have now become “irreparable,” in consequence of the pendency of this lawsuit, have been made from the outset. Each legal contention submitted by Scientology in this appeal as the basis for its claim to irreparable harm was submitted in written arguments during the initial stages of this lawsuit in June 1988.

2. Scientology Submitted Similar Or The Same Contentions In The Proceedings Below 17 Months Before Moving For A Preliminary Injunction

On June 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Notice of Motion and

__________

6 In support of this claim, Scientology cites the following cases in pages 33-35 its brief herein: Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664, 675; Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 620, 624-35; NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979) 440 U.S. 490, 502; Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 73; Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 460; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64; Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296; Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 16.

7 In support of this claim in its appellants’ brief Scientology cites the following cases: Franchise Realty Interstate Corp v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 1076; Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 387-391; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 267-83; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 431-433; Deader’s Digest Ass’n v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 252; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1045; Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sunstrand Corp. (10th Cir.1982) 673 F.2d 1171; Herbert v. Lando (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 603 F.Supp. 983, 989; Barry v. Time, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 1984) 584 F.Supp. 1110, 1121; Miller & Sons Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Civic Assoc. (E.D.Pa. 1978) 443 F.Supp. 1268, 1273.

57

Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (Record No. 50) wherein it contended it was a religion whose “religiosity” could not be adjudicated and cited Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets (1st Cir. 1979) 604 F.2d 73, 78; Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. (Record No. 50 at 9) In its Motion to Dismiss, from pages 6 to 27 of that motion Scientology submitted a lengthy argument wherein, citing Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra,N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, supra, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, supra, New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, Time, Inc. v. Hill, supra, Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., supra, it contended that the Aznarans’ lawsuit was not justiciable on the following grounds:

  • Because it involved a dispute between a church and its members;
  • Because it impermissibly sought to impose tort liability of a religion;
  • Because tort liability could not be imposed on the basis of church discipline;
  • Because liability could not be imposed on the basis of brainwashing by church; 8

On August 15, 1988, Scientology filed a Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions (Record No. 85) wherein at page 24 it stated:

“A quick perusal of plaintiffs’ complaint and the opposition to dismissal reveals outrageous and vilifying charges against the defendant religious organizations as well as the assertion of massive financial liability. . . Accordingly it was foreseeable that a vigorous

__________
8 On September 6, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. (Record No. 102.)

58

and costly defense would be and indeed has been aroused against plaintiffs’ admittedly false allegations.” (emphasis added.)

On September 19, 1988, Scientology filed its Reply in support of its Rule 11 Motion where at page 29 it stated:

“included … in plaintiffs’ complaint are outrageous and inflammatory allegations regarding the defendants which would which would trigger a vigorous and costly defense . . . [including] allegations that the sole purpose of the defendant organizations was to make money . . . The significance of such a charge goes to the very heart of defendants1 First Amendment defenses to this entire litigation, as the defendants are religious entities who perform myriad religious services for their members. . . . Defendants . . . [argue] that the complaint must be dismissed because, inter alia, its adjudication would violate the First Amendment by invariably entangling the Court into a forbidden determination of solely religious concerns.” (emphasis added.) (Document No. 113) 9

On December 20, 1988, Scientology filed its “Defendants’ Opposition To Ex Parte Application For A Temporary Stay Of Proceedings” (Record No. 153) wherein, citing Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Joint Executive Board, supra . 542 F.2d at 1082, on page 8 it stated:

“In addition, defendants are prejudiced by plaintiffs’ continued delay in bringing this action to resolution. Moveover, the mere pendency of claims impacting heavily on defendants1 First Amendment rights cause prejudice to defendants. … In Franchise Realty, the court warned that where a case poses the threat of ‘the long drawn out process of discovery’ which can be ‘harassing and expensive,’ added to a large damage claim,

__________
9
On October 25, 1988, the District Court denied Scientology’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (Record No. 133.)

59

the action becomes ‘a most potent weapon to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights.’
Id. at 1082.” (emphasis added.)

At the time Scientology first raised the foregoing arguments, the harm it then claimed to suffer was not such as to move it to seek injunctive relief.10 At the time Scientology’s answers and counterclaims were filed, it did not seek injunctive relief despite the fact it was on notice as to the harms it now claims are
irreparable. Appellees submit if the harm was not then irreparable, it is less so now.

