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

Testimony of Jesse Prince (Volume 3) (July 8, 2002)

329

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 3

DATE: July 8, 2002. Afternoon 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

330

APPEARANCES:

MR. KENNAN G. DANDAR
DANDAR & DANDAR
5340 West Kennedy Boulevard
Suite 201
Tampa, Florida 33602
Attorney for Plaintiff.

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

MR. KENDRICK MOXON
MOXON & KOBRIN
1100 Cleveland Street
Suite 900
Clearwater, Florida 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, Florida 33602-5147
Attorney for Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization.

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

331

APPEARANCES: (Continued)

MR. ANTHONY S. BATTAGLIA
Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.
980 Tyrone Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Counsel for Robert Minton.

332

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you all may be seated.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just was advised by my  office that Judge Baird wants us to be at a hearing  tomorrow by telephone. And I’m going to be here and  my brother is covering another hearing for me in  Tampa. But Judge Baird wants to go forward with the  hearing by telephone.

So I would ask that you let  me attend that hearing by phone.

THE COURT: What time?

MR. DANDAR: Nine o’clock.

THE COURT: Okay. How long is the hearing  expected —

MR. DANDAR: I have no idea.

THE COURT: Well, that is no good. What kind  of motion is it?

MR. DANDAR: It was the Flag’s — or RTC’s —  actually, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Pope’s motion to strike  our pleading challenging the domestication of the  Texas judgment against the estate.

THE COURT: So it’s legal —

MR. DANDAR: Right. We had a hearing on that  Tuesday at about 5 o’clock before July 4 and we  filed a supplemental memorandum of law and they  filed a response over the holiday, so I guess we’ll  discuss that.

333

THE COURT: You think an hour?

MR. DANDAR: I hope not. I don’t think so.  But —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m told not that long. About  thirty minutes.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s plan on starting  at ten o’clock anyway.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

Mr. Prince indicated he didn’t give us his full explanation, so you can go ahead with that.

MR. DANDAR: Okay, before he does that, could I  give him a document that I had the clerk just mark?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, go ahead, give us the full explanation of why you have the opinion that Lisa McPherson was dead because of an end cycle order?

A Okay. Lisa McPherson went to the hospital.  From — from the records that I can see from the doctor,  they didn’t indicate that she was psychotic and needed to be  Baker Acted.

Now, we’re talking about terms here that mean different things to different people. In the hospital they define psychosis the way they define it and, thus, Baker Act people. In Scientology, they have a different definition

334

for a person, a psychotic or suffering from psychosis.  One of the definitions, reasoning of what  psychosis is in Scientology, is in their Case Supervisor  Series 22, which has been entered in on the record, I’m  sure, many times. And this is concerning psychosis.

Now, it says here —

THE COURT: I don’t know if it has been or not.

I think you’re looking in that one book?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: I’m not sure if that whole book was introduced.

THE WITNESS: No. No. Not the whole book. But this issue here, psychosis, has been an exhibit.

We can put it in again.

THE COURT: I don’t know if it has or not.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it has.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, when I finish explaining it, I’ll hand it over.

MR. DANDAR: We’ll mark it.

THE COURT: All right.

A It says — down here at the beginning of this issue here on psychosis, it says, “All characteristics classified as those of a suppressive person are, in fact, those of an insane person.”

So, in other words, it is the belief of

335

Scientology that a person who they consider to be suppressive and has those characteristics are also insane people, you see. So we’re working with two different  definitions here.

Now, if this person — if Lisa was taken to the hospital and they said okay, she’s not insane, she’s just having problems, she can work it out, she gets to Scientology, she’s insane. They are the ones that classify her as being insane.

Why do they classify her as — well, one of the reasons they classify her as being insane is because she wants to leave. And again that is mentioned here in this book here of people wanting to leave as also being psychotic.

So my thing is this. Lisa McPherson was taken to the Ft. Harrison. Prior to being — to this whole incident with going to the hospital and everything, she made her intentions to the Church known, to her friends, to her family, she wants to leave. In their minds, she’s psychotic. Medically, not necessarily so, she simply doesn’t want to do it anymore.

It has become a matter of PR concern because she had the accident with the boat, you know. She’s left, she’s —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, she had the what?

336

THE WITNESS: The accident with the boat, where she ran into the back of the boat and took off her clothes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

A Okay? This is something a person now who again, two months earlier, just testified to being more than human, more than a homo sapiens, this person is a homo novis. This person is almost like a demigod. Now, this person is brought to the Ft. Harrison.

In my mind, my opinion, she came in there, she said, “I want to leave.” She didn’t change her mind. She’s delegated to be psychotic. They want to put her on introspection rundown. She’s incarcerated.

In that book “What Is Scientology,” it gives a definition of introspection rundown and gives a brief summary of introspection rundown that the public people can read.

MR. DANDAR: Let me hand this to the witness, Judge. It is Exhibit 125, just marked by the clerk from “What Is Scientology,” which I believe you have the entire book.

THE COURT: Yes.

A It says “Introspection Rundown. This is a service that helps to preclear, locate and correct things which cause him to have his attention inwardly fixated. He then

337

becomes capable of looking outward so he can see his  environment, handle and control it.”

Nothing in here, one, if Scientology labels you psychotic, you are going to be incarcerated until a case supervisor tells you you can leave. There is nothing in here that warns anyone of that.

So Lisa was taken to the Ft. Harrison, deemed to be psychotic, put on the introspection rundown.

Well, when did that come up that we even found out that Lisa was on introspection rundown? After Alain Kartuzinski and other people were given use immunity when they were first saying she’s a hotel guest, now the
investigators want to hear the story, “Oh, she was on introspection rundown.” Okay. So she’s on introspection rundown the second day.

And to me — again, she told them, “I want to leave.” They wouldn’t let her leave. She gets violent. The next day they order the drugs to put her down.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What drugs?

A I think it is chloral hydrate or Valium. Alain Kartuzinski gave some money for Valium. And if you look and see what Scientology says about drugs, psychiatric drugs, all of these things, these things are expressly prohibited.

Now, so far what we’ve seen, we see Scientology’s

338

policy if a person is sick, when you take them to the  hospital, make sure — but now we see things happening that — that are outside of that. By their own policy we see things they are not following that. That is a huge no-no.

We are at the place where policy and tech is applied 100 percent correctly standardly in every case, but somehow in this instance we have so many instances where this person — they are not doing it, they are not doing it.

And the reason why, you have to look behind that. And the reason, my contention is, is that she expressly wanted to leave, it escalated to her actually threatening, probably threatening with legal, threatening with law enforcement or whatever. This became a problem.

OSA was there from the very beginning, reporting about this, the very beginning, because this is a legal threat, this is a problem in Scientology.

So maybe they did try an introspection rundown on her. You know, they say they did. Maybe they did. But I think she never agreed to it. I think that she decided she was done with Scientology, no matter what they said to her,
she would no longer agree to it, because by her own word, it was making her sicker.

So instead, because of what happened, when they saw Lisa’s deteriorating condition, in their minds Lisa is

339

on the process. She’s on introspection rundown. Scientology has further policy, the way out is the way through, get the PC through it. What turns it on or turns it off. In their minds, whatever she’s going through is part of the process.

Plus, you have the added fear that if this person isn’t reconciled with Scientology, it’s going to be a big problem.

So instead of taking this girl to the hospital where she should have belonged, where their own policy says to do, and get her medical treatment, when it was obvious, by the reports that I have seen that she was ill, instead of
doing that, no, we’re going to keep doing Scientology because that is what it means by Keeping Scientology Working and, you know, what happens happens. Some of them don’t make it. Too bad.

But the biggest fear for Scientology was to let this girl go, in the state of mind where she was refusing to cooperate with them, caused them more problems than her actual death.

Q How do you get to your conclusion that her death was a result of an end cycle, let her die order from Mr. Miscavige?

A During my tenure in — in RTC, we would have staff meetings that had a pattern to the staff meetings. And the

340

patterns were this. What are the flaps? What are the  handling for those flaps? Those are the first things that are discussed and chewed around and taken care of.

Q With whom?

A Amongst the executives and the staff in any particular organization. Any particular Sea Org organization, I should say.

Q At RTC, who were the meetings with that you had?

A Flaps and handling? They would entail myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yaeger, David Miscavige, Lymon Sperlock, Norman Starkey (phonetic), in some instances the executive director in the national if it had to do with stats. But
those were the people that ultimately had to know what was going on.

Now, why is Flag Service Organization so important? Because the Flag Service Organization, when I left here in 1982, made an income of over 2 million a week. So you have an organization here that makes $8 million in a
month. This is — it is the highest income-producing organization within Scientology.

It’s a major concern that everything is perfect at the Flag Service Organization. There is not going to be an instance where no one knows what is going on. So in the staff meetings you talk about flaps and handling.

Well, Lisa is a flap. It’s reported up the lines.

341

OSA is there from the very beginning because she is a legal threat because it is a flap. And they are busy reporting, you know, on the legal side of it and what is going on and the repercussions.

They are also coordinating and in liaison with the technical area that has the technical program that they are trying to get her through, which in their minds is going to cure her.

Everyone knows — I believe there is also testimony on the — during the time period that Lisa was going through this trouble, Mr. Miscavige was there. We would often go to the Flag Service Organization, to inspect it, to make sure it is running properly, to make sure this technology is being applied 100 percent standard.

Q What are you relying on when you say Mr. Miscavige was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in this time period?

A I believe some — a public person who — I don’t recall the name right now — something that I read mentioned the fact that he was there. And — he was at post.

Q This public Scientologist saw Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes.

Q Was that in the police files of the Clearwater Police files?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

342

A So your largest income-making —

THE COURT: Where is that?

MR. DANDAR: I have it. I’ll introduce it, Judge. In fact, I have it on my computer. I’ll print it out on my next break.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It is Detective Carrasquillo of  the Clearwater Police Department interviewed four, I  believe, public Scientologists staying in the  cabanas who heard nothing during this time period,  who saw Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, is Mr. Dandar testifying? Or is he asking questions?

THE COURT: I just asked him a question. He’s responding to me. I was saying —

MR. DANDAR: It is a four-page document. It’s on my computer. I can print it out.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So, you know, from the limited time that I was  there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know that, you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization that I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.

343

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A And I am saying here today — and the reason I came to that conclusion — is by their own written policies that they have written here, you start to see violations.

And the reason why is because there was a problem. There was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them. When I did the introspection rundown on the other girl, she was cooperating. She wasn’t trying to leave. She
was going along with it. She never mentioned that she wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big difference.

So now you have a person that wants to leave, has publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no.

Q How did you —

A Again, there is reference where a person wants to leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her. She’s locked in a room. She’s terrified. Instead of taking her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get
treatment because of her state of mind and because of the way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue the process, and either it works or it doesn’t.

Q Well, Heather Hof, who was a 17-year-old ethics officer, or studying to be an ethics officer, inspection

344

reports, all her records, are missing. She testified in deposition that she hand-delivered her reports to Mr. Kartuzinski, saying as early as December 2, I believe, Lisa McPherson wasn’t eating or drinking enough to survive,
something had to change, Heather was frantic. The —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. He’s just testifying. This isn’t a question. This is just Mr. Dandar summarizing — and I would say missummarizing — what he thinks the testimony has been. It’s not a question. It’s a statement.

THE COURT: Well, I suspect that he’s saying,  “Mr. Prince, if this is her testimony.” That is what you do with an expert sometimes. So if that is what he’s doing, I’ll allow it, I guess, with the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So I’m assuming I’m accurate in my recollection of what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out of but she would go back into, five days — the last five days of her life. And in reading — in what you know and reading what you just told us you read, why is it your opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than take her to the hospital?

345

A Because she was not settled with her relationship with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous problems for them. If they would have taken her — you know, even during the period of time when she was going in  and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now, she starts getting treatment, she’s getting better, you know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors, “No, I don’t want to see them anymore, I have to get away  from this.”

Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is you — you put together an affidavit that is dated August of 1999. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in RTC. Do you remember that?

A Yes. I do.

Q And in that affidavit you have come to the conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson?

A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better, she gets better.

Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?

A Not at all. This affidavit came about because — from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months

346

studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I  came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based on the experience I have within that organization.

And the thing that — that became alarming to me to even point me in this direction is the amount of information that is missing, the amount of things that — that isn’t there that would clearly show like what her state of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is hidden. Why is something hidden?

In my mind, similar to what happened in Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives.

Q Did Stacy Brooks put you in the mood to write this affidavit? Did she kind of persuade you to write this affidavit?

A No. Put me in the mood? I guess I didn’t understand.

Q Okay. Did she influence you in any way whatsoever to get you to write this affidavit where you conclude that Mr. Miscavige and others had decided to issue the end cycle order?

A No. Matter of fact, Stacy disagreed with my

347

opinion about that. She disagreed with it. But — and we’ve had discussions about this.

I mean, you know, I did it outside of her. Stacy was nowhere around when I did my affidavit. And she asked me why I came to that conclusion. I mean, we’ve had in-depth conversations about that, because Stacy was not in the position I was in to be able to make that determination.

Q Did anybody — let’s even go to Bob Minton. Did Bob Minton suggest to you, order you, tell you in any way, shape or form what to put in that affidavit?

A No. Bob Minton was so disrelated from anything that I was doing in this case.

Q Really? How so? I mean, wasn’t involved at all?

A Bob Minton never cared about the particulars that was going on in this Lisa McPherson case. He never concerned himself with that.

His words to me were, “I have hired Ken. He’s got the money. He’s the best one that — the best lawyer I could think of to do it. It’s his job. It’s his responsibility.”

Q Did Bob Minton say he hired me, Ken Dandar?

A No. No. He just said you were the attorney of record. He trusted you. You could —

Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton say to you, or to me in your presence, that — ordering me to charge David

348

Miscavige with — in the civil case with murder?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did anyone — maybe I haven’t mentioned the right  name, I don’t know. Let’s just cover the whole waterfront.

Is there anyone that gave you direction or influenced you in any way on how to write that affidavit and what conclusions you reached in that affidavit?

A None at all. No one.

Q Now, the only other end cycle orders you have seen when you were in RTC, did they only have to do with people who had a terminal illness?

A That is correct.

Q Did you ever come across another circumstance like Lisa McPherson where an end cycle order was given and the person did not have a known, medically diagnosed by a licensed medical doctor, terminal illness?

A No. With the exception of what I told you about John Nelson, of course.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Judge, just in case it is not present, I just want to go ahead and I marked this affidavit that we’ve been talking about as Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 126. And I’m sure you have so many copies of this already.

THE COURT: Is this the one that is 108?

MR. DANDAR: No. That is the PC folder one,

349

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: This is the one that talks about end cycle.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: This is what Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint is dependent upon. I would like to move 126 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is already in evidence, but —

THE COURT: Yes, it is in, but we’ll let it in again.

MR. DANDAR: Somewhere. I’m not sure where.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recall seeing, in the deposition testimony of Judy Goldsberry-Webber and Dr. Houghton and Kartuzinski, that liquid injectable Valium was picked up twice, two separate times, at two different places for Lisa McPherson?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I object. This just isn’t proper. Do you recall seeing somebody else’s testimony? I mean, we should be asking Mr. Prince about his testimony, whatever it is, not what he recalls somebody else’s has testified to.

350

THE COURT: Well, if he read — just remember, Mr. Prince was his consultant. If he read some of these depositions in some fashion to assist him with his testimony, I mean, I already heard him talking about Valium which he thought —

MR. WEINBERG: Which was never given to Ms. Lisa McPherson.

THE COURT: Well, I know that. But we want to listen to what it is he says.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I know that. And I know Kartuzinski was the one who said, “No, we don’t use Valium.” So, I mean, I know this case a little differently from what Mr. Prince does. But I haven’t been to all of the depositions and I haven’t read all of the depositions. But I know what I know from this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And that is that Dr. whatever his name is prescribed the Valium.

MR. DANDAR: Minkoff.

THE COURT: And Kartuzinski said no. That is all I know.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you tell us how it is that the

351

organization works where if Dr. Minkoff, as he testified, ordered injectable Valium twice for Lisa McPherson, how would the org go about procuring that Valium from a public drug store?

A Well, you would have to use — you know, Scientology in itself is a closed system to that degree because it does disagree — seemingly disagrees with psychiatric medicines, the use of psychiatric medicines.

However, in — in the case of introspection and a person that is psychotic, there are references of using drugs to treat those people.

But Scientology would only go to another Scientologist who would have that same understanding that would provide what they needed because they are kind of like on the same track. I have never seen it work where a doctor outside of Scientology would do that.

Q Well, how does the organization work to go about getting the money approved to push the prescriptions?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’m sorry to interrupt.  But he’s asking how Flag would have gotten the money in 1995 or whenever it was. He wasn’t there. He wouldn’t know that.

THE COURT: Well, he can testify as to what he knew when he was there.

MR. WEINBERG: In 1982? I mean, it’s just —

352

okay.

THE COURT: I mean, he — this is what he based his opinion on. If it had to do with 1982 we just have to take that into consideration.

A Well, there is a simple answer to the question because it’s a Scientology policy, it’s called CSW, completed staff work. Whenever the organization is expected to — is expected to finance or pay for something, a document is submitted that — to the person senior and financial persons within Scientology that explains what the situation is, what the handling of it is.

If the situation is a person is psychotic and — you know, and in need of drugs, according to this reference, and handling is to buy the drugs, and then this is okay and they sign it and that gets passed along, the drugs are purchased.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So it gets passed along to who?

A If it was an emergency CSW, which would be accompanied with a purchase order, if it is an emergency CSW with an accompanying purchase order, it would normally go from the person who originated the CSW, to his immediate senior, to the commanding officer or whoever that person designated to be in authority to instantly approve moneys expended by the organization.

353

Q And have you seen a CSW for any of the prescription drugs purchased for Lisa McPherson?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: What was the CSW again?

THE WITNESS: Completed staff work.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q If — if the pathologist retained by the state who say that she’s in a coma, it was obvious for five days that she wasn’t getting any better, she was getting worse, if Heather Hof, in my recollection of what she said, is correct
that she was — Lisa was getting worse as early as December 2, if that is all true, is there any other explanation that you can think of that would explain why nothing was done sooner for Lisa McPherson?

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the form of the question, your Honor, as a completely improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black writing, called staff writing; the only — this is the way I opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated
this way is because she was a threat to Scientology.

And Scientology has a principle called the

354

greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it was.

In Scientology, the overriding principle is to protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them, possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not anything anyone wanted to deal with.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How could letting someone die be less of a PR flap than taking them to the hospital while they are alive?

A Well, I think it is an empirical fact, because it wasn’t — it was virtually unheard of until a year after her death. When you do enough cover-up — I mean, you know, not until a year after her death was it even known what happened to her. So it worked for a while.

Q Okay. Let’s go to —

THE COURT: I have just got to ask a question there. And I had so many but I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Prince.

She went straight to the medical examiner.  Right? I mean, from the hospital to the medical

355

examiner?

THE WITNESS: Right, with meningitis.

THE COURT: Well, whatever. There is a medical examiner who is the one that determines cause of death in this city.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: If she had been stabbed, if she had been dehydrated, if she had been shot, whatever it is, you take a dead body to the medical examiner when they are not under a doctor’s care for the medical examiner to say what is the cause of death.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: I don’t know how long it took her to do her work. But the deal was as far as the Church would be concerned, she was delivered to the medical examiner to determine cause of death. Right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So any delay was occasioned apparently by some difficulty in determining what was the cause of death. And some disagreements in sending off lab tests and all that sort of stuff. Right?