3. The Duration Of Scientology’s Delay Belies Any Claim Of Irreparable Harm

Scientology first noticed the depositions of the Aznarans on June 1, 1988. Thereafter, it commenced its “vigorous defense” with a consistent barrage of motions attacking the both substance of the Aznarans7 complaint and the facts upon which it is based. As set forth above, from the outset, Scientology was aware of the nature of the harm relief for which it now claims the District Court improperly denied a preliminary injunction.

Scientology delayed seeking a preliminary injunction until November 9, 1989, almost one and one-half years after it commenced litigating its defense of the suit. In light of the fact, according

__________
10In fact, when Religious Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology and Church of Scientology International filed their answers and counterclaims they pleaded their first causes of action on the Aznarans’ alleged breach of the “releases”; their second causes of action are based on the Aznarans’ contacts with Joseph Yanny, reporters from the Los Angeles Times. Bent Corydon, Jerold Fagelbaum and agent of the I.R.S. (Document No. 110 at 20-22 [Religious Technology Center]); (Document No. Ill at 20-23 [Church of Scientology International]); (Document No. 112 at 19-21 [Church of Spiritual Technology])

60

to Scientology’s own arguments, it was aware of the “harm” it alleges to be manifest in the Aznaran lawsuit, and in light of the fact that it failed to seek injunctive relief for 17 months, Scientology’s delay was, and is, not reasonable. Scientology’s delay eviscerates the legitimacy of the irreparable harm it has now decided to claim.

Simply, Scientology resorted to the legal technique wherein it sought preliminary injunctive relief only after its resort to other legal techniques had failed. Failing to win may hurt, but it is not irreparable injury.

B. Scientology’s Claim Of Religious Status Does Not Preclude The Imposition Of Legal Accountability

Scientology contends it suffers irreparable harm because the instant lawsuit allegedly implicates a number of asserted rights. However, in so doing, Scientology has overlooked the legal fact of life that, like everybody else in our civilized society, it is subject to State Control in relation to the Torts it commits.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The provision creates two very different protections. The “establishment clause” guarantees the government will not impose religion on us; the “free exercise” clause guarantees the government will not prevent us from freely pursuing any religion we choose. Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra . 46 Cal.3d at 1112.

The religion clauses protect only claims rooted in religious belief. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 215, 32 L.Ed.2d 15.

61

The free exercise clause protects religious beliefs absolutely. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304, 84 L.Ed. 1213. While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs, it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs. United States v. Ballard (1944) 322 U.S. 78, 86-88, 88 L.Ed. 1148. The government may neither compel affirmation of religious belief Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because of their religious beliefs Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70, 97 L.Ed. 828, nor use the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views. Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) 319 U.S. 105, 116, 87 L.Ed. 1292.

However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69. Such conduct “remains subject to a regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 3 04. Thus, “while the free exercise clause provides absolute protection for a person’s religious beliefs, it provides only limited protection for the expression of those beliefs and especially actions based upon those beliefs. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 884.

Government action burdening religious conduct is subject to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state’s interest is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed on religion. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 214. The greater the burden imposed on religion,

62

the more compelling must be the government interest at stake. Molko. 46 Cal.3d at 1113.

Unwitting exposure to coercive persuasion, even when occurring in a context claimed to be religious, justifies the imposition of tort liability. There is a substantial threat to public safety, peace and order posed by the fraudulent induction of unconsenting individuals into an atmosphere of coercive persuasion. Id. at 1118.

Many individuals exposed to coercive persuasion:

“develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation and suicide. [Citation.] The state clearly has a compelling interest in preventing its citizens from being deceived into submitting unknowingly to such a potentially dangerous process. [f] The state has an equally compelling interest in protecting the family institution [Citations] . . . [which] almost invariably suffers great stress and sometimes incurs significant financial loss when one of its members is unknowingly subjected to coercive persuasion….” Ibid.

The court in Wollersheim decided that even if the “retributive conduct” known as “fair game” was a core practice of Scientology, it did not merit constitutional protection. The Wollersheim court reasoned that “fair game” was to the core of Scientology religious practice in Scientology in a similar way that “centuries ago the
inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe.” Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888.

“[T]here are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game’ like the ‘inquisition’ targeted ‘heretics’ who threatened the dogma and institutional security of the mother church. Once ‘proven’ to be a ‘heretic, ‘ an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant

63

incarceration, torture and death. [Citations.] As described by the evidence in this trial, the ‘fair game’ policy neutralized the ‘heretic’ by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. [Citation.]” Ibid.

The court stated that if such conduct were to, in fact, “qualify as ‘religious practices’ of Scientology … we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d 890-891

The Wollersheim court also held that the process of “auditing”11 was not constitutionally protected when conducted under threats of economic, psychological and political retribution. An atmosphere of coercion constructed on the threat of “fair game” if one were to “defect,” the threat of imposition of a “freeloader debt”12 and physical coercion stripped “auditing” of any constitutional protection that it might enjoy were it voluntarily practiced. Id. at 893-894.

Wollersheim, like Vicki Aznaran in this case, was assigned to “Rehabilitation Project Force.” While on Rehabilitation Project

__________
11“Auditing” is a one-on-one process between a Scientology “auditor” and a Scientology student. The student is connected to a crude lie-detector, called an “E-Meter.” The auditor asks probing questions and notes the student’s questions as registered on the E-Meter. Wollersheim. 212 Cal.App.3d at 891.

12 When a Scientology staff member received courses, training or auditing, it was at a reduced rate of payment. If the person later were to leave Scientology, he would be presented with a bill for the difference between the staff rate and the public rate. A five-year member of Scientology could easily accumulate a “freeloader debt” of between $10,000 and $50,000. Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 894. “The threat of facing that amount of debt represented a powerful economic sanction acting to coerce continued participation in auditing …” Ibid.

64

Force, Wollersheim’s regime commenced at 6:00 a.m. and concluded at 1:00 a.m. It included menial and repetitive work in the morning, study in the afternoon and meetings in the evenings. When he slept, it was in a ship’s “hole.” Wollersheim subjected himself to

“auditing because of the coercive environment with which Scientology has surrounded him. To leave the church or to cease auditing he had to run the risk he would be become a target of ‘fair game’, face an enormous burden of ‘freeloader debt’, and even confront physical restraint.”

Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 895. When a religious practice takes place in the context of such coercion, it enjoys “less religious value” than were it engaged in voluntarily. More significantly, “it poses a greater threat to society to have coerced religious practices inflicted on its citizens.” Ibid.

The facts pertaining to the Aznarans in the instant case and the facts set forth in Wollersheim have more in common with one another than not. In Wollersheim. as well as in the instant case, Scientology raised a “fundamental constitutional challenge to this entire species of claims against Scientology.” Wollersheim, 212 Cal.App.3d at 880. In the instant case, as in Wollersheim, Scientology’s constitutional challenge must be rejected.

C. Scientology’s Constitutional Challenge To The Aznaran Suit

In essence, Scientology asserts certain constitutional claims as the basis for its assertion of irreparable injury. It contends that the district court “erred as a matter of law in finding no injury as a result of the pendency of this lawsuit and the attendant threat to First Amendment rights.” (Appellant’s Brief at

65

37.)

Scientology claims the Aznarans’ suit causes injury of an irreparable nature because it (1) will not be able to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of the practices and beliefs of Scientology; (2) the case involves complex ecclesiastical issues, going to the truth or falsity of defendants’ religious beliefs and practices; (3) the case is an intrusive entanglement of the court in ecclesiastical matters such as the propriety of peaceful and voluntary religious practices and the truth or falsity of religious doctrine; (4) the case is an invasion of privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists; (5) the case will have a chilling effect upon religious practice by Scientologists and an adverse effect on religious proselytizing; and (6) will constitute an unconstitutional breach of the “wall of separation” between church and state.

In light of Molko, Wollersheim and the principles of First Amendment jurisprudence upon which those cases are built, the cases upon which Scientology predicates its foregoing claims are not controlling and provide little, if any, guidance.

Scientology raises the concern that it will be impossible to “unring the bell” of improper disclosure of its practices and beliefs. However, as discussed above in Section VI,B, above, Scientology is not immunized from accountability for the consequences of its coercive practices. Indeed, there is a compelling state interest in preventing citizens from being exposed to religious coercion which justifies the state’s restriction of