356

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so as far as the Church is concerned, Dr. Wood or whoever was going to do the autopsy might have known what they saw in two days.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t believe —

THE COURT: I mean, they have no way of knowing that, that they couldn’t just cut her open, look, say, “Whoops, there is a blood clot, this was caused by dehydration.”

THE WITNESS: Well, wasn’t it after the criminal case got started that Mrs. Wood went on national TV and spoke about dehydration and all of these things? Wasn’t that —

THE COURT: It may have been. But the fact of the matter was, is within a matter of however soon they got to this body, depending on how many bodies they had —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — somebody did an autopsy, you know, did an autopsy.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Dictated findings, and eventually this was put into an autopsy report. And Dr. Wood apparently did go on nationwide TV at some point in

357

time later.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: But, I mean, it still goes without saying that there would be no way for the Church to know what was going to go on at the medical examiner’s office.

I mean, gosh, they could have said she was stabbed. They may have been wrong. But there is no way of knowing, when a body is taken under unusual circumstances, anybody not under a doctor’s care, where a doctor signs off, like in a — in a — and a medical examination is done, an autopsy is done, there would be no way for the Church to know what the ultimate result was going to be.

Why, look at all of the flap now about the different autopsy reports and what have you.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: I agree with you wholeheartedly.

THE COURT: So this has been my problem all along is that you talk about a bad public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, a death, for heaven sakes, brings about a lot worse public relation than

358

somebody who goes to the hospital and says, “I was kept there, I didn’t want to stay and they brought me here but I want to go home and I don’t want to be here” and some charges are brought because of that.

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor —

THE COURT: Which they can defend on the way by saying this was a religious — she was a member of the Church, this was the way we handled this. That would have been the defense.

THE WITNESS: Right. And I — and I beg to differ with you on the fact that it was more convenient to take her to the hospital as opposed to take a dead body there.

THE COURT: I didn’t say convenient. I said it would be a — it was a worse public relations flap to have had Lisa McPherson die at the hotel under the care of the Church of Scientology than it would have been for Lisa McPherson to have gotten well in the hospital, having been taken there by the Church of Scientology and had her say, “They held me there and I wanted to leave and they wouldn’t let me leave.” That would have created less of a public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: I beg to differ, your Honor. And the reason I beg to differ is again, like I say,

359

this person has just attested to being almost superhuman. This person has been in the community here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations, on behalf of the Flag Service Organization, setting up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT committee whose responsibility is to interface Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person.

THE COURT: I understand that. But here we are, we are in this hearing, it is the seventh week of this hearing. This case has been going on seven years. There has been no good publicity that has come out of it, presumably, for the Church of Scientology.

All this would have been avoided if they had taken her to a hospital if it had been something that they would have known, they took her to a hospital, and had she said, you know, “Those folks were holding me against my will,” and they just said, “No, she was there on introspection rundown,” that would have been litigated, long over.

Do you think, in the long run, it would have been less of a public relations flap?

THE WITNESS: Let’s take another perspective of it. If it had gone along as Scientology planned, if

360

my contention there was a cover-up and they were successfully able to cover up and this girl simply died of embolism, well, who cares? Okay, well, so, you know, another dead person.

But if this person came and said, “Hey, look, I have been in here, they have held me, these people have jumped on me, forced drugs down my throat, they shoot me up with needles,” you know, I know that — that they said they never used Valium. I’m sorry, I disagree. I have been through these introspection rundowns. The instant they give that stuff — they give it to the person because they can’t sleep.

Otherwise, they are up all night. What they call it is a free will or the person simply cannot sleep so they are giving her drugs to make them sleep. Why would you get the same drug two times and not use it?

THE COURT: A person that can’t sleep is the person that is psychotic in a very hyperactive state. Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So, consequently, you would concede that Lisa McPherson was, in fact, in a very psychotic state or she could have slept just fine.

THE WITNESS: Something caused her not to

361

sleep.

THE COURT: Right. Which, of course, if she was in a psychotic state — now we are back to that situation where it would have been fairly dangerous for them to let her walk out the door, which —

THE WITNESS: You know, as far as her being psychotic, your Honor, I feel we can only speculate about that, because she was never taken to a doctor and diagnosed as being psychotic when they say she was psychotic.

THE COURT: Then she wouldn’t have needed Valium to make her sleep, would she?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: I mean, you can’t have it both ways.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I’ll be quite honest with you. Before I came in here —

I’m tired now because I wasn’t able to sleep that well, and I’m sure this will go on until I’m finished. So I don’t know, six to one, half dozen of another to me.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever in your experience seen drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate given to a Scientologist so they

362

don’t leave?

MR. WEINBERG: Can we limit it to one or the other?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: So you have never seen Valium given to a Scientologist?

THE WITNESS: Because they want to leave?

THE COURT: Because they want to leave?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Because they were sick?

THE WITNESS: Because they were —

THE COURT: Psychotic?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: When was that?

THE WITNESS: Again, this girl, Terese —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Teresita?

A Teresita. Again, she, you know, literally fell off the chair and started doing her thing. And I think one day passed and she wasn’t sleeping, and immediately Dr. Dink was contacted. You could literally see her dying in front of your face. She was just burning up. It was one of the most amazing things to see, kind of like the person caves in on themselves, they just kind of fall in, you know.

And this started happening to her after she hadn’t

363

slept for two and a half, three days. And she came out and she was given an injection.

Q Did you —

THE COURT: Was it Valium? That is the question.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I couldn’t speak truthfully as to what the injection was because the doctor was there, he injected her, and I know that within an hour, hour and a half, she was asleep.

THE COURT: So in truth now, Mr. Prince, you can’t testify in this courtroom that you ever saw Valium given to someone because they either wanted to leave or because they were psychotic; you don’t know what the psychotic person was given?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, did you have to assist Teresita in eating and drinking?

A Yes, I did.

Q How did you do that?

A I would just gently talk to her and tell her that it is important for her to eat if she wants to get well. I would tell her the case supervisor has said you have to drink X amount a day. Would you please do it? Just trying

364

to get her cooperation.

Q Could she do it by herself?

A No.

Q So how did you do it?

A Oh, I thought you asked me would she do it by herself.

Q Right. Did she pick up the water and drink it by herself?

A Yes.

Q And the food, did she eat it by herself?

A Sometimes I had to take a spoon and put it to her mouth and watch her chew, you know, and, “Did you eat it all,” you know. That kind of thing.

Q All right. Your opinion that Lisa McPherson died because of an end cycle order, an order just not to do anything for her —

A Correct.

Q — is that opinion based upon because you hate Scientology? Or is it based upon something else?

A For one thing, I certainly do not hate Scientology. I don’t hate anyone or anything.

My opinion is based solely on personal observation, personal experience. I give it as an opinion. I say why. Maybe I haven’t said it as clearly as I need to, but it is so important for Scientology. And, you know,

365

especially Clearwater is considered a hostile environment.

I mean, I have been here when half the city of Clearwater were picketing around the Ft. Harrison with Michael Flynn.

I mean, I have seen and been involved in trying to make this a place where Scientology could comfortably be and the environment would be comfortable with Scientology.

So, no, I don’t hate Scientology. I was a Scientologist myself for sixteen years. You know, I had a firm belief in what I was doing. I have since become disillusioned with a lot of that. But my motive certainly isn’t hate.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, there came a time when the Lisa McPherson Trust was formed. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And after you finished working for me full-time, you went to work for them full-time. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: You know, on some of these things you really are going to have to stop leading him.

That is one of the issues that is an issue here. So don’t ask him a question and then say “Correct?”

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, were you ever with Bob Minton when he talked about giving money to me for the case?

366

A I have been with Mr. Minton a couple of times, yes. Two or three. Yes.

Q I want to direct your attention to May of 2000.

A Okay.

Q All right?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall any incident where Mr. Minton talked to you about giving money to me?

A Around that exact time period, Mr. Minton made it known to me that you needed more money to bring this case to trial. He had thought in his mind that he had given enough money already and, you know, it could have went to trial or whatever.

But he was concerned about the repeated motion and — motions and on and on, just the cost of the case from the filings and things, that he asked me to go over there and look into, well, what is coming up now, I mean, what can we look forward to now?

I think at that time you were working on an accident reconstruction. And Mr. Garko was talking about doing a jury pool survey or something. And these were going to be additional expenses that would be needed, you know, as
well as whatever else came up to take the trial — take this case to trial.

And I remember going back and speaking to him about that. And he wasn’t very happy about that. And then

367

he — he — he went away — he came into town. Mrs. Brooks  and I were working at the LMT. And he came and he said, “Come here, you guys come out here,” because he had a fear that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.

And we got in Stacy’s car and we went into the city parking lot, which is directly across the street from the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.

And he said, “Look, I’m going to tell you guys, you can’t tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he doesn’t know where it came from. It came from Europe. You know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
hope this takes you to trial.”

That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he didn’t want the office to know, you know, Ken didn’t want everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this $500,000 came. And — and, you know, everything with the case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.

The second instance was very recently, I guess in March of 2002 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he gets to the second incident, that happened when, the first incident?

THE WITNESS: May of 2000.

MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000?

368

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?

A Europe. People from Europe.

Q Did he say to you it was his money?

A No. He said he had arranged from some people from Europe who made this money available.

Q Did you ever see that check?

A No.

Q Okay.

A Then the second instance was recently in March of 2002. He told me that, “Ken needs more money to finish this case and get this case to trial. You know, I’m willing to arrange to get him some money, but I have a problem with some people on the Internet saying bad things about him.

Could you ask Ken if there is any way if he has influence over these people to tell them to stop. And if you do, I’ll see if we can arrange to get him some more money.”

Q So what did you do?

A So I went and had that meeting. I went over to your office and I met with you. And I said, “You know, Bob thinks that he can get more money for you but he’s concerned about this matter. And what are you doing with that? Are you connected with these people, or are you — you know, are you encouraging them to do this?” You know, we had a bit of a conversation.

369

And, Mmm, you said you knew nothing about it and had no control over those people whatsoever but, you know, you would do what you could to make it stop if that is what he was worried about, but it wasn’t anything you were  actively concerned in.

Q Do you know anything about the check I got after that?

A Mmm, I know at some point that you had gotten a check. And he called me and let me know that you had.

Q He did?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Did he say where that check came from?

A He did not.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And the date of that — the date of the conversation with Mr. Dandar was, you said, March?

THE WITNESS: Of 2002. Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was this before, or after, I flew to Mr. Minton’s house?

A Before.

Q Okay. If I flew to Mr. Minton’s house February 22 of 2002, when would this conversation be that you and I had?

A So I think maybe a week prior.

370

Q Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Minton —

THE COURT: So you are saying that was February of 2002?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Excuse me, your Honor, what was February of 2000?

THE COURT: 2002. This is when Mr. Dandar and this witness had a conversation.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Oh. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, I jumped — when you talked about that meeting, that kind of threw me off because that is two years after where I wanted to talk to you about. So let’s go back.

Do you know a fellow by the name of Patrick Jost?

A Yes. I do.

Q Okay. How do you know him?

A I know him because he was hired by Mrs. Brooks to specifically assist Mr. Minton to deal with allegations that were being stirred up by Scientology investigators in Nigeria and Switzerland.

Q What was he supposed to do?

A Mmm, Patrick Jost is multilingual. I think he speaks maybe four or five languages. Mmm, he’s also a person — ex-CIA, spent many years in Europe on behalf of

371

the United States defense.

So he knew a lot of people and had a lot of contacts.

And he was supposed to go and find out where the trouble was originating from and try to deal with it accordingly.

Q Do you know if he was successful in doing that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you — can you describe for us the demeanor of Mr. Minton throughout the years — almost two years that the Lisa McPherson Trust concerning the — what he perceived to be actions taken against him by Scientology?

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’ll object to that as being far too broad, demeanor over a period of two years.

THE COURT: Mr. Battaglia, much as I would like to let you object, I don’t think you have any standing to object in this hearing. This is a hearing between these two people. Your client is simply a witness. So I’ll simply ignore that.

MR. WEINBERG: You beat me to my feet because I was about to say the same thing.

MR. FUGATE: Stereo.

MR. WEINBERG: That is like asking for — I

372

don’t know how you ask a question like that. His demeanor over two years?

THE COURT: I agree with that. It was a little broad.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you about what he felt concerning the Scientology investigation of him?

A Many times, to answer the question. And it wasn’t even the fact that investigations were happening. It’s the false information. The false information that was being provided to government officials in different countries,  unfounded allegations that were being provided, that disturbed him more.

And over time it became increasingly more evident that this was having more and more of an effect on him.

Q How did you pick that up?

A When I first met Mr. Minton, he was probably about 40 pounds lighter than he currently is. Just the nicest, gentlest, kindest person. I mean, I had never seen a person like him before. I mean, literally, who am I? Nobody.

But a person like that to come around in your life that just was — I don’t know — genuinely concerned about other people to the point of almost fault. And very — very kind. Very intelligent person.

I seen him go from that, to — to kind of being a

373

person that is annoyed — kind of annoyed by what is going on, kind of — Mmm — annoyed with, you know, what is happening with his kids, you know, what is happening with his house, his phone lines, on and on.

Then I seen him go to a person that actually became very doubtful about what he was involved in, what he was doing. He seemed to be less confident as time went on that he would be able to do anything to restrain Scientology from exercising some of its practices that are detrimental to the general public at large.

Q Have you — are you familiar with the doctrine of Scientology called fair game?

A For sure.

Q Has fair game been canceled?

A No. It’s alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s what? I couldn’t hear.

THE COURT: Alive and well.

THE WITNESS: Alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: And that is based on your —

THE COURT: Counsel, we’re going to let you ask that question later.

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I’ll withdraw it. I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on your expertise and experience in

374

Scientology, did you personally observe any fair game practiced on Mr. Minton?

A Yes. I have.

Q Can you give us some examples?

A Mmm, leaflets passed around in Boston where his wife and children live, saying that he’s an adulterous, robbed the Nigerian children — the Nigerian people of moneys, this is a starving country. And — and kind of — he’s kind of somehow aligned with the KKK because he was attacking Scientology. Mmm, his children being followed around. You know, the whole Nigeria/Switzerland thing.

They used to meet him at every airport he went to, irrespective of any city, they would just show up and meet him and picket him at the airport. I have been with him when the police literally have to stand in the airport and hold Scientologists back from attacking him.

I have been with him in Boston where somehow Scientology OSA people had gotten a hold of his — his — his records, his counseling records when he was seeing a psychiatrist. And they started saying things to him that he said to his therapist, I know, that upset him extremely that it could even happen.

And the fact of the matter is that therapist decided to no longer see Mr. Minton after Mr. Minton went

375

back and told him, “Hey, why are these guys saying this to me?”

Q This was a psychiatrist?

A Yes.

Q Of Mr. Minton’s?

A Yes.

Q So —

A And —

Q — he refused to see him after the records were made public?

A Correct. Or exposed. His position was exposed.

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton, in your presence, was — had any dramatic change in his emotions compared to the years that you have known him?

A Again, you know, what I said earlier. For sure, he changed. He became more of a somber person. He wasn’t as cheerful anymore. He was more serious.

And at some point it even got into, “Well, you know, they did this to me  so I’m going to go picket them. They did this to me so I’m going to go picket.”

You know, this is — was kind of like his last line of defense, as I testified the first day I came here, that he could possibly do, you know. “I’m just going to go picket. When they fool with my wife, I’m going to picket.

376

When they fool with my children, I’m going to picket. What they are doing over in Nigeria, doing all this crap, I’m going to go picket.”

So he became increasingly despondent about that. And, you know, Mr. Minton takes medication. Not that there is anything wrong with medication, but sometimes he wouldn’t take it. You know, he seemed to just be extremely stressed.

And during the time periods when he didn’t take his medication, he would literally be in a state of collapse with just — crying uncontrollably and totally despondent.

I remember one time he told me he was going to kill himself. He was walking around in the woods with a gun, you know. 200 acres up there where he lives and it is nothing but beautiful woods in New England and he’s walking  around with a gun. He drove his car in the woods, got it caught on a tree stump and he’s out there in the middle of the night, with a gun, crying. You know, that has happened.

Q When did that happen, that particular incident?

A That was in the fall of 2001, I believe.

Q Okay. Do you have any knowledge concerning Stacy Brooks’ desire, in the summer of 2001, to go see Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case?

A Yes. I do.

Q What is your knowledge?

A Mmm, Scientology had very effectively convinced

377

the courts — and I’m not trying to cast any aspersions here — tried to convince the court that somehow the Lisa McPherson Trust had something to do with this Lisa McPherson case.

And this assertion, this stuff that had grew over the years, inextricably tied these two things together, which allowed a way to now do continuing discovery on Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks and other staff members that worked at the trust.

And this was something that he was very concerned about, because financially it was ruining the Lisa McPherson Trust to have a lawyer have to represent all of the staff members, you know, when they get deposed, and they’re away, and on and on and on. So —

Q Did there come a time when — well, let’s go back to the question.

Did there come a time when you had knowledge about Stacy Brooks wanting to go to Dell Liebreich?

A Yes. So because of that, you know, and there was more discovery by Scientology specifically on Mr. Minton’s finances, they were just narrowing down on that, which is pursuant to their policy here to cut off the funds, on and  on and on. They are on a systematic program.

One thing that can be said about Scientologists, they are extremely organized and they have resources to do

378

what they need to do.

So Stacy thought that, you know, a lot of stress was coming because of this. So she thought, well, the only reason this is happening is because of this wrongful death case. So she decided to go visit with Dell Liebreich and ask her to drop the case because of what was happening with Bob Minton. And she decided to do this without Mr. Minton knowing about it.

And she consulted me on it and asked me, “Do you think he will be extremely upset if I do this?”

And I told her that I thought he would be extremely upset, you know, without talking to you about it and just go down there because there was no relationship.

Stacy had no relationship with Dell Liebreich. So for her to now — now come out of the blue and ask her to drop the case, it would be like a woodpecker coming along, telling me to pay my house rent or something, something as bizarre as that. So, you know, Stacy decided she was going to do it anyway.

She finally asked Bob Minton. And he said, “No, you don’t do it. You don’t do that.” She decided to do it anyway. She attempted to have a phone conversation with Mrs. Liebreich. And I think at that point, after Mrs. Liebreich spoke with Stacy, she then spoke with you and refused to speak with Stacy anymore.

379

Q Are you aware of any instance where Bob Minton controlled the wrongful death case?

A Not at all. The wrongful death case was the last thing that Mr. Minton was interested in because he had turned it over to you, he felt you were a competent, honest attorney, and, you know, many arguments have happened  between Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton concerning the fact that she did not need to be involved in the case, or if there was a differing of opinion, to do what you say because you are the lawyer.

And, no, he — he — he never — Bob Minton was more concerned about what was going on at the Lisa McPherson Trust.There was a period of time, after we came into existence and actually established a phone number, that people just started calling like crazy. “Hey, can you help me with this? Can you help me with this? Can you tell me what is going on with my brother? He doesn’t speak to me anymore. Can you tell us what it means to be an SP? I need to get my money back from Scientology that I haven’t used because I have no life, I don’t have a place to live.” You know, all of these kind of phone calls. And we — we became extremely interested because after the trust was set up, it gave you a broad cross section of, well, what types of things do people need help

380

with in relationship to Scientology?

So our job became, well, there is nothing we can do about it. If there is a criminal activity concerned, if there is any fraud that is concerned or bad business practices, at that point we started referring people to the responsible governmental agencies.