66

Scientology’s conduct. Maness v. Meyers (1975) 419 U.S. 449, 42 L.Ed. 2d 574 does not support the creation of an immunity for Scientology. That case held that a lawyer may not be held in contempt for advising his client to refuse to produce documents in a civil proceeding that in good faith the lawyer believed would incriminate his client and the “bell” in that case that could not have been unrung would have been material protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For similar reasons, Scientology cannot take shelter behind the rubric wherefrom it asserts a claim of violation of “the privacy of the religious beliefs and practices of all Scientologists.” (Opening Brief at 34.) The Wollersheim court noted society has an interest in eliminating Scientology’s imposition of coercive religious practices on its citizens. Such a compelling interest overrides the above-mentioned ambiguous and broad claim to “privacy.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 64, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 does not help. Buckley pertains to the principle that compelled disclosure of names of political contributors “can seriously infringe on the privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Id. 424 U.S. at 60. However, as here, “a compelling public need that cannot be met in a less restrictive way will override those interests.” Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) 433 U.S. 425, 467, 53 L.Ed.2d 867. The Molko court held “[a]fter careful consideration, we perceive no less restrictive alternative [to suing] available.” Molko 46 Cal.3d at 1118-1119. At 212 Cal.App.3d at 879, the Wollersheim court held:

67

“the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

When Scientology contends that this lawsuit imposes a chilling effect upon religious practice by members and its proselytizing, it cites Watkins v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 178, 197, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273 and Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra . Apparently, Scientology takes the position that any testimony about its practices will subject it to “public stigma.” Watkins 354 U.S. at 197. Simply because there may be a chance that Scientology will suffer stigmatization, due to its forcing its religion upon citizens such as the Aznarans, does not justify an abrogation of the victim’s right to seek redress by lawsuit. If Scientology wants to avoid the stigma attached to the public dissemination of its outrageous and coercive practices, it should stop them. The answer is not to cloak such practices in secrecy so that under the claim of religion Scientology can continue to abuse the rights of others.

Finally, Scientology appears to want to maintain a “wall of separation” between church and state that is absolute. Scientology’s wall would preclude the state from imposing any limitations whatsoever on the nature and extent of whatever conduct in which Scientology chose to engage. In two hypothetical questions the Wollersheim court succinctly disposed of a similar postulation:

“This religious practice [the inquisition] involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. [Citation.] Yet should any church

68

seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?”

Wollersheim 212 Cal.App.3d at 888. The framing of the questions communicates their answer. In fact, the logical conclusion of Scientology’s postulation would be “a diminution of the state’s power . . . [such] that there would soon cease to be that separation of church and state underlying the concept of religious liberty.” Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (1945) 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704, 712.

D. Scientology Is Not A Prima Facie Religion Entitled To Automatic Protection Under The First Amendment

“Initial characterizations of conduct are important, if not dispositive, within the First Amendment realm.” International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Inc. v. Barber (2nd Cir. 1981) 650 F.2d 430, 438. The First Amendment does not immunize an organization from governmental authority or cloak it in utter secrecy simply because it ascribes religious status to itself. In fact, courts should be “cautious in expanding the scope of [religious] protection since to do so might leave the government powerless to vindicate compelling state interests.” McDaniel v. Paty (1978) 435 U.S. 618, 627, fn. 7, 55 L.Ed.2d 593.

In order to merit bona fide religious status, the religious beliefs in question must be held in a manner that is “sincere.”

69

United States v. Seeger (1965) 380 U.S. 163, 166, 13 L.Ed.2d 733. Under this “sincerity” standard, courts have not been willing to accept bare assertions by litigants that their beliefs or conduct are “religious.” See, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Barber, supra; United States v. Kuch (D.D.C. 1968) 288 F.Supp. 439; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California (D.Mass.1982) 535 F.Supp. 1125. When embarking on an evaluation of the bona fides of an organization claiming it is religious, the court initially looks to the purpose of the underlying constitutional safeguard. “The free exercise of religion promotes the inviolability of individual conscience and voluntarism, recognizing that private choice, not . . . coercion, should form the basis for religious conduct and belief.” (Emphasis added.) Krishna Consciousness 650 F.2d at 438.

In Founding Church of Scientology v. United States (D.C.Cir.1969) 409 F.2d 212, the court noted that “[l]itigation of the question whether a given group or set of beliefs is religious is a delicate business, but our legal system sometimes requires it so that secular enterprises may not unjustly enjoy the immunities granted to the sacred.” Id. at 1160. The Founding Church court concluded that a purported religion would not be entitled to protection under the First Amendment upon a showing that”. . . the beliefs asserted to be religious are not held in good faith by those asserting them, and that forms of religious organizations were created for the sole purpose of cloaking a secular enterprise with the legal protection of a religion.”Id. at 1162. Moreover, in Theriault v. Silber (W.D. Texas 1987) 453

70

F.Supp. 25, the court indicated that criminal conduct by members of a purported religion may trigger “sharp and careful scrutiny of [their] activities, including [their] claim of religious sincerity.” Id. at 259.

The court in Wollersheim noted that the ”specific issue of whether Scientology is a religion . . . remains a very live and interesting question.” Id. 212 Cal.App.3d at 887. See, Founding Church of Scientology v. Webster (D.C.Cir.1986) 802 F.2d 1448, 1451 [“whether Scientology is a religious organization, a for profit private enterprise, or something far more extraordinary [is] an intriguing question that this suit does not call upon us to examine. . ..”].

Thus, for the purposes of this appeal the Court ought not to automatically confer religious status upon Scientology simply because it asserts it is, prima facie, a religion. See, Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Complaint (Document No. 65. at 2-17) [“Scientology is essentially a profit-driven business enterprise” engaged in quackery and criminal activity]. Its lust for money and coercion of its members’ free choice caution against too readily expanding the scope of First Amendment protection to include such conduct.

E. Scientology Is Not Likely To Succeed On The Merits

Scientology’s conduct as to the Aznarans, as described above in Section II.B, is medieval and of the same nature as the conduct described in Wollersheim. Under the facts set forth in this case, Scientology developed deception, coercion, overreaching and unfair

71

conduct into a formula whose equation would be a phenomenal escape from accountability – both to the Aznarans and to other victims whom the Aznarans could assist if they are not silenced. The “releases” were the final end point of Scientology’s formula for coercion which for 15 years it imposed upon the Aznarans. Having abused and harmed the Aznarans, Scientology then sought to silence them for life. Scientology has not stopped trying.

The Aznarans were under a misapprehension as to the nature and scope of the releases in that they understood the releases as the only means by which they could escape Scientology’s inquisition. Such an understanding was induced by the misconduct of Scientology.

The Aznarans did not intend:

(1) To release Scientology from legal liability for the egregious torts Scientology has perpetrated against them;

(2) To allow Scientology to chill, if not silence, their First Amendment right to speak by a “gag order” [which Scientology would then ask the court to enforce];

(3) To allow Scientology to dictate with whom they choose to associate and speak;

(4) To allow Scientology to prevent them from giving aid, comfort, and support to other victims of Scientology, including those who are bitterly locked in Scientology-style litigation;

(5) To bargain with Scientology about anything other than the chance to escape without being declared suppressive persons and subjected to retribution and the fair game policy.

Scientology has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to

72

succeed to establish that the releases are either valid or enforceable. The releases that Scientology would enforce are not even the releases that the Aznarans signed. For months after they signed whatever it was that Scientology had them sign the Aznarans repeatedly requested copies of the agreements. Those requests fell
on dead ears. Since Richard Aznaran on many occasions requested Scientology provide him with a copy, the most likely explanation for its refusal is that the releases have been changed to suit Scientology’s claims. Moreover, such conduct “fits with their earlier modus operandi.” (Record No. 197 at 30-31.) This is an
example of fraud in the inducement. When fraud induces a person to believe that the act which he does is something other than it actually is,

the act of the defrauded person is void because he does not know [what] he is doing and does not intend to do this act. . . Where a person is fraudulently induced to sign or indorse a bill or note in the reasonable belief that he signing something else, he cannot really be said to have made or endorsed the bill or note.”

C.I.T. Corporation v. Panac (1944) 25 Cal.2d 547, 548, 154 P.2d 710 In our case, Scientology brought intense pressure to bear on the Aznarans, who were essentially captives, for more than one week. Scientology used the threat of “fair game” to obtain from the Aznarans what it wanted. It had the Aznarans sign agreements, but wouldn’t provide any copies thereof. Subsequently, when repeatedly asked for a copy over a course of months, Scientology produced
nothing. This is a case where there is a question of fact whether there has been fraud in the inception. Under this set of facts, it

73

is a question of fact for the jury whether the releases Scientology claims the Aznarans signed are genuine or whether they signed something other than what Scientology says they did.