If you have a problem with them returning your repayment money, you refer them to the Consumer Fraud Department — Department of Agriculture, Consumer Fraud. If it is bad business practices, the Better Business Bureau. If it has something to do with money — the IRS could possibly be a person to contact if they are not getting satisfaction with known policies on giving money back. This kind of thing.

And we had nothing whatsoever — and the whole reason I stopped working in your office is that we had gone through deposing the majority of the Scientologists and Scientology witnesses. And you were going on to your medical experts. So there was no reason for me — I mean, I didn’t need to sit and listen to a medical expert being deposed.

So I worked at the trust. And this is kind of what we were doing. It was kind of like when you went off doing your medical people, we just forgot about the case.

At least, I did.

381

Q So you actually did work at the trust in answering calls for people who needed counseling?

A Very much so.

Q You weren’t just waiting for the trial of the Lisa McPherson case to start?

A This trial — you know, as much as I’m willing to offer my services — help point out certain things, what happened with Mrs. McPherson was a very unfortunate thing but there are still a lot of people alive that needed help.

And that is where I went to — what I wanted to do.

Q What was my involvement with the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Occasionally stop by to have dinner.

Occasionally, like maybe I think I maybe seen you there two times during its entire existence, maybe three.

Q Did I give any orders to anyone at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Not that I ever saw. It would be highly unusual if that happened.

Q Did I direct any of the picketing?

A No.

Q Do you know if I ever participated in a picket?

A No. You know, I was sitting here listening to testimony about that, and I listened with a sharp ear as Judge Schaeffer here mentioned the fact that you shouldn’t

382

have been anywhere near picketing. And I think what may be kind of misunderstood here is the fact that the vigil is not — was not and never has been a picketing experience. The vigil is where the people come from all over, they light the candles, they — they do some Bible stuff, they sing hymns and they may place a wreath where she died at the cabana. That is not a picketing experience.

And that is where I have seen you with the vigils, along with the family. And you were there because the family was there.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection.

In light of Mr. Prince’s last statement, he said he understood you had said certain things during the hearing? How would he know that if he was to be  excluded?

THE COURT: I am sure he read transcripts.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, but it is —

THE COURT: It would have been what he read or somebody told him, which would be inappropriate, too.

A I think it came up on the first day when I sat here in the courtroom giving testimony where you admonished Ken and pointed that out. I heard that direction from this

383

seat.

THE COURT: I’m not excluding you from testifying if you read something or heard something.

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m just saying that is not the case. I heard it right here in this seat on the first day I was here.

THE COURT: You have to understand to the — to the rest of the world, if candles are being carried, signs are being carried, it is being done, the Church of Scientology — it may look and seem like a picket. A lot of folks have talked about it as being a picket.

THE WITNESS: Right. But at the vigil there are no signs, though.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, did you ever hear Mr. Minton talk about the money that he gave me as — giving it to me or giving it to the estate? Did you ever hear him talk about that?

A I have. And what Mr. Minton has always said to me is he is giving this money to Ken to use on the case at his discretion. He’s loaning the money to Ken. That is what I heard.

Q Did you ever hear Mr. Minton write or speak about the LMT or Mr. Minton getting the bulk of any of the money

384

that may be realized from the wrongful death case?

A The only time I heard that statement made was when Mr. Minton came back from a radio interview. And he was laughing. And he said, “Hey, you know what, I just went in there and said the bulk of the proceeds are going to go to an anti-cult group or whatever. And I know this is going to chap Scientology’s behind.” He was into that kind of tit for tat kind of thing.

Q Did you ever hear him talk about it in private or outside of the media’s presence?

A Well, you know, the particular time that I’m talking about was private, you know. And I — you know, I made the comment, “Really, you know, is that the way it’s going to go?”

He said, “Look, I’ll probably never see a dime from this stuff. I just said it.”

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when  Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by Scientology of a UBS check?

A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the last one that I did, the April 2002.

He called me just in grief, crying. He’s like, “It’s over. They got me. You know, I’m going to jail.”

He’s just —

385

THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th. So we’re talking like maybe March 21st or something like that. You know, the week prior to going to New York.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, here is the April 2002 affidavit.2

A Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy?

THE COURT: No. I know it is in evidence somewhere. If I need to see it, I’ll ask to see a copy of it.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks and —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s back up.

Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, “It is all over.” What else?

A He said that, Mmm, “I’m going to jail. I have been told I’m going to jail. They’re coming after Therese and the kids.”

And he was just completely despondent about that.

386

Q And this was before the New York City meetings?

A Yeah.

Q Okay.

A Yeah. So then —

Q But he didn’t go into detail as to why he thought he was going to jail?

A No, he wouldn’t tell me then. I wanted to know, what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new thing has happened? He wouldn’t tell me.

Q Okay.

A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional information. She didn’t know what the heck had happened. But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there that day.

Q To New Hampshire?

A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I had no idea that this was a significant incident.

But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to prosecute him on it.

Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy of this UBS check?

387

A No. He said he didn’t know how they got a copy because he can’t get a copy of it. He said, “I tried. I can’t get a copy of it.” Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.

And he was just beside himself.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, could we point out in this affidavit where this incident is that he’s just described?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Because I don’t think it’s in there. They are saying something about a $500,000 check prior to the New York meetings.

THE COURT: You have your affidavit there in front of you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.

THE COURT: See if it is in the affidavit, or if it is something not in your affidavit.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, so here, if you turn to Page 3 of the affidavit, I started talking about what I’m explaining right now on the 20th of March, 2002.

THE COURT: What is this number?

MR. DANDAR: Paragraph 9.

THE WITNESS: Paragraph Number 9.

THE COURT: I don’t have it. Maybe I do need

388

it. What is the number of the exhibit and I’ll have the clerk get it?

MR. FUGATE: I believe it is attached to Mr. Dandar’s response to our memorandum of fact and law. I believe that is where it is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Can I give you a copy?

THE COURT: Yes, please. If you would, that would be great. I’ll give this back to you because I know it is in evidence or in the pleadings.

MR. FUGATE: It is in the pleadings, I believe, Judge.

MR. DANDAR: He’s reading from Paragraph 9 on Page 3.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Am I right?

A Yes. But, you know — yes, that was on Page 3, Number 9, during the time period, what I’m talking about
here.

And before I wrote this affidavit on the attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first page that — that Scientology had gathered enough information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

MR. DANDAR: He’s looking at his handwritten

389

attachment.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first paragraph.

THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?

MR. WEINBERG: I asked you — I asked you, does it say in the affidavit about this conversation you supposedly had with Mr. Minton prior to the New York meetings where he told you that the Church had a copy of a $500,000 check, and he didn’t —

THE WITNESS: I don’t —

MR. WEINBERG: — have a copy and didn’t know where they got it.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.

I don’t mention the check specifically, but what I mention is, is the information that Scientology had gotten, information that said they were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.

You know —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation — the first conversation where he’s crying?

A Yes. They discovered information about him that

390

threatened his wife and children’s future. You know, again,he’s suicidal. And then —

THE COURT: In your handwritten notes it appears that you are talking about this — this information before Paragraph 3 which deals with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks flew to New York.

So I presume you were discussing — or you — your notes indicated that occurred before the New York trip?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I don’t think it is very clear, certainly, in the affidavit, but he says that is what he’s talking about.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I really did try to do the best I could. This is a very disturbing time for me, too.

THE COURT: There is nothing that says that you have to speak to every word of your affidavit. You can expand on it. If that is your testimony, that is fine.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. And, you know, in the days between the New York meeting and the 20th of March that I noted here, which is where I came to find out, you know, what is this. Because Stacy flew there. And after she was there, I let her, you know, get settled.

391

And then he’s telling me, you know, they have got this check. And, you know, and he says — basically, it’s come down to me or Ken Dandar, somebody has to die here.

And I’m like, you know, this was such a complete turnaround. These are people I worked with now for years. We have all been on one accord, doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you have any further conversation in that phone call with Mr. Minton?

A Well, he informed me —

THE COURT: This is the phone call before –you are saying this is the phone call before the first time Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks went to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: We’re going to finish that phone call, then we’ll take a break.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A Yes. He said he didn’t feel safe about discussing the information over the phone, he was too upset to talk about it.

392

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Did you say this was about a week before the trip to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I said on or around the 20th of March. And the trip to New York was the 28th of March.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The 28th and 29th of March.

THE COURT: Let me just say this about affidavits. They wanted me to sign an affidavit of borrower to buy my house. And I refused to sign it without — I said, “I’m not going to sign this without this and this and this and this.”

And finally they just said, “Well, we’re going to throw it out. It is not that important.”

I said, “Well, good.”

All this, and affidavits. It makes me very nervous. You know, some things might not have made me so nervous.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Anything else on that phone call with Mr. Minton before we take our break?

A Mmm, you know, again, starting on March 20th until they actually went to New York, there were many conversations. You know, I don’t want to give the illusion

393

this just happened one phone call and suddenly they were in New York.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead and break and then we’ll start with — if you want to go into the other phone calls before New York. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 3:15.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:55 to 3:15 p.m.)
______________________________________

THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, before we begin back again, on May 13, 2002 we had filed a request to produce to Mr. Dandar for all financial records of payments to Jesse Prince, including bank records and checks, all W2s, 1099s, and any other tax form issued from Dandar & Dandar for Jesse Prince for tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was never responded to.

I think it is now relevant, based on the testimony elicited, that that be produced, or at least responded to that was filed May 13th of 2001 (sic).

MR. DANDAR: Didn’t we respond to that?

THE COURT: Had you responded to this?

MR. DANDAR: We produced at the time they took

394

Jesse Prince’s deposition — he’s no longer working for me — all of the W2s, 1099s, all of the checks we wrote. We did not respond to that one.

THE COURT: Is there anything additional?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll have to check. I’m sure — you know, since I brought him back on board as my expert, yes, I paid him since then. So there is something additional. But not back on May 13.

THE COURT: You don’t need him to regive you what he has already given you.

MR. FUGATE: No, I’ll go verify what we have and compare that to what he gives us. But — but he needs to respond. And he needs to give us —

THE COURT: I’m not going to require you to give him what he gave you already. So if he gave you stuff for the depositions —

MR. FUGATE: I’ll check that tonight.

THE COURT: Then you must give him whatever else there is.

MR. DANDAR: I will.

THE COURT: Try to have that to him by the morning. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: You may continue.

395

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay, Mr. Prince, following that telephone conversation, which you said was on or about March 20, 2002 with Mr. Minton, did you have any more conversations with him before he went to see Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen in New York City?

A Yes, I did. I may have had maybe three to four conversations with Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks concerning this. Yes.

Q Before the New York City meeting?

A Yes.

Q And what was your relationship with Mr. Minton at that time?

A Mr. Minton was a good friend of mine. A person that I trusted. You know, we worked together.

Q Okay. Did he confide in you?

A Yes. On some things, he certainly did.

Q And some things, he didn’t?

A I can’t say that he confided in me on everything. But I know some things he did.

Q All right. For instance, when he talked about somehow this check was going to make him and his wife go to jail, did he confide in you what it was that they got — this new thing in the year 2002 that caused him to think he was going to go to jail?

396

A You know, he said that they got a copy of that check, that — Mmm — that he — you know, had given different testimony, I think, in a deposition or something.

And this is what was going to — this is how they were going to put him in jail for perjury.

Q And did he — all right. Did he go into more detail how that was going to be perjury?

A Because he said that he had given testimony contrary to — you know, in other words, this check, this $500,000 check, came from him, apparently, not people from Europe. Scientology had discovered that. And they were going to use it to get him convicted for perjury.

Q Did you ask him why he lied to you and told you that check was from people in Europe?

A You know, that was a very good question that I should have asked. But at the time this was all new news to me.

He’s telling me, you know, “Oh, well, it came from me, it didn’t come from him. Now I’m in trouble and now they are getting ready to depose my wife Therese and bring her in on all of this stuff.”

And in the heat of the moment, the panic of the moment, I’m sure I didn’t ask, you know, all of the right questions. But no, I didn’t ask him that specific question.

Q During those three or four other telephone calls with Mr. Minton before the New York meeting he had with

397

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder, did Mr. Minton tell you how it was that Scientology can find out that this bank check from UBS that doesn’t have his name on it came from him?

A The only comment he said was he had no idea how they possibly got a copy of that check because he himself did not have a copy, nor did he know how to obtain a copy.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever mention to you anything about Swiss prosecutors during — before the New York meeting?

A Yes, he did. He told me that there was yet another action being contemplated by a prosecutor in Switzerland. And it was my understanding that this had something to do with Nigeria but I’m not sure. You know, I don’t know the details of it.

Q And he told you this in March before the New York meeting?

A Yes.

Q Now, isn’t it true that before Minton called —

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form to the question, “Isn’t it true.”

THE COURT: Yes, “isn’t it true” is suggesting that the answer to that is yes. I mean, I don’t know what the question is, but I know what the answer is. That is what the leading part is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What was your understanding, Mr. Prince, of the

398

status of the Swiss prosecution concerning Mr. Minton prior to Mr. Minton’s frantic calls to you in March of 2002?

MR. FUGATE: Objection, hearsay. Or at least the basis for this statement, “What was your understanding.”

THE COURT: If it came from Mr. Minton, he can answer. If it came from somebody else, then I am not sure you can answer.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q From Mr. Minton.

A Mr. Minton told me they were going to prosecute, going to file charges.

THE COURT: In Switzerland?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did he tell you that?

A Mmm, at one of the phone conversations between the 20th and 28th of March.

Q Well, my question is prior to that, had you ever heard from Mr. Minton about Swiss prosecutors?

A Oh, yes. I mentioned that before.

Q Right. And what was the status of the Swiss prosecution prior to you getting this call —

A These phone calls? Oh, I thought it was over.

Q What made you think that?

399

A Because Patrick Jost had went over there and talked with people.

There was one other thing that was pending which, when Scientology got the bank records for the Bank of America, somehow the Bank of — someone in the Bank of America in Europe, some executive or some banking official, had did something that was improper concerning either divulging or passing along information about Mr. Minton’s accounts. And Mr. Jost was over there to pursue that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to any conversations with Mr. Jost or anybody else. If he’s saying this is something Mr. Minton said, I would appreciate if he could date it.

THE COURT: Is this something you learned from Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us about when that was?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, gosh. This — this would have to be in the fall of 2001. Maybe October, something like that.

THE COURT: As best you can remember?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was it the Bank of America

400

official in Europe did improperly, according to Mr. Minton, what he told you?

THE COURT: Does this have something to do with this Swiss prosecution?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t know.

A This has something to do with when the bank records were obtained by Scientology here, the Bank of America somehow simultaneously did something — something happened in Europe, as well. I think they used the fact they had these records to get information that they were not supposed to get, they made it appear like the Court sanctioned them having this information or it was proper for them to get the information, when it was not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did Mr. Minton react to them getting this information in Europe?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Your Honor, this is hearsay based on hearsay. It is speculation. Then the question is how did they react to the Church supposedly getting this information in Europe? What information in Europe? What is he talking about? This is just hearsay.

And, you know, Mr. Minton testified. Mr. Dandar had an opportunity to ask Mr. Minton about this. He didn’t say anything about this,

401

about this accusation or anything like this. He didn’t even ask him the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. This bears on Mr. Minton’s state of mind, anything Mr. Minton may have said about what he thought was going on, what the Church knew. Remember, we had a lot of this, as I tried to explain.

MR. WEINBERG: I object more to the form of the question. When he said the Church did such and such at such and such a time, it is just an improper form, I think.

MR. DANDAR: It is based on the witness’s answer.

THE COURT: Right.

A He was very distraught and upset that this had happened. You know, he felt like that there was no one that could be trusted or no one who was impervious to Scientology’s ability to penetrate and get information that they should necessarily have.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, so we are talking about now the fall of 2001 that he’s distraught?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is this —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

402

THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And even — did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton in January or February of 2002 before you had this — what you described as this March 20 — the first call in 2002?

A Conversations concerning?

Q Mr. Minton’s well-being, his mental state?

A Well, Mr. Minton — back in the fall of 2001, we decided that we could no longer operate the Lisa McPherson Trust. He was quite despondent about that. He was despondent about what to do with the people that we were either in the process of servicing or starting some — something with new people that were calling. And plus the phones just never stopped ringing.

So he was distraught over the fact that it wouldn’t be there anymore. He was distraught over the fact he felt Scientology had successfully caused the Lisa McPherson Trust to no longer exist because of a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding being that it was somehow inextricably tied into the Lisa McPherson case.

Q Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks order you to quit being the expert for the estate?

A Ms. Brooks asked me to — and this, again, is in

403

the fall of 2001 — to not be an expert in this case on the theory that anything — we were trying to sever any real or imagined ideas that the Lisa McPherson Trust was connected with the ongoing litigation.

Q And did you listen to her?

A No. I — I — I consulted Bob about that. I had a conversation with him.

And he told me that Mrs. Brooks was very upset about the discovery that was going on, particularly the finances. And — Mmm — this is why she was doing it. And he understood why she was doing it.

And — Mmm — what he said, you know, “If Ken — you are Ken’s expert. If he’s going to need you, you know, I’m sure you’re going to go and do what you have to do.”

MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that, your Honor, when that conversation took place?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I think we were speaking about late 2001/early 2002. Maybe January, around there. This is as close as I can place it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, prior to that, you filed or signed an affidavit dated September of 2001 withdrawing as the expert for the estate.

A Okay.

Q So was this conversation with Stacy Brooks before,

404

or after, that affidavit?

A Preceding that.

Q So it was before that?

A Correct.

Q All right. And in that affidavit — do you recall that affidavit when you withdrew as the expert?

A Not particularly.

Q No?

A I mean, I have a general idea.

Q What is your general idea of why you withdrew as the expert?

A Mmm, again, this was during the time period when the Lisa McPherson Trust was in the process of closing. The trust itself had literally been drained of operating funds for, you know, paying lawyers. This wasn’t anything that we ever anticipated or budgeted for. And it became the most expensive part of the operation, which was trying to step away from this case. And that is what I remember about it.

Q Let me show you your signed affidavit September 21, 2001 and see if you can identify that.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy of this?

THE COURT: No. No. This is the one I remember quite well.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

405

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, is he impeaching Mr. Prince with this affidavit now?

THE COURT: I don’t know if he’s trying to refresh his memory or what.

MR. DANDAR: Refresh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, is that your affidavit?

A Yes, it is.

Q Did you prepare that affidavit?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you sign it?

A Yes, I did.

Q Is that the affidavit that you signed concerning the reasons for your withdrawal as the estate’s expert?

A Yes, it is. And, you know, I remember because I was talking about now the trust was closing, there were no lawyers — I mean we just couldn’t afford to pay lawyers anymore.

I personally cannot afford to have a lawyer to come in here and do activities like you are involved in or represent me or — or be here on my behalf. I have a family. I have people that are totally innocent to this and could care less.

But my family was threatened with the Scientology operation that was wrought on me to plant drugs in my house

406

and get my house raided by the DEA, and try to get multiple charges put against me. And now I’m losing my job, too. There is no way that I could continue this activity without being able to see that my family would be safe and cared for.

Q Did you continue to receive income from Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks in the fall of 2001?

A Yes.

Q And the income you received in the fall of 2001, was that from Stacy Brooks individually, or from the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I think it was probably Ms. Brooks individually.

Q Okay. What about 2002? Did she continue to pay you?

THE COURT: When did — when did LMT close down again? I have been away from this awhile and some of the details are out of my mind.

MR. DANDAR: It closed in August.

THE COURT: Of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, you tell us, Mr. Prince, instead of me.

What was going on in the LMT in the fall of 2001?

A They were closing — wrapping up, closing down, terminating the operation. Mmm, there was an order to allow

407

a magistrate to come in and go through the personal files and records at the trust. So for a month or two it was kind of kept open for that reason alone, just to finish that. So that — you know, there was an extensive library that —
that library had to be shipped, cleaned — the building had to be cleaned up and prepared to be sold.

It became our responsibility to ensure that the building did get sold. I had a verbal agreement with Mr. Minton, because at that point I didn’t have a lot of money either, that if I sold the building, I would get  25 percent of whatever the building sold for so that I could move — I was in the process of leaving Clearwater. My house was on the market. We were finished — the trust was over. We were finished.

I mean, if that is what Scientology wanted, they had accomplished it. It was finished. We were all moving.

I put my house on the market, put the building on the market, we were trying to sell it. We’re — we’re done. But it is never done, I guess.

Q Back to 2002, do you believe — have we exhausted your conversations with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks prior to the New York City meetings?

A The only additional things —

THE COURT: I just dread the thought of asking this question, but are you suggesting there is some

408

agreement between you and Mr. Minton regarding the sale of real estate, as to your receiving proceeds from it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I see. Is there a lawyer in the room that wants to take that on a contingency? Probably not, Mr. Prince.

Okay. Continue on.

THE WITNESS: You know, I missed the point. I guess you’ll explain it to me later.

MR. DANDAR: That is all right.

THE WITNESS: I hate to miss the punch line.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So anything else about these phone calls, before we get to the New York City meeting?

A Well, the only other thing I think I covered in my affidavit that Mr. Minton said is, you know, after having conversations with Mr. Rinder, that it basically boiled down to who is going to die? Is it going to be Ken Dandar? Is
it going to be me. And I —

THE COURT: Is that the word he used, “die”?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. And for the life of me, you know, I couldn’t get a concept of what he was saying. I mean, he said it several times —

409

THE COURT: Is this — I’m sorry, my mind is off on agreements and it is kind of an insider joke that has nothing to do with you really, a lot of agreements we’re talking about in this particular hearing, and we teasingly asked about what lawyer would take what on a contingency fee.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. So nobody wants my opinion.

THE COURT: Well, it will be volunteered, Mr. Prince.

Was this before or after the New York meeting, this conversation?

THE WITNESS: This was before the New York meeting. This is after Ms. Brooks arrived.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: He was telling me that, you know, that somebody has to die.

And, you know, Bob has always come to me, when he wanted to interface or maybe know something from Ken, he’s asked me, you know.

So for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how is it now that suddenly we sit here today and we have to decide who dies. Why does anyone have to die? That was my question.

And — Mmm — he told me that for them — for

410

him not to go to jail and be prosecuted — and he had actions going in both cases in front of both judges, Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird — that he somehow had to make this case go away, the Lawrence Wollersheim case go away, and that is — he said, “That is all — that is what they said they want.

So we’re going to go talk about that.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In New York City?

A Yes.

Q All right. And — all right. Anything else, before we get to New York City?

A That — Mmm — Stacy was just adamant that she would be able to successfully settle with Scientology so that they would disengage Bob Minton, because he was literally being driven insane. He was terrorized into a state of mind that was beyond anything he was capable of dealing with.

THE COURT: Did you ever ask him what — when he used the word “die,” whether he was — I mean, we all say, “Oh, I’m just going to die if such and such happens.” But he was not using that word in a literal sense, that was a —

THE WITNESS: Well, I asked him later about this.

411

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: After they came back from New York and was in the hotel, what was he talking about.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And what he was talking about was saying that Ken Dandar, as one thing, perjured — you know, blamed the perjury on Ken. I mean, these are all things to do to get rid of the case. Okay, so now we made Ken responsible for any perjury that Bob Minton did. Then, you know, he mentioned about what’s going to happen is Mr. Dandar is going to be disbarred.

And I took it a step further. I said, “Well, if Mr. Dandar gets disbarred, he’s going to lose his business. If Mr. Dandar loses his business, he’s going to lose his home and his family. Is this really what you want for Ken Dandar after you built him up all of this time, and now you get in trouble and now this is what we do?”

THE COURT: So, again, I think my question was is we all tend to use the word “die” and we don’t really mean it literally, drop dead, I mean, die.

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I don’t think —

THE COURT: He meant either business-wise or

412

something?

THE WITNESS: Professional decease, to cause decease, which is in accord with one of the Scientology policies we have gone over here.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is that known as fair game?

A No. It is called the Scientologist’s Manual of Dissemination, where it talks about, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.

Q Let’s get to New York City. Did you have any conversations with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks about the New York City meeting with Rosen, Rinder and Yingling?

A Yes, I did. When they were traveling to New York City, I was traveling to Memphis, Tennessee to drop my family off. It had just reached a peak for me. And I just wanted to have some safety in my life.

So they called me when they left home. They called me when they arrived. They called me when they met, had the first meetings. They seemed somewhat hopeful. Then, of course, the next day happened.

But when they got there, you know, Steve Jonas arrived. They were there. They met. They went over what they wanted. And Bob — you know, one of the things Bob did, which I didn’t know he was going to do until he got to New York, is he said he wanted my house to be able to be

413

sold, because I had had my house on the market for some time, zillions of people were coming there. And, you know, unfortunately, it just didn’t sell.

So he thought that that may have had some Scientology influence. And the reason why I think he thinks that, because the realtor for our building —

THE COURT: He? This is Mr. Minton again?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A The realtor for the building in downtown called Mr. Minton while he was in New York and told him he had had a buyer for the LMT building, and this buyer was a person that sold furniture, sold used furniture.

And he mentioned this potential buyer — this potential buyer mentioned to his clients, current clients, that he was going to move his operations to this building, and would that be okay, would he still be able to service them.

And he came back and said he found out that 45 percent of his clients were, in fact, Scientologists.

And he was told in no uncertain terms that if he moved into that building, that they would no longer do business with him. So —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object.

A He couldn’t — he couldn’t —

414

MR. WEINBERG: This is hearsay on hearsay. This is supposedly what Mr. Minton said that somebody said.

THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Minton said to me that the realtor —

MR. WEINBERG: Said to him. Objection, double hearsay.

THE COURT: I do understand. But, remember, this has to do with Mr. Minton and whether Mr. Minton has lied or whether Mr. Dandar is lying.

Mr. Minton’s state of mind, therefore, becomes, to some extent, relevant.

I understand it is double hearsay. I understand what that means. But I’ll allow it. It is a very unusual hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when did you first hear back from Bob Minton concerning the first day of the New York City meeting on the 28th?

A The night of the 28th after they met. He said, “Well, we met.”

I spoke to Stacy. She said, “I think it is going to be okay. I think we’ll be able to work this out. Ken Dandar is not going to be happy.”

415

Mmm, you know, I said, “Okay,” whatever that meant, because, you know, I’m not really tracking. I just know something traumatic has happened, it has to do with some information that came up on Bob, and I know that now Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton are in negotiations to disengage this whole thing, and I am not there but they are calling me, telling me what is going on.

Q Did they tell you why I would not be happy?

A Whew. Because they were going to say that you caused Bob Minton to lie about the check — that you advised him to lie about the check. This was during that particular time.

THE COURT: Is this Ms. Brooks testifying — or Ms. Brooks telling you this? Or is this Mr. Minton telling you this?

THE WITNESS: You know, it is kind of a bit of both, your Honor.

THE COURT: Was this over the telephone?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: This was after the first New York meeting?

THE WITNESS: This was the night of the first day of the meeting on the 28th.

THE COURT: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

416

THE COURT: It was this night they were explaining to you — either Bob or Stacy, or both of them, on the phone, explaining why Ken wasn’t going to be happy?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I want to make sure you don’t have your dates mixed up. Could you look at your affidavit to refresh your memory and make sure you have your dates down when you first mentioned that Ken Dandar wasn’t going to be happy.

A Okey-doke. Okay, I’m looking at my affidavit —

Q By the way, who typed that affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Just a second now.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to this process. He has done this a number of times. He elicits testimony. Mr. Prince testifies, he’s very specific, he had this conversation.

Then Mr. Dandar takes his affidavit and says, “Well, look at this and see if it is really your testimony.” He’s impeaching him.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it is proper.

417

THE COURT: I think that I’m — I have heard his testimony. I think he can look at his affidavit and see if it refreshes his memory. If it does, I’ll just have to remember his testimony was different before it was refreshed with this
affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

A Yes. Okay. I talk about the problem with the checks. We talked about that again. This was the next day on the 29th — now, wait a minute. “Bob told me he called –” now, see, this is before they went to New York, “Bob told me he made — ”

THE COURT: You are going way too fast.

A “Scientology was going to put him in jail.”

THE COURT: What page are you on, please?

THE WITNESS: I’m on Page 3. Bottom of Page 3, Line 27 —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — and 28. “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar.”

That was the —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That is before the New York trip?

A Yes. Okay, so they arrive in New York. “The next

418

day, on the 29th, the next day around noontime,” I’m on Page 4, Line 10, “Stacy called me. She was upset. Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of Judge Schaeffer, going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird. At this point they had only mentioned to me about the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim suit having to be dismissed for Bob not to go to jail. Mr. Rinder –”

THE COURT: You don’t have to read out loud.

You really are looking to see when it was that — if this — if this refreshes your memory as to when this statement about why it was that Mr. Dandar would not be happy.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did that first occur?

THE COURT: When it occurred.

A Either the 28th or the 29th, one of those two days.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. And then again I want you to look at your affidavit —

A And, you know, this information was sketchy because I didn’t get the full picture until they came here to Florida. I wasn’t able to divine the full picture until they actually came back from that meeting.

419

Q Okay.

A Now —

Q Do you recall — do you recall that Mr. Minton called you up, after the second day of the New York City meeting, to talk to you about a phone call he received from Mr. Rinder?

A Oh, after they got back from New York?

Q Right.

A Yes — well, no. Stacy is the one that I spoke to.

Q What did she say?

A She said, after they got back from New York, they were all upset and thought they wouldn’t be able to negotiate with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen.

Q Why? Why wouldn’t they be able to negotiate?

A Because they told Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder flat out that they had no influence to get either of these cases dismissed or made go away or whatever, they had no authority to do that; that Stacy Brooks had already made an attempt to contact Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case, so she wasn’t interested in hearing from Stacy; and Mr. Wollersheim certainly — and Mr. Leipold were certainly not interested in dismissing their case, either.

THE COURT: When — now, I’m so confused, and I haven’t read your affidavit in some time so I’m

420

listening basically to your testimony.

You indicated — what I think you just said is Ms. Brooks told you on the telephone that she had told Mr. Rinder that they didn’t have the proper influence to get the case dismissed?

THE WITNESS: See, I’m totally screwing this up if you think that, your Honor, because what I’m saying there is that happened in New York where they were face-to-face with Mr. Rinder, with — at least this is what was relayed to me by Stacy and by Bob on the phone conversation when they left the office, I think it was about noontime on the 29th where they tried to make it clear that they had no influence over these cases and they were asking them to do something they were not able to do.

THE COURT: What confuses me, if I did understand your testimony, after the New York meeting, perhaps the very night of the New York meeting, Stacy called and — Stacy and/or Bob called and said, “I think we’re going to be able to work this out.”

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was after they came back to New Hampshire, left New York, because they were back in New Hampshire that day.

THE COURT: Okay.

421

THE WITNESS: It was either that night or the next day I spoke to Stacy Brooks, and she said she had received a second conversation from Mr. Rinder, who mentioned that he thought that there may have been a misunderstanding, while he understood that they legally — or, you know, weren’t plaintiff or defendant, had no standing to effect these cases one way or another, that there were things that could be done to get the same result.

THE COURT: This was another conversation with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks, when they told you about that, that is when they said, “We think we can do something but it is not going to make Ken Dandar happy”?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Would that be on the 29th, your Honor?

THE COURT: I believe.

THE WITNESS: The 29th or the 30th or such a date of this.

MR. WEINBERG: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did you get the details about what that meant about Ken Dandar not being happy?

422

A When they traveled to Florida for the Judge Baird hearing that was, I think, occurring on April 5.

Q That is Judge Schaeffer.

A Hmmm?

Q Judge Schaeffer was April 5?

A That is right. Judge Schaeffer was April 5. But they had a Baird one right the next week or whatever.

Q Right.

A Anyway, when they came down for that activity, then we had a meeting at the Harbour Bay Hotel in Tampa, Florida where they made it clear to me what was happening here.

Because I asked them, “Did you find out what these things were that you can do to make these cases go away?”

I’ll start with Wollersheim because that will be quickly.

Q All right.

A She said what she had already done and told Scientology she would do and had done, that she called Dan Leipold and told him to withdraw her testimony — her affidavits in the Wollersheim case, and she had instructed him to do the same for my affidavits.

And there was only three, Vaughn Young, Stacy and me. Vaughn Young, because of his physical condition, how upset he would be to even do that, she told me she had not

423

promised Scientology anything in relationship to Vaughn, but she could promise the relationship to me and her.

Q How did you react to your affidavit being withdrawn?

A I was shocked. I was like, “I’m not withdrawing my affidavit.”

Q Why did she want to withdraw her affidavit?

A Because these are the things that she could do — you know, they want — they want what are the things you can do? What you can do is take your testimony out. Take Jesse’s testimony out of there. Because there was only three witnesses that they were using on the issue of alter ego to claim the judgment.

Q Did you ever —

MR. WEINBERG: Before — could we just date that? Is that at Harbour Island? Is that what you are saying? Could we just date it?

THE WITNESS: I think I dated it in the affidavit.

THE COURT: You want to look at your affidavit and see if you can find it then?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Yes, Page 5, Line 11.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the date?

424

A If you look at Line 22, he starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: Line 22?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Where it starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: And that is where you use the phrase, “Ken Dandar was not going to be happy”?

THE WITNESS: Right. So when we met at the hotel, you know — and I’m doing the best job I can here — I asked them — they mentioned about getting the affidavits out of the Wollersheim case, then specifically here in the wrongful death case — “Well, what are you going to do with that?”

“Well, Mmm, we’re going to –” they had a couple of things they were going over. One, the perjury of the check to make it seem like it was Ken Dandar’s fault. And then they were insistent about some meeting that had occurred which included myself, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Mr. Dandar, where we were discussing adding Mr. Miscavige as a party, and how Ken Dandar had instructed Mr. Minton to say the conversation never happened, something about it never happened.

Now, you know, for me, I’m not understanding

425

this because it is not making a whole lot of sense why it would matter one way or another. You know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a criminal, I didn’t understand what they were talking about. But those were two things specifically that they mentioned bringing out about Mr. Dandar and connecting him with perjury.

THE COURT: One was the check? Is it the $500,000 check that you testified to previously?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Number two was some meeting that occurred dealing with adding Mr. Miscavige as a party?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was there anything else of how they were going to get Ken Dandar, besides these two items?

A Well, the only other thing that came up — I knew about those two things. But then they had the meeting with Judge Schaeffer where Bruce Howie did something, and the whole thing was moot. And they were happy about that.

I think maybe that same day he got served with the Armstrong suit. And he told me, “It’s not over, I still have got to go in front of Judge Baird.”
Now, I think at that same time the decisions came

426

down from the 2nd — from the appeals court concerning discovery issues with finances and this, that and the other thing, so it was kind of like things were turning around.

So I’m questioning them, “Do you really think you need to do this?”

And they are trying to elicit my cooperation, like we used to have this thing amongst us, me, Stacy and Bob, we called ourselves the A team. There was three of us, this is an A team activity. It is tough at the top, we have to make some hard decisions here, you know. So I’m part of that entity. So we’re discussing these matters. And, Mmm —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is this all one conversation? Does it mean it happened after your hearing on April 5?

THE COURT: I’m not real sure.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Was this all at the same conversation?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor, maybe not because, I mean, I was with them the whole time and, you know, Page 5, starting at Line 11 — 16, Number on the affidavit, I talked about the time periods we were there, the 2nd or 3rd of April through —

THE COURT: Did you try, in your affidavit, to date the time frames when these conversations took

427

place as you remembered them?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I sat there with a calendar and I did it as best I could.

THE COURT: Okay. So those are the dates as best you can recall?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall.

THE COURT: All right. So whatever it says in the affidavit is the best he can recall.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way I sat and worked on it.

MR. WEINBERG: I was really more asking whether this was one conversation or he was — he talked about a conversation in the Harbour — I think he meant Harbour Island Hotel, but —

THE COURT: It depends what the affidavit says.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Is that right, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: The affidavit speaks of these things that you have been talking about in different conversations. That would be your testimony if you refreshed your memory?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

428

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So your memory was better when you wrote this in April than it is in July?

A For sure.

Q In your affidavit you say Harbor Bay Hotel. That is not Harbour Island Hotel. Do you know where the Harbor Bay Hotel is?

A No, I guess not if I am confused about it. It is the one that has the restaurant in there — well, that means nothing, they all have. Okay, I’m sorry, I spoke out of turn.

Q All right. But what I’m saying, when you took the time to sit down and write your affidavit of April 2002, of course you weren’t under pressure, being examined in front of a judge in a courtroom. You said you had a calendar in
front of you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, let’s jump back again to New York City. All right?

A Okay.

Q Well, no, I’m sorry. Let’s go to the conversations you had with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks about New York City.

Did they tell you what type of things Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Minton at the New York City meetings?

429

A That he was going to jail and actually spoke with him quite loudly about this. That he was going to jail. He was going to be prosecuted in front of Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird.

Mmm, by giving the affidavit, I wrote either Bob — Mr. Rinder — he told me — Bob Minton told me specifically Mr. Rinder said, you know, “Bob, you know I’m f-ing you but I’m doing it to your face. You have people around you that are doing it behind your back.”

And he mentioned the people that were doing it behind his back being yourself, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander.

Q Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton showed you any documents that he received from the Church of Scientology?

A Yes. This was when they had — yeah, now this is after I actually attended the Judge Baird hearing, saw Bob get up on the stand and start lying, and left and went to —

Q All right, I probably jumped the gun. And I apologize. Let’s go back.

Before we get to the Judge Baird hearing, let’s make sure, as far as you can recall today, what transpired when Bob and Stacy came to Florida.

A The first time they came to Florida, they were concerned about the hearing in front of Judge Schaeffer.

430

They were meeting with Bruce Howie. They were continuing to meet with Scientology, working on the things that could be done to get these suits dismissed.

And I guess part of it was to elicit my cooperation to go along with this new plan to disengage Scientology from Bob Minton.

Q Okay. And did Mark Bunker come with them?

A Yes.

Q And Mark Bunker, did he stay at your house?

A Yes, he did.

Q Did anyone else stay at your house?

A No.

Q All right. So did you attend the deposition of Mr. Minton on April 8?

A No, I did not.

Q All right. So the first time you saw Mr. Minton testify was before Judge Baird?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you said that you sat in the audience?

A Yes, I did.

Q And what did you hear Mr. Minton say you thought was a lie?

A Mmm, something about Mr. Dandar making — telling Bob to perjure himself in relationship to the checks.

431

Q All right. How did you know that was a lie?

A Because if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened. You know —

Q Why is that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I move to strike, “if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened.” How is that a response?

MR. DANDAR: I’m asking him to explain it right now.

THE COURT: Yes. Overruled.

A If there had been some agreement between Mr. Dandar and Bob Minton to hide the fact that — the check, I would have known about it when it happened.