In Wetzstein v. Thomasson (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 554, 559, 93 P.2d 1028 the court applied the doctrine of fraud in the inception to avoid a release that the plaintiff had actually read and knew what she was signing. The trial court found that the adjuster who obtained plaintiff’s signature on the release had employed “high pressure” methods, including lengthy importunities over a period of several days, to take advantage of the plaintiff’s physical and mental condition. When the adjuster obtained the signature and left plaintiff’s house, he did not leave a copy of the release with plaintiff. The court held that the adjuster “prevented the plaintiff from becoming acquainted with the character, contents and legal effect of the instrument.” In such case, there was no assent to the agreement. Thus, it was “absolutely void.” In our case the facts are quite similar and the final determination shall be for the finder of fact.

Scientology’s conduct with reference to the “releases” is subject to an estoppel. Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 543, 555, 76 Cal.Rptr. 529. It had brainwashed the Aznarans for 15 years. It knew they had no money. It held them captive at the hotel. It sequestered their belongings and pets. It security checked them for hours eight days in a row. It threatened them with “fair game.” It offered the Aznarans the loan because it wanted them to leave California immediately. It threatened “fair

74

game” if they failed to sign all the documents submitted to them. It concealed the relationship of consideration among the releases, insurance payment, wage payment and loan by withholding the releases on one hand and providing documentation of the loaned principal on the other. It was aware of both the releases’ substance and that the Aznarans were not so aware because it refused to give them a copy, even when they asked. Scientology intended that the Aznarans spend the loan money without being aware of either the potential obligations of the releases or, in the alternative, the potential necessity for restoration and rescission. It induced the Aznarans to act in reliance on the concealment of the relationship of consideration between the releases and the loan by directing the Aznarans to move from Southern California to Texas where the Aznarans would have to start their lives anew. Such is compulsion, not ratification.

Scientology has manipulated the Aznarans into the posture where after they spent the loan money and could not offer to restore it, Scientology gave them a copies of the purported “releases” and took the position that the loan was consideration for the release the terms of which would be effective if the loan money was not restored. They should be estopped from asserting such a claim because Scientology may not take advantage of its own misconduct.

Nonetheless, Under the circumstances extant here, it is irrelevant that the Aznarans never sought to rescind the releases. Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97, 103 [When releaser, not due

75

to his own neglect, suffers misapprehension induced by misconduct of the releasee as to nature and scope of the release, the release is binding only to the extent intended by the releaser unnecessary to effect recission of release]; Jordan v. Guerra (1944) 23 Cal.2d 469, 144 P.2d 349, 352 [Where releasee causes misconception whereby contract releases claims other than those understood by releasor to be included, the release is ineffective as to misconceived claims – rescission and tender unnecessary]; Walsh v. Majors (1935) 4 Cal.2d 384, 396 [Requirement of restoration what has been received may be excused by special circumstances when on general equitable principles it would be unfair to impose such a condition].

Since the circumstances of the inception of such “releases’7 were permeated with domination, undue influence, duress, menace, fraud and violence the escape from which was the Aznarans sole cognizant consideration, they never entered into any agreement whereby they intentionally contracted away precious constitutional rights. Rather, they submitted, one last time, to Scientology’s instructions, directives and demands. The Court properly denied the injunctive relief sought by Scientology because such relief would far exceed the status quo pendente lite. The Aznarans never acted in a manner which in any way has conferred any validity on the releases. They only sought to escape Scientology. In such a circumstance, “courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.” Martin 740 F.2d at 675. Just as after the ordering of injunctive relief, a court must be vigilant to ensure

76

”that what it has been doing [is not] turned through changing circumstances into an instrument of wrong” Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir.1986) 801 F.2d 1080, 1090, it must be careful that a motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute an instrument of wrong at its inception (at trial or on appeal). The trial court exercised such care when it denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

P. The Balance Of Hardships Favors The Aznarans

Were the Court to reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction, Scientology would enjoy the following benefits and the Aznarans would suffer the following hardships:

1. Scientology would protect itself from adverse exposure in the marketplace of ideas by possessing the force of a court order by which the Aznarans would be compelled to remain mute and silent about the information pertaining to Scientology that, on the basis of their long-standing affiliation with Scientology, they possess. The Aznarans would suffer a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Association.

2. Scientology would protect itself from its adversaries in litigation and obtain an unfair advantage therein by controlling said adversaries access to the public dissemination of the Aznarans’ knowledge through an injunctive restraint on speech. Scientology would also control any assistance the Aznarans might be able and willing to provide to its adversaries by preventing a sharing of information intended to expose the malevolent nature and

77

practices of Scientology. Such an order would tend to suppress evidence and thus constitute an obstruction of justice and the truth-seeking function of the courts.