THE COURT: Are you saying that Mr. Minton would have told you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is what I’m trying to say. He would have told me when it happened. Now, this coming up after all of this time, when I’m sitting there and he — you know, he’s taking us up to the garage when he gave the check, he’s saying this stuff is coming from Europe and you don’t know where it is coming from, on and on, now suddenly he changes his mind, I knew it was a lie.

Or he told me — one way or another, he’s lying now.

432

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was the next thing he lied about before Judge Baird?

A I just got up and just walked out. I couldn’t take it. I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was extremely distraught.

As I say in my affidavit, I actually wept because — you know, because once again we see the big Scientology machine, with all of its high-priced lawyers and endless resources, endless staff, to make this occur. “We can’t get the case dismissed or thrown out in any other way so now let’s go manufacture some information.”

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A Let’s create —

MR. WEINBERG: This is pure and utter speculation.

THE COURT: Not only that, but I think it is just kind of a discussion what he thinks. And, frankly, I need his testimony, not what he thinks. He can put that in someplace else.

That objection is sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar making a lie about the $500,000 check?

433

A No. I got up and left immediately.

Q All right. And when is the next time you were talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?

A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just couldn’t even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw that that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn’t know what to do.

And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind something criminal was going on here, I need to do something to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming. And I —

THE COURT: When you say to help your friends, you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you went, on your own, to Denis’s office?

A Yes.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I should not put words in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other friend?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to Mr. deVlaming’s office and I explained to him that I had been privileged to know that this was going to

434

happen, that this was going to be created and done against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.

And his reaction was, “Oh, well, they got him this time.” But because he had represented me before, and he had also represented Mr. Minton, he told me that it was a conflict of interest, because I went there to see if I could somehow get law enforcement involved in what was going on here because I was confident that Bob was lying on behalf of Scientology.

And I asked him to put me in touch with someone on a federal level, because I believed that Scientology did have influence in the state prosecutor’s office. I believed that they were able to somehow enact, somehow, undue influence on prosecutors simply because they never get prosecuted for the things that they do. And I myself, you know, I could have one little small marijuana plant in my house, I’m raided by the DEA.

But, you know, a person — a dead body shows up, they can’t do anything.

I had no confidence in that. I asked a federal — asked for federal protection, a federal level, because I said in my mind what they have done is RICO; they have conspired to commit a crime that

435

started in New York, they continued it down here in Clearwater.

Bob told me clearly that he was not going to involve his lawyers in the negotiations proper to any degree where they’re really getting down to the meat and potatoes.

THE COURT: Did Bob tell you why?

THE WITNESS: Because they disagreed.

Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful that was going on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Minton’s lawyer?

A Yes. Mr. Jonas, up in Boston. And you notice he has been visibly gone. He didn’t want nothing to do with this.

So they decided to use Mr. Howie to enact this. And they didn’t tell him what was going on. They were happily meeting with these lawyers and without any representation.

Q Well, why —

THE COURT: Wait, you said they were happily meeting with these lawyers without representation.

What is it you mean?

THE WITNESS: The lawyers specifically that Bob and Stacy were meeting with was Sandy Rosen and

436

Monique Yingling.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you why he chose not to have Mr. Howie or Mr. Jonas go with him to meet with Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling?

A Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful and thought it would be improper.

And he told Bob specifically — and Bob told me he told him — not to meet with Scientology without representation.

Mr. Minton — Mr. Minton mentioned that Mr. Howie could be used because he didn’t really understand what was going on in the first place with — I mean, and the reason why he didn’t understand, it is not because he’s a stupid or ignorant person — but because they weren’t giving him all of the information, Bob and Stacy were not telling Mr. Howie everything, they were negotiating with Scientology and telling Mr. Howie what they wanted him to hear.

Q But why — did Mr. Minton explain to you why he chose not to have his attorneys be present at the meetings?

THE COURT: I presume you’re talking about the meetings in Florida?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And his lawyer down in Florida being Mr. Howie?

437

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Because Mr. Jonas was in New York?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Yes. Did he tell you why he didn’t want Mr. Howie at these meetings?

A Mr. Minton expressed to me that he had personally had enough of lawyers, period. And he thought that this is something he needed to do.

Q All right. By the way, did Mr. Minton ever appear at a meeting with you, me, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, to talk about adding on David Miscavige?

A No.

Q Ever?

A No. This was the second big point, you know, that — you know, that Stacy is going on and on, “Jesse, you have to remember, it happened like this.”

“I told you, you are imagining this. It never happened. I’m not going to sit and lie about this.”

But this was another point I was supposed to go along with at the meeting. This is where they were really trying to bring me in to find these points to get you, basically.

Q Well, what made you not join and continue to be part of the A team, as you call it?

A Well —

438

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I — can we explain what the A team is? Because maybe I missed something.

THE COURT: Yes, the A team is Jesse Prince, Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks. They laughingly referred to themselves as the A team.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was daydreaming. I didn’t hear that. Sorry.

THE COURT: I did. So I — I miss some, but I recall that.

MR. WEINBERG: You caught that but I missed the A team. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So why did you choose not to go along?

A Well, Mr. Dandar, for obvious reasons. Number one, I worked for years on this case. I have worked honestly, to the best of my ability, on this case. I assumed that Stacy was, as well.

Mmm, I understood that Bob Minton — Scientology discovered something about him that upset him greatly and had him horribly concerned. But I wasn’t going to lie to protect him to hurt someone else.

And, in fact, my exact words to Mr. Minton was — and Mrs. Brooks, that I will never, in my life, help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

439

Q When did you tell them that?

A After — after I walked out of Judge Baird’s courtroom, and then now they’re all looking for me and they’re calling around to see if I’m in jail or see if I’m in the hospital. They thought I had a heart attack, because I was visibly upset. I mean, I was shaking when I walked out of that Judge Baird’s courtroom.

But the thing is I didn’t want to see them. I told my fiance, “You tell them to go home where they live because –” excuse this expression “– they have come and shit all over where I live, I don’t want to see them. You go back to where you live and then we’ll discuss this.”

And we discussed it. And when we discussed it, when I got on the phone with them after they got back, that is when I had the conversation and said that to them. “I can’t do it.”

Q Did you meet with them after Judge Baird’s hearing in Clearwater?

A Yes. I met with them a couple — not after the Judge Baird hearing. You know, at a later date after that, sure.

Q Do you recall meeting with them that following weekend?

A It could have been that weekend. Again, I have done the dates here to the best of my recollection, with

440

sitting down with the calendar. But it was after the Judge Baird — yeah, because Bob had been deposed — no, wait a minute, I’m confusing incidents now, because by the time they went back, they had already been through the Baird (sic) deposition and they were having the contempt hearing or whatever it was in front of Baird where he lied.

So, you know, they came back at a later date. And the discussion was — after they got back to New Hampshire, I told them how upset I was and how I couldn’t do it, and Stacy said to me in no uncertain terms that, “The reason you feel this way is because you don’t have all of the information. We’ve been leaving you out of the loop on some things that you need to know.”

She said that they had signed some agreement with Scientology, so — she couldn’t tell me everything, but the next step was to bring me back into the circle to make this go away for Bob.

And Stacy was just hell bent for leather to do whatever she had to do to disengage Bob from Scientology because she thought it was killing him.

Q Did you meet with them in Clearwater then?

A Yes, I did. We met at Adam’s Mark Hotel.

Q At the Adam’s Mark Hotel there are two things I want you to talk about. Number one, the conversation. And, number two, any documents you saw.

441

A Well, I hadn’t seen Bob. He knew I was furious with him. I hadn’t seen Stacy because I was furious with her. But we agreed to meet because we were friends.

Friends don’t get along every day. It would be nice if you did. But you don’t lose a friend because there is a disagreement.

So we met. And Bob told me, you know, he said, “Look, Jesse, you know, I’m not sure that this is gonna work, either. Stacy is more confident about doing this than I am. I don’t know.” We were kind of having that discussion.

Then the phone rang. Mr. Minton spoke with someone and he said, “Okay, leave it at the desk” and he hung up the phone.

And I asked him what that was.

And he said Scientology was delivering to him a packet of information that had to do with his prior deposition testimony — or prior testimony, that amounted to about 11 inches, for him to go through for the purpose of finding more things for him to — Mmm — quote/unquote, recant or do whatever he was going to do.

There was total — I asked him, “How many things besides Wollersheim and the Lisa McPherson case, what else do they want you to do? Do you know when your leash is over with, where they get done with you? Okay, you think if you

442

destroy Ken, that will make you safe. But what else are they going to have you do? Do you know?”

He said he didn’t know, but this package represented six to seven other things that they wanted him to change testimony about or — or say something different about.

Q Did you see this package?

A Mmm, no.

Q How do you know it was 11 inches high?

A He told me.

Q Okay.

A And he also told me at that time that his attorney, Steve Jonas, told him not to meet with Scientology concerning that package without representation, but he was going to do it anyway —

Q Okay.

A — because he’s taking control.

Q Did you ever see any lawsuits that Mr. Minton was given where Scientology was suing him or contemplating suing him?

A He had a rough draft of a RICO suit that he showed me. It was about this thick.

Q How many inches is that?

A It was about maybe an inch, inch and a quarter, something like that. And he —

443

Q All right.

A — flipped through it like this. And he would never physically give it to me.

He said — and we all predicted they were going to do some crazy RICO thing. He said, “They finally did it. Here is the RICO thing. We already have the Armstrong thing. They are suing me for 80 million which I’ll be liable for, here is the — another RICO, that is another 110 million. They are adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract.

And,” he said, “I’m the only person with money. I have got to get out of this.”

Q Okay. Now, did you at any time tell Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks that you were willing to meet with Scientology?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Mmm, at the Adam’s Mark Hotel when they — you know, what they call bringing me into the circle.

And I’m looking at these people that I have worked with for years and I might as well have been looking at strangers, because Stacy has this whole thing lined up.

She — you know, she knows exactly what is going to happen, who is going to do what. And Bob is kind of like following along because he’s just at his wit’s end.

And Stacy figures that she knew Mike Rinder for a long time and they were good friends and she’s just going to make this as good for Bob as possible.

444

And, to me, she just delivered Bob into the hands of his enemies.

Q Did Stacy Brooks ever — in all of the years you have known her, did she ever say to you, “I filed a false declaration or affidavit”?

A Never in a million years. To the contrary, Stacy is fully aware that part of, you know, Scientology’s intelligence operations are to get rid of the lawsuit in any way possible. You know, whether you actually have real evidence, get rid of it, or you manufacture it or you bring up enough threat where the person just wants to be done with it.

She knows this because it happened to her.

Q When?

A December of 1999 she did an affidavit about it, about the same people, Mr. Rinder, Mr. Sutter, coming in, wanting them to change testimony, offering money.

THE COURT: We have had testimony about that.

THE WITNESS: Yes. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did she ever say — I just wanted to touch on that. Did she ever say that Mr. Rinder was actually telling her the truth about attacking Graham Berry and Graham Berry did something bad?

A No. But what she did mention to me, she said, “You know, after speaking with Mr. Rinder, you know, I

445

always thought in the Fishman case –” where she appeared as an expert, she said she always thought that because they tried to add Miscavige on as a party, that that made Scientology want to instantly settle because, you know,
hands off from Miscavige, he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the Church, Sea Org, on and on.

So she said that after speaking with Mr. Rinder, she came to realize that it wasn’t adding Miscavige that caused the suit to be settled in the way it was. After talking with Mr. Rinder she came to understand that it was because of the introduction of Scientology’s upper levels at which they commonly call it as being trade secrets that was the real issue at hand.

Q Okay. Did Stacy Brooks ever say that her affidavits that she filed about Mr. Rinder offering her and her husband over $200,000 to change their testimony — did she ever tell you that Mr. Rinder’s version of what her declaration should be was true versus what Mr. Berry had her sign?

A Mmm, no. We — I mean, I had read that information before that she had done this. And at this point in time at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, Stacy was not an obvious target. They were working on Bob Minton.

Q Okay.

A Stacy was incidental at that point.

446

Q All right.

A It wasn’t contemplated for her to change her testimony. It was Minton to do it.

Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton, for instance, let’s go to that night, the Adam’s Mark Hotel, where he’s talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he told you in the parking lot about it?

A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were saying, you know, “Ken is really going to get it. He told me to lie about this check.”

I said, “Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you –“he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all responsibility is gone. “Hee-hee. Guess what?”

“Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot. Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving this check to Ken, Ken didn’t know where it was coming from, told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken’s fault?”

Q What did they say?

A They just looked at me like, “Oh, yeah, we forgot about that part.” Mmm, they were telling me things like, “We really got him now.”

I said, “But don’t you remember what we did?

Don’t you remember this is what really happened as opposed

447

to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what actually happened?”

Q What was their response?

A “Hmmm.” You know, just “Hmmm.” Like, “He’s not cooperating.”

Q So —

A So I told him, you know, “Now, you know we were up in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?”

THE COURT: What did he say?

THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was crazy. And they looked at each other and they changed the subject. We started talking about — Mmm — what else did we start talking about?

They brought up something else that — the meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want — “they” being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at some meeting that  happened where we all said, “Yeah, add Miscavige and don’t talk to anybody about it.” I am like, “Are you crazy? That didn’t happen either.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when you told them it didn’t happen —

448

A Then they said, “Look, let’s stop talking about this. Let’s go to dinner. We’ve made some progress.”

But, on the other hand, I’m thinking, “I have to talk to somebody from Scientology about this,” because obviously I’m looking at Bob and Stacy, they are just convinced that I’m just going to to-to-to, go along with this. They are just convinced.

They are telling me — Stacy said, “Look, we’re going to do this, it is unpleasant, but we’ll put all this behind us. You won’t have worry — money problems anymore, you’ll have plenty of money, you’ll be taken care of, you know, and –”

THE COURT: Who was going to give you the money?

THE WITNESS: The same — your Honor, the same person that has been, Bob Minton. They have been taking care of everything.

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So this was — then you went out to dinner?

A Yes. We went out to dinner and we just kind of changed the subject because it was getting heated. You know, I’m trying to find a scintilla of logic of what is going on here. And I can’t — I can’t even imagine — I can’t even make myself imagine what they are talking about

449

here.

Then I told Bob, I said, “Bob, isn’t this strange –”

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So Bob Minton said —

A I keep losing my train of thought.

Q I know. Sorry. Maybe we should read it back.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

(Last answer read back by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Repeat the last line again.

(Last answer reread by the reporter.)

A I got it. Because I started talking to them, I said, “Well, look, we had further discussions about Wollersheim, too.”

And I said, “Well, you have loaned Lawrence money to continue his case. Now you’re going after him. You have given all of this money against Ken Dandar. Now you are going after him. Don’t you think it is obvious what has happened here? Don’t you think it is going to be obvious to all concerned that something bad happened here?”

His response was, you know, “I’m not convinced.

Stacy is convinced this is going to work, Jesse. I’m not convinced about it. And I feel bad what is going on with Ken.”

450

My thing was, okay, I have to talk to somebody about Scientology about this because obviously these two things — I have a ring in my nose and they have a leash. I have to let Scientology know they’re not going to get away with this, this is not going to work.

THE COURT: Who was it — you are saying you had the ring through your nose and they had a leash?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this is an analogy of what seemingly was in their minds.

THE COURT: “Their” meaning Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Thought they had the leash and were leading you around.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You thought you had to tell Scientology that wasn’t accurate?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So I’m going along now with this whole thing. I said, “Look,” I told them, “Okay, I’ll do it. Okay, I’ll do it. Tell me –” because they said, “We have to bring you in. You have to meet with Mike Rinder now. You have to meet him face-to-face and go over this and you are going to be happy like us.”

451

“Okay. Okay.”

I tell you, I left that Adam’s Mark Hotel and I felt like, “Oh, my God.” You know, I would rather be doing anything. But ultimately I came home and I told my fiance, I said, “Look, it is over. I can’t do it anymore. I have to let Ken know. I have to call somebody.”

So I called Frank Oliver and told him the whole story of what had been going on the whole time and told him to please tell Ken, and I’m so sorry what happened to him.

I sat in Judge Baird’s courtroom and it upset me greatly, and asked him to arrange for you and I to meet, at which point you called me and we met the Sunday.

And I was supposed to meet with Bob and Stacy and Mike Rinder that time. And I told them, “Yes, I’m going to go along with your plan.”

And as I state here in my affidavit and I said to you to your face, I just want to see Mike Rinder’s face when he finds out that this isn’t going to work if he thinks he’s going to use me to do this thing.

So we have that meeting —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You and I had a meeting?

A You and I had the meeting. And Mr. Lirot was there.

Q Right. Right. And then you went to meet with Bob

452

and Stacy and, you thought, Mike Rinder?

A I thought Mike Rinder would be there. So what happens, now they moved hotels, they moved to the Radisson on Clearwater Beach. I guess they didn’t like the Adam’s Mark. So we are at the Radisson.

And he has this big sheaf of papers. And he said, “Jesse, you are unreal. Let me show you what Judge Schaeffer is saying about you.” And he read something that, to me, was totally uncomprehensible.

And he said, “See, she doesn’t trust you. You are not credible in her eyes. You are going to jail if you don’t do what we tell you to do.”

I said, “Bob, I think you’re the one going to jail. You’re the one lying. You’re the one that has already went in court and lied. And you want me to do it? I think you’re the one going to jail.”

Oh, my God, it gets hot. “Okay, let’s go down to dinner.”

Then I sit and I explained to them, I said, “Look, let me tell you specific experiences I have personally had making deals with Scientology. Let me tell you the results.”

I told them painstakingly some awful things if I even started to mention, I am sure Mr. Weinberg would be up in a flash.

453

MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, I would like to hear exactly what he said he told Mr. Minton about all these awful experiences.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Go ahead.

A I told him about the time I was removed from that position you saw me on the video with the sailor clothes, on and on. I told them about the circumstances about me being removed from there.

THE COURT: I’m not sure I saw that.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was the first day I was here, Miscavige introduces me, I’m telling him I’m from RTC and we are going to get the squirrels and what do the squirrels mean.

THE COURT: I remember.

MR. DANDAR: This is the New Year’s Eve speech.

THE COURT: Right. I remember now.

A Well, how I got removed from that position. I’m telling him the story where Miscavige wants to come in and get rid of Broeker because he thinks Broeker is crazy.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you were caught in between Broeker and Miscavige?

A Yes. And I told them, either one, “I don’t want anything to do with either one of you,” because when I got

454

involved myself in doing illegal activities, with listening to wiretapping and, you know, all of this crazy stuff I’m being shown how to do, I’m cutting my teeth, I am being broken into OSA, this is no Scientology that I ever knew
anything about.

You know, I don’t want nothing to do with this part of it. I didn’t even know it happened where they do this stuff to people.

Mmm, and then, you know, they — because I didn’t go along with that, I’m woken up at 5 o’clock in the morning, there is — there is Miscavige standing there, there is Lymon Sperlock, Ray Mithoff, Mike Sutter, Greg Wilheir (phonetic), his brother, security guards. There are about 12 people there.

I walk into Miscavige’s office, and there is Vicki Aznaran, the person that used to be inspector general of RTC, just crying in the corner, crumpled. They are all in their Sea Org uniforms just like, grrr. And I’m running around with something that looks like pajamas.

And he told me, “You didn’t go along with this, you wouldn’t follow me, now you are going to the RPF. You call me sir. You have been disrespectful.”

I stood up and told him to go to hell and went and tried to leave, at which point they tried to grab me. And me and Judge Moody has been through this story before so I’m

455

not telling a new story.

And I ran to my bedroom and I got a Mini 14 assault rifle I had been given for my birthday from L. Ron, and a .45, loaded in both, went back to that office, and I have them like this (indicating). And now they are standing there like — oh, Norman Starkey was there. And Norman says, “Jesse, you traitor. You can’t kill us all.”

And I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what, maybe not, but you will certainly be the first to go.”

And I’m standing there with these guns. Then Miscavige, because he and I used to be very good friends, too, he and I were very good friends at one point in time, he came over and he said, “Jesse, look, this is horrible, let’s stop this.”

He knew I wasn’t going to do anything. He walked right up to me. He told all those other jerks, “Get out of here, I have got to talk to Jesse.”

So we go down to the ship and we have a conversation. And he tells me, “Jesse, I know this all seems horrible now, but I need you to take this fall. I need you to be a head on a pike.” Head on a pike is a term in Scientology where somebody takes a fall for Scientology.

Put a head on the pike means if you are going through the gate, you end up like this, head on the pike.

“I want you to be the head on the pike.” He

456

wanted me to go to RPF. You know, Vicky and Rick really screwed things up with the Broekers and conspired about him, yik-yik and on and on. And he said, “Look, this will be over, you’ll be restored to your position,” on and on.

“Oh, okay, Dave, I do it.” We talked. I willingly once again go to the damn concentration camp.

Once again. Like eighteen months wasn’t long enough. Now I’m in there again.

What immediately happens? Miscavige starts issuing this horrible stuff about me, “He’s terrible, he’s a piece of crap.”

I stood up and walked out of that place, went to that base and said, “Look, if this is the way you want to play this, I’m going to the police, I’m going to go talk to them about what you do here.”

Oh, my God, all them issues are canceled. No, Jesse is good again. “Jesse, I’m sorry.” It is always someone’s fault, someone else acted in an unauthorized manner and put these things out.

Okay, he got rid of all of that stuff. I mean, I had to have something to show for being in Scientology 16 years. Every certificate I had — I had a wall from top to bottom, at least half of that, of everything I have ever done in Scientology used to be in my office.

And, Mmm, so I ended up going back to the RPF.

457

Oh, no, we straighten it all out again. That was one instance.

Just lying. Just can’t wait to get me in a position to where I am incapacitated to do something.

The second time I’m trying to leave Scientology, “Look, you guys can do this. Do whatever you want to do, you know. You want to do this activity? I don’t want to do it anymore. I just want to take me and my wife and leave, just be away.”

Well, of course that didn’t happen. I had to be degraded for four and a half months, locked up, sec-checked, told to divorce my wife. I have written about this, too. Finally, I leave.

THE COURT: What did you say, seg-checked?

THE WITNESS: Sec, security checked. Being interrogated on the E-meter.

A Well, what happens, as soon as I leave, they have someone that is a tail on me that works for this Scientology business who, because I won’t continue to do Scientology and their business, now I’m no good. You know, I have come in there and boomed that business. I was hired, I was on salary making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you talking about the artwork business?

A Yes, the artwork business.

458

would call me once or twice a week. Mike Sutter, RTC, “Jesse, how are you doing?”

So now they want me to do Scientology work where they want me to do cramming, do correction, yik-yik, on and on.

I said, “Look, I have left that. I’m not doing that anymore. Let me just do a regular job. I’m just doing a regular job now, not using the Scientology mess, and everything is going fine. You know, don’t fix something when it is not broke.”

No, that is not good enough, that gets reported to RTC. Now I have to get removed and now I have to go through endless crap.

It finally culminated losing my job, having to start my own business, being followed around every place in Minneapolis, because I travel a lot. Then one day I found a bag right outside my hotel room, like this (indicating), Rock cocaine.

THE COURT: How big?

THE WITNESS: Huh?

THE COURT: You are showing it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Tell —

A Like this (indicating).

THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the

459

size of a baseball?

THE WITNESS: About the size of a softball.

THE COURT: About the size of a softball?

THE WITNESS: With individually little crack cocaines.

A And I’m like, uh-uh, this is it.

So, to me, I’d already been through enough betrayal with Scientology. And I explained this to them.

THE COURT: This is just — all that cocaine just sitting outside your hotel room?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And the fact of the matter is, your Honor, it is known that I had, you know, smoked marijuana before or whatever, but if anyone in my family — because my brother tried it — does cocaine, he did it, had a double aneurysm. I sat in the hospital a month while they cut off his dreadlocks, peeled his skin back, cut his scalp, went through his brain, cauterized two microscopic veins because his head exploded from fooling around with crap, and put it all back together.

And the reason they said it happened to him, something genetically in our family that makes those veins do that. What do I want to do with cocaine

460

for? It is just —

THE COURT: I think we’re far afield.

MR. WEINBERG: Is this what — all these incidents you told Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m telling all this to Mr. Minton. I said, “In the end you may think –” and I told him, “As you sit here you can’t tell me when Scientology is going to be done with you. When are they going to be finished having you done whatever they want you to do? All you know, you have Wollersheim and you have McPherson.”

He said, “Jesse, you are being unreal.” He got mad. He cursed at me and said something. And his last words were, “Well, fuck it, you’re going to jail.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you use the same language back at him?

A I said, “Bob, I’m sorry, you’re going to jail.

Stacy, you’re going to jail. I’m not having anything to do with this.”

I got up — he asked me to leave. He said, “Get out.”

I said, “Fine.”

Stacy follows me in the parking lot. She said, “You know, after all of the things Bob has done for you,

461

this is how you treat him?”

I’m looking, “What in the hell has Bob done for me that I have to perjure myself, I have to become a criminal because he thinks this is what I got to do to save him?

Uh-uh. He’s not done anything for me. And there is only one person can sell my soul. That is me. I already sold my soul to this organization one time and I got it back. Bob Minton is in no position to offer my soul to them.”

And I told her that. And we really haven’t talked that much since.

Q Well, now, was there a point in time when Bob Minton was coming over to your house after that for barbecue?

A Well, again, we have been friends a long time. This was another bridge of disagreement, blowup, everybody cursing, but we have such history. Even as I sit here today, I can’t fathom not talking to him once or twice a week.

So, you know, we’re talking again.

“Look –” Stacy said, “Look, this is going to blow over with or without you. We’re going to make sure.”

So I said, “Okay, well, then if we’re not doing this, could we still be friends?”

They love to come over to the house. We barbecue and have little parties. “Sure.”

462

But then he called his lawyer and he was told not to come.

Q This is while the hearing is going on in this courtroom?

A Yes. They want to tell me what is going on. They want me to be a part of it because I have been since the beginning. But I can’t because of what they’re doing.

Q Did Bob Minton want to close down the LMT?

A No.

Q Whose idea was that?

A I don’t think it was any one person’s idea. Well, if it was anybody’s idea, I think it was Stacy’s, because the LMT was being used as a vehicle to get to Bob. And —

THE COURT: I think it sounds — this must be allowed to start at 4:30, but it is giving me a headache. Is this a good stopping point?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes — I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: This would be — this would be fine.

THE COURT: They probably are allowed to start up at 4:30.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought I was having a ringing in my ears, which I do have an ear issue.

THE COURT: So we’ll go ahead and quit. We’ll start up at 9 o’clock. Mr. Prince —

463

MR. WEINBERG: Remember you said ten?

THE COURT: Oh, I did. Ten o’clock tomorrow.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. I think I told you this before, but if I didn’t, let me remind you: While you are on the witness stand, I did give you permission to speak with Mr. Dandar because of the long break, but now, like overnight,  you and he can’t talk.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay? I mean, you can talk about something else, but you can’t talk anything about your testimony or about this case. Of course you can’t talk to the other side, you can’t talk to anybody while you are on the stand about this case or your testimony. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand that.

THE COURT: We shall be in recess.

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have one issue on the E-Mails. And I’ll be really quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: There are, to my understanding, about 3,000 E-Mails. And during the break —

THE COURT: Have you-all come up with any agreement as to a list?

464

MR. FUGATE: That is what I want to talk to you about. I went over to see, there is a list that prints out all of the ones that they were able to recover from the various hard drives. And I have found a series of — on that list of E-Mails that related to Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, and I have left a list of those with Mr. Keane.

And then I understand that Mr. Dandar indicated that those shouldn’t be produced because Ms. Greenway is a consultant. And, you know, in this hearing he said she wasn’t.

I don’t really care what she is today. But back during the time that she was at LMT prior to this hearing beginning, which is where all these E-Mails generate from, I don’t think they would be covered as a consultant —

THE COURT: Counsel, I can’t deal with something that won’t be agreed to with this noise. That is why I stopped this hearing. We’ll take this up first thing in the morning, and hopefully we won’t have any noise and we’ll get it done then.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. Bring it to my attention then.

MR. FUGATE: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.

465

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)

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 9th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
LYNNE J. IDE, RMR

Notes

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

0159

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

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

vs.

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

CASE NO. 00-5682-CI-11

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

Testimony of Jesse Prince.1

VOLUME 2

DATE: July 8, 2002.

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

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

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

160

APPEARANCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0161

INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS

   PAGE           LINE

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

0162

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

[… Other court business]

0191

THE COURT: I understand that. Take it up.

Mr. Prince —

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes, we are.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

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

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

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

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

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

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

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

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

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

0194

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

MR. DANDAR: Right.

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

MR. DANDAR: I do —

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

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

Can you identify that document?

A Yes.

0195

Q And what is it?

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

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

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

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

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

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

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

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

0196

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

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

Q I hope not.

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

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

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

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

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

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

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

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

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

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

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

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

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

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

0200

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

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

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

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

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

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

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

0202

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

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

0203

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

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

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

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

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

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

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

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

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

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

Excuse me.

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

0205

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

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

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

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

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

A Yes.

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

0206

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

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

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

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

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

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

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

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

THE COURT: At what?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

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

Q All right.

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

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

0208

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

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

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

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

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

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

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

0209

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

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

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

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

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

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

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

0210

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

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

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

0211

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

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

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

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

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

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

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

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

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

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

0215

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

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

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

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

0216

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

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

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

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

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

0217

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

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

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

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

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

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

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

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

0218

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

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

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

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

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

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

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

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

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

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

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

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

0224

play in Pinellas County?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

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

THE COURT: All right.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

0225

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

A Fair game?

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

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

Q All right. And —

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

THE COURT: I think —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

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

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

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

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

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

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

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

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

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

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

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

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

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

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

(Simultaneous speakers.)

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

0229

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

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

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

THE WITNESS: No.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

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

0230

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

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

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

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

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

0233

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

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

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

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

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

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

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

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

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

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

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

THE COURT: Well —

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

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

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

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

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

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

0237

explain this to us.

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

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

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

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

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

0238

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

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

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

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

THE WITNESS: Well —

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Okay.

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

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

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

0239

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0240

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

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

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

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

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

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

THE COURT: The what division?

THE WITNESS: The 1st, the number 1 —

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

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

0242

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

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

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

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

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

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

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

0243

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

THE COURT: Well —

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

0244

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

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

0245

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

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

0246

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

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

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

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

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

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

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

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Very much so.

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

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

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

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

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

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

0250

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

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

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Right.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Could you point out —

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

THE COURT: Did you say without first

0251

discussing it with an ethics officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

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

0252

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

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: So —

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

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

0253

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

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

0254

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

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

A I was on vacation —

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

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

0255

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

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

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

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

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

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

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

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

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

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

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

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

0258

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

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

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

0259

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

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

0260

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

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

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

A Yes, I did.

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

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

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

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

A Correct.

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

A Yes, I did.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: You may.

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

0262

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0263

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

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

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

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

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

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

0264

is now a party.”

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

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

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

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

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

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

THE COURT: Yes.

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

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

0265

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

THE COURT: Yes.

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

THE COURT: Did you find that?

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

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

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

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

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

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

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

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A That’s something different.

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

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

A Correct.

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

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A No, I did not.

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

A Yes, I did.

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes, I do.

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

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

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

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

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

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

0271

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

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

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

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

0272

and —

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

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

A Yes, I did.

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

A No, they do not.

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

A No, they do not.

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

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

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

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

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

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

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

0275

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

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

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

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

A No, there is not.

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

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

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A Well —

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

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

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

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

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

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

THE COURT: That’s true.

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

0279

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

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

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

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

0280

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

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

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

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

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

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

A Yes, I am.

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

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

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

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

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

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

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

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

0283

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And what is that?

A That PT/SP 5package that was —

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

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

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

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

MR. DANDAR: — by other witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

0284

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

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

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

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

0286

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Well —

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

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

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

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

Q To —

0287

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

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

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

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

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

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

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

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

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

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

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

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

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

0289

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

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

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

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

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

0290

far as to die.

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

THE WITNESS: Sure.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

A To my knowledge, no.

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

A Yes.

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

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

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

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

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

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

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

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

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

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

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

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

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

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

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

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

0294

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

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

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

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

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

0296

THE COURT: All right.

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

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

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

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

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

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

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

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

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

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

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

0299

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

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

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

0300

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

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yes.

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

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

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

0302

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

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

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

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

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

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Okay.

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

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

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

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

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

THE COURT: Okay. But that —

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

THE COURT: Let’s assume — Slow down.

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

0305

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

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

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

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — okay?

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

THE COURT: Which little girl we talking about

0306

now?

THE WITNESS: Terese, the one —

THE COURT: The one that you watched.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She didn’t know. She —

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

THE WITNESS: Completely.

THE COURT: Crazy.

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

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — wild things.

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

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

0307

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

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

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

She’s still crazy.

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

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

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

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

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

0308

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

THE COURT: Well, what —

THE WITNESS: — to assume that —

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

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

0309

and — you know, it was a huge difference.

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

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, you could —

THE COURT: Could it be?

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

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

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

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

0310

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

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

You see —

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

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Everybody knows that.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

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

THE WITNESS: Right.

0311

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

THE WITNESS: Your Honor —

THE COURT: — that has a mental lapse.

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

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

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

0312

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

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

Because they make you sign waivers and releases which say, “The church did not cause your condition. The church did not contribute to your condition. The church is not liable or responsible for what happened to you.”

And you agree to that, and you sign it, and then you’re on your way.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, like the lady did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But she is a Scientologist.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so — Okay. I understand what you’re saying; that — that perhaps Lisa McPherson didn’t know what was going to happen to her, is what you’re basically saying.

THE WITNESS: None of them do.

THE COURT: Okay. Now — okay. I’ll take your word for that for the sake of your testimony. How do you get from that — okay. Let’s assume

0313

there was some gross negligence going on here. She wanted to leave.

THE WITNESS: You —

THE COURT: Which there’s already been a judge that says there’s none of this. But let’s assume that she says, “I want to leave.” They say, “You’re not going to leave.” “I want to leave.” “You’re not going to leave.”

One of two things happened to Lisa McPherson, based on her doctors and her experts and the experts for the church: Either she became severely dehydrated and that caused this embolism to break loose and it damaged her lungs and she became unable to breath, I guess, and she died; or there was no real dehydration connected with it, except perhaps slight, and the same embolism broke loose and lodged in her lung in some fashion and she died.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So it’s one or the other. One or the other things happened to her, medically —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Now — so that’s a given, okay?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0314

THE COURT: So how do you leap from the fact, in your mind, she wanted to leave and they said, “No,” to the fact that she died from one of those causes, through anything other than either no negligence, slight negligence, or really gross, flagrant negligence? How do you jump from point A to point B by saying that David Miscavige said, “Kill this woman”?

THE WITNESS: Or, “Let her die.”

THE COURT: Or, “Let her die”?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Now, you got to listen.

I’m going to explain this to you, okay?

THE COURT: Okay. I’m listening.

THE WITNESS: Now, again by their own policy, this woman first should have been examined by a medical doctor to see if the insanity itself was coming as a result of some medical condition.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: That was not determined when she went to the hospital because it was determined she was not insane.

So if she did get worse when she was at the Ft. Harrison, then the next thing that they should have done was to take her to get her medically examined to see if there was a medical reason for this

0315

behavior.

THE COURT: And you did that in your case? In the case where you handled the introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, yeah. They had a doctor come out. Sure. They had a doctor come out. Dr. Gene Dink came out to be with her. He examined her.

THE COURT: Was this a real doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I mean — by that I mean a licensed doctor? ‘Cause they had doctors with Lisa McPherson too, except they weren’t —

THE WITNESS: This was —

THE COURT: — licensed.

THE WITNESS: — L. Ron Hubbard’s doctor, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, was this a licensed doctor?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Gene Dink, Los Angeles, California.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Worked with the one that we have.

THE COURT: So — so as I recall, Ms. Arundo (sic) — and I may be wrong on this, but as I recall

0316

she was a doctor licensed somewhere else. There was another doctor, one — the head of the medical liaison, who had been a doctor.

MR. DANDAR: And lost her license.

THE COURT: And lost her license.

MR. DANDAR: Arrunada’s from Mexico and was never licensed.

THE COURT: Okay. But Ms. — but what’s Ms. — please give me the name.

MR. DANDAR: Johnson.

THE COURT: Ms. Johnson was a physician who had lost her license, who presumably was in charge. But — okay. You say they should have taken her to a doctor.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. They —

THE COURT: Or had a doctor come in.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Like they did in your case.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Your case, meaning the case where you were directly involved.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: And they didn’t do that. Okay. What else?

THE WITNESS: Well, we have to wonder why they

0317

didn’t do that.

Now, I hate to be — your Honor, you know, irrespective of what the defendants believe in this case, it brings me no great joy to — to malign them or say horrible things about them.

But because I’ve been there and because I’ve seen what happens and because I’ve seen what they do, it is my belief because when they brought this girl back from the hospital, she was not insane. She wasn’t diagnosed as that. She went insane there. She wanted to leave. She said, “I want to go.” They said, “No, you can’t go. You got a problem. We’re diagnosing you. Forget what the doctor said. We’re going to do it.”

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: She began to struggle. She began to fight. At that point, it becomes a OSA matter. It was already an OSA matter.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. A what matter?

THE WITNESS: O-S-A. OSA. Office of —

THE COURT: OSA.

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: For several reasons now: One, because she apparently left the hotel,

0318

drove around and had a minor accident, took her clothes off, told people that she needed help.

Okay. That in and of itself was something that drew attention to Scientology that was non-optimum. And in Scientology, that is called a flap. An unpredicted activity that now involves Scientology’s reputation somehow.

Now, here is a person, Lisa McPherson, who just two months earlier attested to the state of clear. She stood in front of every Scientologist at the mecca of technical perfection, their highest level, their highest office of — of tech, and told everyone that, “I no longer have a reactive mind. I no longer have,” you know, “have problems with the past that now come up. I’m totally free from the past and I’m ready to move on.”

In other words, she was what they call in Scientologist (sic) — not a Homo sapien, but they call it a Homo novis. Homo novis in Scientology is a step above Homo sapiens.

So now this person is literally a demigod two months ago. Now she’s screaming in a room, insane, crazy.

This is a problem. This is a problem that this woman took her clothes off, walking down the street, and — and OSA had to get involved and, you know, they rushed down there, “Oh, my God.” They bring

0319

her back. She’s not diagnosed as being crazy. They just give her — she wants to get some help. She’s got something on her mind. Okay. So she comes back.

It is my contention that she wanted to leave, just like she had been saying. And they said, “No.” And they put her on the introspection rundown and she went over the edge and she got crazy. Well, before that she made many threats.

Now, it is Scientology’s belief that once you start these processes — once you start any process  in Scientology, you take it to the end. It’s called processing. The way out is the way through. What turns it on or turn it off. Get the preclear through it. Whatever. In other words, keep that auditing going until the end result happens.