3. Scientology would sequester the Aznarans from participating in the core democratic functions pertaining to any judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding in a further strategic step designed to minimize liability for harm for which it is, and should be, responsible.

4. Scientology would enjoy the opportunity to avoid accountability to the Aznarans for the consequences of its conduct. Such conduct was clearly tortious, and not subject to constitutional protection. The Aznarans would be prevented from exercising their right to obtain redress for and to be made whole from their abusive treatment at the hands of Scientology.

The only hardship that Scientology would suffer from the denial of its appeal is that it would have to be responsible to its victims, including the Aznarans, for the wrongs it has committed. In contrast, reversal would result in impermissible violations of the Aznarans’ constitutional rights. The balance of hardships tips sharply away from, not toward, Scientology.

G. An Injunction Would Harm The Public Interest

Through the relief it seeks, Scientology would silence two of its highest-ranking former members from disclosing to an interested public what they learned about the nature, beliefs and practices of this “religion.”

This would be constitutionally intolerable. “Prior restraints

78

on speech and publication are the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976) 427 U.S. 539, 559. The loss of First Amendment freedoms, even briefly, without doubt constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373-374.

It is axiomatic “that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. at 269. The mark toward which the First Amendment aims is “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.” Associated Press v. United
States
326 U.S. 1, 20. This constitutional safeguard “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476, 484. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to “preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.” (Emphasis added.) Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C. 395 U.S. at 390. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) 408 U.S. 753 the United States Supreme Court affirmed the public constitutional interest in being able to receive information.

“In a variety of contexts this Court has referred to a First Amendment right to ‘receive information and ideas: It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive …. Martin v. City of Struthers (1943) 319 US 141, 143; Stanley v. Georgia (1969) 394 U.S. 557, 564″ Id. 408 U.S. at 762-763.

Were the Aznarans silenced by an injunction, not only would

79

their First Amendment rights be violated, but also so would the right of the public at large to receive first-hand, truthful and accurate information about Scientology.

VII.

THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

This appeal is frivolous. This is the fourth time that Scientology has litigated whether it can enforce the releases. The releases themselves, as well as Scientology’s conduct in connection with them, smack of corruption and illegality, dirty The dilatory motion for a preliminary injunction was brought 17 months after Scientology submitted identical arguments in support of other motions by means of which it hoped to eliminate the Aznaran lawsuit. Both Molko v. Holy Spirit Association, supra, and Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, supra, conclusively establish that Scientology is the constitutionally, and morally proper subject of a lawsuit prosecuted to redress the abuses of coercion and torture. Stripped of its rhetoric, Scientology’s position in this appeal is simply frivolous and taken with a reckless disregard for the law, if not in malicious bad faith.

This court may award just damages and as much as double costs. FRAP, Rule 38. Moreover, such costs can be, and in this case should be imposed personally on counsel for the four appellant Scientology entities. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. If the Court is inclined to give serious consideration to this request, appellees respectfully request further opportunity to comprehensively set forth the facts upon which this claim is predicated.

80

CONCLUSION

The Aznarans have been interlocutorily hauled into this Court to litigate the same issues on which they have prevailed three times below. They respectfully submit this appeal should be denied, if not dismissed.

DATED: August _____, 1990

HUB LAW OFFICES

By: (signed) Ford Greene
FORD GREENE
Attorney for Appellees
RICHARD N. AZNARAN and VICKI J. ANZARAN

81

Aznaran v. church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
PROOF OF SERVICE
NO. 90-55288

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above entitled action. My business address is 711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, California. I served the following documents: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

on the following person(s) on the date set forth below, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at San Anselmo, California: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

[X] (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the united States Mail at San Anselmo, California.

[ ] (Personal I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand Service) to the offices of the addressee.

[ ] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

[X] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

DATED: August 22, 1990

LAURA PERRY

Legal Secretary

82

Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
For The Ninth circuit
SERVICE LIST No. 90-55288

HONORABLE JAMES M. IDEMAN
United States District Court
Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

ERIC M. LIEBERMAN
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard.
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

MICHAEL L. HERTZBERG
740 Broadway – 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003

EARLE C. COOLEY
Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones, P.C.
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

KENDRICK L. MOXON
Bowles & Moxon
6255 Sunset Boulevard, suite 2000
Hollywood, California 90028

* One (1) copy of Brief for Appellees

83

Notes