THE COURT: Or get the person in the introspection rundown fit for auditing. That is part of the preliminary process.

THE WITNESS: Well, the person is fit for auditing after they’ve had one eight-hour period of sleep. Okay? You got — you know, you got that step 0, step 00.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: The first thing that normally

0320

happens with a person that gets into that state of mind, they don’t sleep for days, they can’t sleep, they’re up — a part of auditing in Scientology is, you have to have had sufficient rest to get audited.

So —

And again, in the instance where I did introspection rundown with the person, the first time that woman — after she was given Valium or whatever they gave her to put her to sleep, the first time she had an 8-hour period of time to sleep —

(The reporter interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: Slow down.

THE REPORTER: After they gave her —

THE WITNESS: — or chloral hydrate or whatever they give them to go to sleep, the first time eight hours pass and that person wakes up, the auditor is there immediately to start.

THE COURT: I think they tried to bring an auditor into Lisa McPherson and she wasn’t capable.

THE WITNESS: Well, I heard —

THE COURT: I mean, I think I remember that.

THE WITNESS: — I heard the story that, you know, she licked the cans and — you know, that

0321

means nothing.

An auditor is trained — I don’t care if you take the cans and throw them across the room. An auditor is trained to stand up, take those cans, put them back in the person’s hands and get them to do what you want them to do. It’s called model session. You know, that’s part of the same —

THE REPORTER: Slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: — auditor series you have. Model session. Which talks about how to conduct a session.

THE COURT: That’s tough to do if the person is still in a psychological state, that’s crazy.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — and you’re assuming that that’s the case. But the doctor didn’t assume that when she was let out.

THE COURT: Well, I’m assuming that’s the case because of the reports I read.

THE WITNESS: You know — well, you know, after —

THE COURT: Just like I’m assuming the lady that you watched after, when she barked like a dog and carried on, was crazy; like Stacy Brooks said she was crazy and like I think you said she was crazy.

0322

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Crazy in the sense that I know — would think someone was crazy; not medically.

THE WITNESS: A danger to themselves or other people.

THE COURT: Not somebody you would want out on the street.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Okay. So again, she is in a situation now where she’s drawn into the local public attention. They’ve been promised by the doctors that she’ll be okay. Turn her over to Judy Fontana. They don’t turn her over to Judy. Because I think these things all mean in some way she was not agreeing with what was happening to her. And because she wasn’t agreeing and she wanted to leave, it got wild. It intensified.

Now, Scientology’s belief is, you know —

THE COURT: I think I can go along with you there. I mean, I think that there’s enough in that folder to realize she was not thinking clearly. She may have wanted to leave. You know, the lady you took care of may have wanted to leave. I mean, they — they act irrational, right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

0323

THE COURT: And the idea is they can’t leave.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s say I accept that —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay? She wants to leave, they’re saying, “No, you’re not able to leave yet.”

She’s getting more and more upset.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: She wants to leave.

How do we know they’re still not trying the introspection rundown to make her well?

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: What —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: I think —

THE COURT: So —

THE WITNESS: — they were doing it. But I think that she had decided she had had enough. You see — and the reason why I say that is because, if you look at this affidavit, she keeps telling them, “I had enough. I don’t want any more auditing. This is aggravating my condition. It’s making me worse.”

This is what she’s saying in her

0324

own words, the only thing she was able to say before she died. And in which whole thing, if you read this line by line in the preclear folder, “This is making me worse. I’m not getting better.”

So what do they do? Give her more auditing. Well, she doesn’t want that.

THE COURT: I will say, for the sake of this hearing, that I — I can accept that.

THE WITNESS: So because she doesn’t want it, and because she has no way to leave, because she’s actually under guard — I mean, we have a statement by Paul Kellerhals where he actually jumps on top of her and holds her down. You know, you have people not speaking to a person, keeping her in a room — I mean, that, to me, in retrospect, after my Scientology experience, is something that would make a person, if they weren’t over the edge, would certainly push them over the edge.

THE COURT: But you did that when you took care of the lady you took care of.

THE WITNESS: No. I talked to her. I did not not talk to her.

THE COURT: Was that — were you breaking the rules?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was breaking the rules.

0325

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know that somebody else might not have broken the rules.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t know that either.

THE COURT: All right. So let’s take — we really need to break for lunch.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. She wants to leave. They say, “No.” She wants to leave, they say, “No.” And let’s assume that they’re saying “no” because they believe that she’s not finished the introspection rundown, and they’re going to get her finished.

Just like —

THE WITNESS: Yeah. And they do believe that.

Right.

THE COURT: All right. So now, one of two things happens at some point in time: Either she’s not getting enough water, right; and so she’s not getting enough water or whatever, and they should have known better, and they should have given her more water, and she reaches this miserable state and dies.

Or she is getting enough water and a pulmonary — you know, an embolus in her leg breaks loose, goes to her lungs and kills her. One of those two things happened at the end of this. And it was — it was from the embolism, right?

0326

And you wouldn’t have known that. They wouldn’t have known that. There wasn’t a worker there that would have known that. Nobody. These are the silent — silent killers —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — okay?

So one of those two things happened, and that’s a fact.

How do you reach the conclusion that anywhere along the line it was, “We’re going to keep her here until the embolism we don’t even know about breaks loose”?

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, that’s ridiculous, your Honor.

THE COURT: Of course it is.

THE WITNESS: Let me — you got to let me finish —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — the whole thing.

THE COURT: I’m going to do that, but we’re going to take a lunch break first —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — all right?

All right. It’s 12:20. Let’s be in recess until 1:30.

0327

(A recess was taken at 12:23 p.m.)

0328

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this 8th day of July, 2002.

______________________________
DONNA M. KANABAY, RMR, CRR

Notes

  1. Document source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/A-007-070802-Prince-V2.html
  2. Caroline Letkeman; Nancy Many.
  3. Judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer
  4. Elliot J. Abelson
  5. Should be “PTS/SP.” Key documents: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/documents/key-documents-sp-doctrine

Declaration of Michael Lee Hertzberg (September 20, 1999)

Gerald L. Chaleff, SBN 39552
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017-5832
Telephone: (213) 629-2020

William. T. Drescher, SBN 93737
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM T. DRESCHER
PMB 338
23679 Calabasas Road
Calabasas, California 93102-1502
Telephone: (818) 349-8100
Attorneys for Non-Party
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

Samuel D. Rosen, pro hac vice
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
399 Park Avenue, 3 1 st Floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
Telephone: (212) 318-6000

Alan K. Steinbrecher, SBN 79201
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
555 South Flower Street, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-2371
Telephone: (213) 683-6000
Attorneys for Non-Party
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

LARRY WOLLERSHEIM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C 332 027

DECLARATION OF
MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG
1

DATE: October 15, 1999
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: 24
Judge Charles W. McCoy, Jr.

I, Michael Lee Hertzberg, hereby declare and state:

1. I am an attorney, admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the District of Columbia Bar, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I make the following statement of my own personal knowledge, and if called to testify thereto, I could and would do so competently.

2. I was counsel of record in Aznaran v. Church of Scientology of California, et al. I was present in May of 1994 in Dallas, Texas when Vicki Aznaran settled her then pending litigation against several churches of Scientology and related organizations. I was present to provide legal advice to the representatives of the defendants who were negotiating directly with Ms. Aznaran. She was represented by her attorney, Karen MacRae of Dallas.

3. On May 19, 1994 when Ms. Aznaran settled her litigation, she executed several declarations. Annexed hereto as Exhibits A – E are true and correct copies of the declarations executed by Ms. Aznaran. Her declarations cover a wide range of subjects. The most comprehensive declaration is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. This declaration provides an overview of her experience as a litigant against churches of Scientology, tactics used by individuals litigating against churches of Scientology, specific allegations from her complaint that she formally repudiated and ordered her attorneys to withdraw, the payment of thousands of dollars to witnesses for sworn statements against the churches of Scientology, and the addition of eleven pages of one of Ms. Aznaran’s declarations by an attorney representing opponents of Scientology, Graham Berry.

4. The remaining declarations (Exhibits B – E), cover specific topics related to Ms. Aznaran’s experiences as a litigant against churches of Scientology. Specifically, these declarations cover the following topics:

– Litigation tactics by Lawrence Wollersheim and Gerry Armstrong (Exhibit B);

– A specific refutation of claims that her testimony supports the contention that Church officials have destroyed documents in litigation (Exhibit C;

– Ms. Aznaran’s knowledge regarding Stacy Young (one of Mr. Wollersheim’s witnesses) (Exhibit D);

– In this declaration Ms. Aznaran also repudiates allegations of corporate irregularities similar to those being made in the instant case (Exhibit A);

– A declaration in which Ms. Aznaran explains why she executed the other declarations and her response to what she anticipates other apostates will say about her for having revealed their tactics (Exhibit E).

5. I invite the Court’s attention to particular passages relevant to the claims at issue here. Ms. Aznaran signed her declarations in May 1994, a year after her most recent statement cited by Wollersheim in support of his motion. In one declaration Ms. Aznaran explains how witnesses have been conditioned to sign affidavits to support whatever arguments opponents of churches of Scientology wish to “prove”:

The abusive device most consistently utilized by litigants and counsel adverse to the Church occurs in connection with the filing of declarations or affidavits. It is common knowledge among the stable of disaffected ex-Scientologists who supply such sworn statements that the attorneys dictate the desired content of such testimony with the primary, often sole, purpose of presenting inflammatory accusations that prejudice the Church in the eyes of the court. In such declarations or affidavits, context, the truth, and relevance to the issues in the case are disregarded altogether. As time has passed and this technique has evolved, anti-Church litigants and their counsel have become more and more emboldened in making such declarations and affidavits because the tactic has proven to be so effective in poisoning courts and juries against the Church.

Thus, it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. There is a group or “team” of anti-Scientology witnesses who are being paid for their testimony, and based on my experience, this testimony is being altered and falsified, either by the witnesses themselves or the attorneys. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12, 17, 19.)

6. Ms. Aznaran even predicted that the attached declarations would be attacked by adverse litigants whose litigation tactics she has exposed:

On May 19, 1994, my husband and I each executed a series of declarations under penalty of perjury addressing a variety of issues. Among those declarations are one of mine that demonstrates that perhaps the most common litigation ploy that is used against Churches of Scientology is for opponents to submit false, inflammatory and accusatory declarations which make wild accusations irrespective of their falsity, lack of relevance, or lack of first hand knowledge.

I am executing this declaration on May 19, 1994 because I am certain that litigation opponents of the Church will react to one or more of my other contemporaneously dated declarations in precisely the fashion I describe in the preceding paragraph.

(Ex. E, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 2, 3.)

7. Ms. Aznaran identifies Stacy Young as employed by Graham Berry, Mr. Leipold’s former co-counsel in Wollersheim, to create inaccurate affidavits:

I know from subsequent conversations I have had that Andre Tabayoyon is similarly employed, as are Vaughn and Stacy Young and others, each paid to create declarations for Mr. Berry when he needs them. On the basis of my knowledge of the Church and the declarants, I can state that these individuals are not “experts” ‘in any recognized sense of the word as I understand it. They are nothing more than witnesses who are being paid to make sworn statements against the Church. More than just being paid, they are actually employed by Mr. Berry as a source of signed declarations of testimony or as a ” source” of allegations, the need for such is decided by him. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 22.)

That Vaughn and Stacy Young are experts is not true. They are being called experts not due to expertise in Scientology but in order to collect insurance money for their testimony.

What this creates, and what the Youngs are part of, is a stable of people who, for pay, write declarations. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 7, 8.)

8. Ms. Aznaran also swore to Ms. Young’s lack of knowledge of inside workings of churches of Scientology, both corporately and ecclesiastically:

In my staff capacities in the early 1980s, and later in my executive positions in the Religious Technology Center, I was directly or closely involved in meetings with senior staff members of various Church corporations. These senior staff made significant or major decisions which affected the future of the Church. I know that neither Vaughn nor Stacy Young were included in such senior decision-making processes. They were never senior or key Church executives. They were not consulted regarding, nor were they privy to, the meetings where major issues were discussed an decisions made.

I am informed that the Youngs have made claims to specialized knowledge about the corporate status and structure of the Church. Such claims are false. Neither of the Youngs were in a position to have detailed knowledge of the corporate and fiscal structures and operations of any Church of Scientology. In fact, Vaughn Young worked in the area of Public Relations for the entire time that I was acquainted with him. Stacy was primarily a writer in the Church public relations department. (Ex. D, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 4, 5.)

9. Ms. Aznaran repudiated allegations of corporate irregularities that were contained in her complaint against the Church of Scientology of California. These allegations are very similar to those being made by Wollersheim in the instant case:

Paragraph 16 of the complaint included the allegation that I had been employed as a “missionaire” to remove assets of Defendant Church of Scientology of California to overseas trusts where they could not be accessed. This allegation was false, and it was not an allegation that either my husband or I requested be included in the complaint….

It was also alleged in paragraph 16 of the complaint that I was employed as a”missionaire” to “set up sham corporate structures to evade prosecution generally.” This allegation is also false. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8, 9.)

10. In another sworn declaration Ms. Aznaran identifies Wollersheim witness Gerald Armstrong as the source of a litigation technique utilized by this small group of witnesses:

The fundamental premise upon which the Church’s adversaries and their lawyers operate is the likelihood that courts and juries are willing to believe any allegation made against the Church by a former member, without regard to plausibility, contrary evidence or the true facts. That concept was most succinctly expressed, on videotape, by anti-Scientology litigant, Gerald Armstrong, when he state that a lack of documents or evidence was no impediment to litigating against the Church when the litigant can “just allege it.” The active pursuit of that litigation approach has now led to the formation of a small group of disaffected Scientologists who are now employed by an even smaller number of attorneys who are making a practice of litigating against the Church. This stable of witnesses can be relied upon to furnish ” corroboration” for any allegation which an attorney wishes to make against the Church in pleadings, at deposition, in affidavits, and ultimately in trial testimony. (Ex. A, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 5.)

11. Ms. Aznaran even addressed Larry Wollersheim’s allegations:

While I was in the Church I witnessed the “Fair Game” allegations made by Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim in their litigation against the Church. My position in the church at the time gave me broad access to what was occurring and I would have known were the allegations made by Armstrong and Wollersheim true. Wollersheim, for example, made the allegation that a pipe bomb was found on his parent’s lawn and, without any corroboration, blamed the Church. I know from my own personal knowledge that this outrageous allegation of Church involvement is absolutely false. During the Wollersheim trial, rumors began to spread throughout the trial courtroom that Judge Ronald Swearinger had been followed, his tires had been slashed, and his pet dog drowned, and that the Church was responsible for that supposed activity. All of those allegations of Church complicity were false, as I now personally attest. Armstrong alleged the Church was trying to kill him and this allegation was just made up. I know of its falsity of my own personal knowledge. Both Armstrong and Wollersheim, continue to make the same type of outrageous allegations of Fair Game to forward their litigation to this day, due ‘in no small measure to the fact that they practiced Fair Game so effectively in their earlier, victorious litigation against the Church.” (Ex. B, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 12.)

12. An allegation relied upon by Wollersheim is that David Miscavige ordered Vicki Aznaran and Jesse Prince to destroy documents, including documents compelled to be produced in this case. However, Ms. Aznaran states in another declaration:

During the time I was President of RTC, we fully complied to all discovery requests, I have never received an order from David Miscavige, Norman Starkey or Lyman Spurlock to destro any documents related to litigation and I have no reason to believe that the Church would destroy any documents related to the consolidated cases… (Ex. C, Declaration of Vicki Aznaran; 8.)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 20th day of September, 1999 at ______________.

MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG

Notes

  1. Document source: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/Aznaran.htm

Jesse Prince: No conscience, no church (September 29, 1998)

Title: No conscience, no church1
Author: jesse77@gte.net (Jesse Prince)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:15:12 GMT

During September, 1982, through the Spring of 1987, I attended  biweekly
meetings at Author Services, Inc. (ASI), which at the time was located in
the 6700 block of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, CA.

From late 1982 until the spring of 1983 I held an executive position in the
Religious Technology Center (RTC) titled Inspector General Cramming
Officer.  During the spring of 1983 I was promoted to Inspector General
External and Treasurer on the board of directors of  the Religious
Technology Center.  There were two other board members; Vicki Aznaran,
Inspector General and President, and Warren Mc Shane, executive over legal
matters concerning RTC, was a member.  David Micavage, Norman Starkey and
Lyman Spurlock were the trustees of RTC.  It was during this time that I
learned the true nature of Scientology management and how it ran its
affairs.

The meetings I attended at ASI were always called and run by David
Miscavige. It was here  that I learned that David Miscavige was a managing
agent of the various Scientology corporations, including but not limited to
ASI, RTC and Church of Scientology International (CSI).  Each senior
executive of RTC, CSI and ASI met once or twice a week to give a report
concerning each of the above corporations.  This in fact was the inner
circle of Scientology’s elite and as a result of my position I was involved
in and received communications concerning Scientology’s most secret
operations.

During my time as an executive and senior executive in RTC, David Miscavige
was the decision maker concerning all legal suits filed by any of
Scientology’s corporations. Miscavige had complete authority concerning all
litigation within Scientology, and he made the final decisions as to how
each case would be litigated as well as which lawyers would be used in each
and every case. Miscavige had two Scientology staff, Marty Rathbun and
Lyman Spurlock, who assisted in Scientology litigation matters, but
Miscavige always made the final decisions. CSI majorly operated on orders
from LRH, which were called advices to avoid legal problems for himself and
Scientology, since he supposedly had not managed any of the corporations of
Scientology since 1966, when he had officially resigned as Executive
Director.

ASI served as LRH’s literary agency, but it was really a clearing house for
his orders into the various Scientology corporations and organizations,
which included but was not limited to RTC, CSI, CSC, Flag Land Base, CST
and the Office of Special Affairs (formerly the Guardian’s Office).
Miscavige was the person responsible for ensuring the execution of LRH
orders in these various corporations, until LRH’s death in 1986. ASI and
some of its staff  members exercised complete financial authority over
other church entities. Fran Harris, a staff member of ASI, was responsible
for the gross income of the organization.

ASI received its operating expenses from commissions it received for
collection of royalties owed to LRH based on moneys collected from LRH book
outlets. Some time ago, LRH wrote a policy letter entitled “Minimum Book
Stocks” which in effect placed a minimum on the amount of books each
Scientology org had to have. Bridge Publications is the organization
responsible for enforcing the minimum book stocks policy.

More often than not, on orders from Miscavige to get the stats up, Fran
Harris would bypass Bridge Publications and go direct to org finance
personnel and demand that the orgs buy books from BPI so that ASI would get
its weekly commissions.  Fran enforced her demands by using lower
conditions, ethics hearings, comm evs and just plain intimidation to make
the nonprofit scientology orgs pay money to BPI, often before the org had
even had a chance to feed and clothe its staff. BPI never saw much of this
money itself, as it was considered that BPI owed a debt to ASI going back
to before ASI was ever incorporated.  This action, which went on every
week, was a known criminal act by all concerned, as not only did it violate
Scientology’s own policy of corporate integrity, it also violated the laws
of the land.

ASI is a for-profit corporation and paid its staff minimum wage plus a
bonus based on royalties collected. Every week ASI had to get more and more
money in order to keep its stats up to receive bonuses. ASI staff were in
fact Sea Org members that were paid very well when you consider the average
Sea Org member was paid $24.00 per week. It was considered a privilege to
be on staff at ASI and the staff were encouraged  not to diskuss with other
Sea Org members what they were paid weekly in order not to create a rift
among Sea Org members.

In 1984 David Miscavige received word there was an IRS criminal
investigation pending with the threat of a raid in Los Angeles. Fran Harris
was flown out of the country and sent to Copenhagen, Denmark, to avoid
possible interrogation by IRS officials. This was just the beginning of the
“clean up” most senior executives executed within various Scientology
corporations. One morning I awoke to find my senior, Vicki Aznaran, her
husband Rick Aznaran, who was head of all security for Scientology, and
Foster Tompkins, executive over INCOMM, removing evidence from hard disk
drives that proved LRH was in fact the managing agent of Scientology as
well as other sensitive information. Vicki and the others had been up most
of the night purging computer files and creating back-up disks to be stored
at confidential storage sights.

At this time I was ordered to verify that other corporations had purged
their files of LRH “advices.” The corporations concerned were RTC, CSI and
CSC. I did in fact verify that no evidence of LRH advices existed. This was
accomplished by gathering up all hard copy advices and getting them mulched
at a paper treatment plant located near Riverside, CA. Back-up copies of
these advices were placed in secret unknown storage facilities by head of
security, Rick Aznaran. The only people who knew these locations were Rick,
the security chief, whose name was Jackson, DM and Norman Starkey.

From 1982 through 1986, LRH would use a dictaphone to dictate his orders to
the various Scientology corporations. The tapes from the dictation would be
delivered by LRH’s top aides Pat or Annie Broeker to the Scientology
location at Gilman Hot Springs. At this location a special unit, headed by
a staff member named Susie Bennick, would transcribe the tapes and issue
hard copy dispatches to various executives and staff of ASI, RTC, CSI, CST
and CSC.  Often, these dispatches had certain time deadlines for compliance
as mandated by LRH. I’ve seen as many as 150 orders dictated by LRH in one
run. Often the staff who had orders issued to them were not allowed to
sleep until they complied to the LRH order issued to them. David Miscavige
oversaw the transcribing operation and enforced compliance to LRH orders by
staff in all Scientology corporations.

Scientology Legal Procedures

During my tenure as an executive and senior executive in RTC, I was taught
how to aggressively  go about destroying an enemy or critic of Scientology.
Enemies and critics of Scientology are considered to be suppressive persons
or groups. In Scientology the suppressive element is basically dealt with
in the same way: investigation, black operations, black propaganda and
frivolous litigation. Scientology believes anyone labeled a suppressive is
“fair game” and  can be cheated, tricked, lied to and even physically
harmed in order to “save” Scientology as mandated in policy by L Ron
Hubbard. The following are specific instances I have either been a party to
or observed being done to persons labeled “suppressive.”

David Mayo

David Mayo was once one of the top senior executives in Scientology. He
worked directly with LRH on technical policies, he was LRH’s auditor, and
even authored the “Ned for OTs” series when it was first issued. By the
time I arrived in September 1982 at the secret management base located in
Hemet, CA, David Mayo had fallen from grace. Upon my promotion to this
secret location, the first duty I had was to security check (interrogate)
Mayo endlessly.  LRH had the idea that Mayo had been bought off  by
Scientology mission holders and was either a dupe or a plant. At this time
Scientology was once again getting rid of its criminals. The executives of
all management organizations had been removed and brought to Hemet to
receive severe Scientology justice and ethics. Mayo was part of a group of
11 management executives being given a comm eve that went on for 3 months.
Nearly all 11were eventually labeled suppressive persons and left
Scientology.

Once David Mayo was off staff he decided to start his own church, the
Advanced Ability Center (AAC), that was an alternative to Scientology and
used many of the same techniques used by LRH. At this point David became
the target for “fair game.” DM became infuriated and ordered  Mayo’s new
group to be destroyed using all means possible. Bob Mithoff, brother of
Senior C/S Int Ray Mithoff, was placed by RTC in David Mayo’s new church as
a plant to obtain financial and critical legal information to forward a
planned attack on his group. Week after week Bob Mithoff provided financial
information to RTC concerning Mayo’s new group. The fact of the matter is
Mayo had drawn a good amount of people who were ex-Scientologists to his
new church and was making $20,000 to $30,000 gross income every week. This
was better than most Scientology Class 4 organizations. Mithoff stole a
copy of the AAC’s mailing list and provided it to RTC. Within four months
of its inception, AAC had a standard newsletter it mailed to its adherents.
With the stolen mailing list RTC operative Gary Klinger designed a similar
newsletter that contained disparaging information concerning AAC to the
same mailing list. This list was used by RTC to contact members of the AAC
for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.

Mithoff also stole a copy of the NOTs materials that David Mayo had
rewritten, and he provided it to RTC. At one point before her “suicide” Flo
Barnett,  David Miscavige’s mother-in-law, became a member of the AAC. More
black operatives were sent into the AAC by RTC. Black operations included
renting the office above Mayo’s AAC to electronically bug him. At one point
private investigator Gene Ingram was hired to pose as an investigative
reporter and Mayo was duped into believing he was participating in a TV
program to promote his new group. Through Mithoff, it was learned that
David Mayo planned to travel abroad to Europe. Through investigator Gene
Igram, it was arranged to have Mayo stopped at customs as a suspected drug
dealer, which did happen, and he was detained for hours based on false
information by European customs officials. Gene Ingram received his
instructions on these matters from Gary Klinger, an executive in RTC.
Ingram’s fee was paid by CSI through the office of John Peterson, who was
retained as in-house counsel by CSC. As a note, John Peterson was not fully
aware of why his office paid private investigator expenses to Bob Mithoff.

Prior to Mayo writing his own version of the NOTs materials it was learned
through Mithoff that several other ex-Scientologists had copied and were
planning to use Scientology HCO P/Ls and HCOBs. A former mission holder,
Sarge Gerbode, had an ongoing project  to copy via computer all HCOPLs and
HCOBs and sell  them to Mayo or trade them for  Scientology OT materials.
Through Mithoff we learned that Mayo and Gerbode had come to an agreement
and Mayo’s new group was in fact more computerized than most Scientology
facilities.

As part of the weekly ASI meetings, Vicki and I were confronted by David
Miscavige concerning what we planned to do to put an end to Mayo and the
AAC. The first option we suggested was to bring a copyright suit against
the AAC. David Miscavige called in LRH Personal Secretary Pat Brice to get
a briefing on the status of current church copyright filings. He was sorely
disappointed when he found out that no one in the entirety of Scientology
was responsible for copyright filings since the Guardian’s Office had been
reorganized by him. He decided at that time to give Pat a project to file
for copyright protection ofall Scientology bulletins and policies. This is
the reason most Scientology copyright filings have a date starting in 1983
forward. The best option for the church to sue Mayo was through trade
secrets and trademarks. Then-RTC lawyer Joe Yanny recommended a RICO
complaint be drawn up, as evidence existed that David Mayo had formed
agreements with other  Scientology dissidents to exchange Scientology
materials to strengthen the alternative movement which David Mayo was the
leader of.

While all of this was going on Mayo and the AAC were successful in getting
a Temporary Restraining Order against RTC and CSI because of the constant
harassment and plants sent in. The specific incident which resulted in the
TRO was in fact when Gary Klinger posed as a Jewish rabbi and went to a
barbecue the AAC had one weekend and created havoc at the party. There is
no difference between the black operations executed by the “Old GO” and the
then new RTC.  Because of  the very nature of Scientology it will never
change.  L Ron Hubbard himself issued the marching orders for Scientology
to become a criminal organization and people are trained to lie from the
moment they walk in the door and take a Scientology course.

Almost immediately a person is taught how to use “ethics” to control
another. Example: Hubbard Policy Letter  29 April, 1965 titled  “Ethics
Review” instructs a person how to effectively harass and attack another, a
few quotes from the above mentioned P/L:

“Levels of Ethics Actions”

“Ethics actions in degree of severity are as follows:

“1. Noticing something non-optimum without mentioning it but only
inspecting it silently.

“2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person.

“3. Requesting information by ethics personnel.

“4. Requesting information and inferring there is a diskiplinary potential
in the situation.

“5. Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

“6. Talking to the person derogatorily.”

The list get worse and worse. L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill for at least 4
years before he died that I know of through direct experience and
association. When Gerry Armstrong, Omar Garrison, Vaughn Young and Stacy
Young  all at one time or another tried to write a  biography of  L Ron
Hubbard based on his own records the records clearly showed he was mentally
disturbed much earlier as well.  As can be seen from the above-quoted
HCOPL, a NAZI like dedication to the “group” is required which in fact turn
people against one another in a spy-like fashion.  In Scientology, people
are dehumanized and in fact become members of a human ant family — you are
only as good as you produce for the group. The concept of self is
surrendered to the false idea  that “Scientology” is much more important
than individual life.

In the case of the RICO suit filed by RTC and CSI against the AAC, another
type of Scientology “ethics” was applied. L Ron Hubbard believed certain
words and catch phrases used together in a writing could have a
psychological  effect on the reader. The words and phrases are part of  a
confidential course called “R6 End Words” or “R6EW.” Hubbard ordered  his
“magic words” to be sewn into each and every legal motion and complaint
submitted to any court. Hubbard said by doing this a judge would
subconsciously become antagonistic to anyone trying to fight Scientology
with the current justice system.

It is not necessary to be a brain surgeon to see this as pretty crazy, but
because its so stupid the point can be lost. Hubbard thought he was
superior to his culture and sought to make a mockery of the way everyday
people live. In late 1952 Hubbard thought he had discovered something so
powerful with Dianetics that he had to protect us all from his own
invention. He wrote a journal called “Black Dianetics.” Here is how it
starts: “Death,  insanity, aberration, or merely a slavish obedience can be
efficiently effected by the use of Black Dianetics. Further, adequate laws
do not exist at this time to bar the use of these techniques. The law
provides that only the individual so wronged can make complaint or swear
out a warrant for offenders using these techniques.”

Well,  now you know why there is an organization of people that have ruined
lives and are a slave to the idea they are “saving the world.” Of course,
the organization I am talking about is Scientology’s  “Sea Org.” Sorry for
digressing so about this — back to Mayo.

The RICO suit was filed against the AAC and black operations against it by
RTC were at an all time high. There was a preliminary  injunction hearing
in the RICO case. The day before the hearing I was drilled by Earle Cooley
and other church lawyers as to what I would say because I was an expert
witness in this case. The fact of the matter is that I was drilled all day,
all that night and up until the time I arrived in the court room as to what
I would say as a witness. It’s funny  how Sandy Rosen, Scientology’s
replacement for Earle Cooley, asked me in my deposition in the FACTNet case
in Denver several weeks ago if I had been coached at all by my lawyer
before the deposition. He knows he works for criminals and that they are
the ones who commit the
crimes of which they accuse others.

RTC won its injunction against AAC, and Mayo was effectively shut down at
that point.

It is shameful to have been a part of  Scientology. I am grateful to be
free of it physically and mentally. I promise to work just as hard exposing
Scientology for what it is.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jesse Prince

Notes

Robert Vaughn Young: RVY Update by RVY (September 2, 1998)

Title: repost: RVY Update by RVY (Robert Vaughn Young)
Author: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Date: 2 Sep 1998 20:53:21 GMT

INTRODUCTION: The length of this post is relevant to its subject. It does
include some Scientologese. If you find a word you don’t understand, call
your local Dianetics or Scientology organization and ask them to define
it. They like people to do this. Be sure to tell them you are reading
alt.religion.scientology.

Hi, guys. Long time no write, which is what this post is really about.

I’ve been posting to ARS for a few years now and then I disappeared,
although I was occasionally in touch with several of you via email. I
want to tell you what’s been going on. Plus it will give the criminal cult
something to whine, bitch, carp, natter, scream, cry, rant about which
might get someone’s stats up there so they can get a day off to do their
laundry. (Boy, do I remember that routine!)

For those who don’t know me, I was in the cult for nearly 21 years. (I
know that Martin Hunt has archived some of my posts at
<http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/rvy/rvy.htm>.) Because I spoke out,
they had to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last five
years trying to silence me and probably even think they finally did it.
Right. Read on.

If you can manage about 7,000 words, this post will tell you more than the
cult wants you to know.

TRAVELS WITH JESSE

You’ve heard about Jesse Prince. Well, I was with him having a great time
in Southern California back in July, when he was at Dan Leipold’s law
offices. Of course, we were being followed by the Church of Paranoia’s
criminal Dept. 20 and typical of their ineptness, we slipped in behind
them and followed them for awhile. It was hilarious they way they
panicked, zipping and dashing about through traffic while we kept on their
tails, sometimes bumper-to-bumper, reading license plates and laughing our
heads off in this darling red Mustang convertible, with the top down.
(Hey, do it in style!) If this was a paid PI, Rinder should ask for a
refund as they were a pathetic joke. Anyway, we did it for a while and
then tired and left them, wondering if they would tell the truth in their
report how they screwed it up. Again.

Later I went back to Minneapolis, where Jesse lived. We spent a few days
there while he wrapped up things and then we toodled on over to Chicago to
visit relatives and hung out in the Windy City for a few days, checking
out everything from the music clubs to Lake Michigan. I had my dog Mac
with me and we romped on the sands and down in the water, having a great
time. (Meanwhile someone told me the OSA sock puppets on ARS were saying
how I’ve disappeared. Yup. With Jesse in a red Mustang convertible. LOL!)

From there we went south to visit more relatives, caring less if the
paranoid criminal cult was tracking us. Let em spend Travolta’s money to
get nuttin’. After a few days here and there, we turned west and ambled
across Kansas  (spare me from EVER driving across Kansas again) and into
Colorado.

HELP! RVY IS MISSING!

So while the OSA sock puppets were claiming I was missing, they were lying
to you. (I’m shocked!) They knew I was with Jesse. (In fact, we enjoyed it
that they knew. It’s called “critical mass.”) They just hated it that two
very good friends were having such a good time!

I should have mentioned that earlier. Jesse and I go back many years, into
the cult. He and I are old buddies and it was great spending many weeks
with him. He is as outrageous as ever. Runt leader David Miscavige was
always afraid of him and as evidenced by the tantrums of his sock puppets,
he’s still afraid. (By the way, if you ever want to see a good portrayal
of the runt-punk, watch Al Pachino’s character in the movie “Scarface,”
who can’t complete a sentence without three forms of the word “fuck.” But
perhaps the best example of life with DM is truly Kevin Spacey’s abusive
character in the movie “Swimming With Sharks,” which takes place in
Hollywood. Small world. But then so is DM.)

ON BEING A WRITER

As to what I else I have been doing and will be doing, I am doing some
intense writing and in such an effort – for those of you who haven’t had
the experience – it requires considerable time and solitude. And in my
case, more than usual, as you will find out.

It was no accident that I chose the handle “writer” when I set up my
Eskimo.com account years ago. I’ve been writing all of my life. It is
not only a love of the Muse but it can be a curse, as many a writer will
tell you. Mine was both.

I did a lot of writing in the cult, but there is little there of any
pride. Since then, I won some awards but nothing else captivated me until
now. So sit back and let me tell you how it happened. I think some of you
will find some of this interesting.

THE HUBBARD ARCHIVES

Let’s start in late 1981, when I happened to acquire the archives that
contained Hubbard’s private papers. (These were the ones that Gerry
Armstrong started.) The truly essential material came down to perhaps 15
linear feet of paper. Over the months, with nothing else to do, I had a
chance to read private letters, papers and manuscripts (including the
three, yes, three, versions of the infamous Excalibur, which has to be the
most overblown piece of hype he EVER produced and, no, it has NOTHING to
do with OT3), which also gave me the full uncensored view of this man. I
read everything from love letters to (and from and about) his mistresses,
his girlfriends (such as Fern, who gave him the clap, forcing him to
secretly take sulfa), his private pornographic ramblings (he liked to draw
penises and vaginas around the margins in red ink, which gave the page a
grisly look), his black magic material, his letters to family, wives (in
the early 1950s, while having mistress Barbara on the side and at the same
time preaching about the dangers of illicit relationships), editors and
even to himself, as journals.

There was one problem with what I read. It didn’t match what we
(collectively then, meaning the organization) were saying about Hubbard
and what Hubbard, based on what he had say to say. When I tried to gently
point this out, the Shinola hit the fan. It didn’t matter that it was in
Hubbard’s own hand. It didn’t match the story he put out so – straight out
of “1984” – it didn’t exist. (These documents were later confiscated and
sealed away to make sure no staff see them but enough of us did –
including a few still on staff (hi, guys!) – so it can be verified
someday, if it comes to that. But that is another story.)

WRITING FOR HUBBARD

In the years that followed, Hubbard and I had a fascinating relationship
because I was intrigued with him as a writer and I found I could easily
mimick his style, which came in handy later.

But in 1982, drawing from the archival material, I proposed the idea of
the “Ron” magazines. Hubbard loved the idea and we cranked out the first
issue which is a serious collector’s item. (Because Stacy and I produced
it, it no longer officially exists. It is an Orwellian non-mag.)

BIOGRAPHIES AND GHOSTS

At one point I was tagged to be his biographer but the biography went the
way of all the other attempts, ranging from Omar Garrison to Fletcher
Prouty. (Meanwhile I was identified as such, from the San Luis Obispo
paper to the Washington Post in Scientology-produced stories that it is
difficult for the cult to rewrite.)

I also ghosted for Hubbard, meaning I wrote material for which he was
credited, which was not uncommon. I wrote everything from these short
little greetings that were sent to events (staff and public always thought
that Hubbard was writing to them, which always showed us how gullible they
were) to policy letters (I wrote the current disconnection policy with
some help at the end of it by Ray Mitoff, who ghosted a lot of the
technical material and issued it under Hubbard’s name) to ghosting
sections of his “Mission Earth” series, while I was editing it. (And boy,
is THAT another story! Whew!)

HUBBARD’S DEATH

When Hubbard died, everything changed. (duh) I went to the death site (his
ranch at Creston, near San Luis Obispo CA) that night along with David
Miscavige and some attorneys. Since none of us – including Miscavige – had
ever been there, we were met at a restaurant by Pat Broeker who took us to
the ranch. We arrived at perhaps 4 a.m. (Hubbard was found dead at about 8
p.m. I was told at 10. We left LA at perhaps 1 a.m. I wasn’t always
watching the clock, given the circumstances.)

What’s amusing in the cult’s attempt to DA me is their saying that I went
to the ranch along with some gardeners and cooks. Right. Gardeners and
cooks were the first to be rushed up that night, before the authorities
were called or the body taken away. ROFL! Don’t you just love these guys!

Creston was where the story was put together that he had moved on to the
next level of research, or however it was worded, when it was announced at
the Palladium and to the world. The event was so carefully constructed
that no one noticed that something essential was missing, but Ill get to
that in a moment. But during the event, I stayed at the ranch to deal with
any media who might show up or call. None did and less than 48 hours
later, the Challenger space shuttle blew up, bumping news of his death and
any serious questions from the media. I was monitoring the TV news via a
satellite dish and watched it happen and reported it. While the rest of
the world was in shock, DM was happy because we had been bumped from the
news. But that is how one comes to view the world at that echelon.

THE NEWBERRY RANCH

I later moved to another ranch Hubbard owned, at Newberry Springs, east
of Barstow CA and stayed there for a couple of months. Hubbard never
visited it (it was merely a fallback location for him) and I never did see
that anyone learned about this one, even the media. I guess they were all
hung up on the Creston property, near San Luis Obispo, where he died.

The most lasting benefit of my stay at Newberry was that that was where I
stopped smoking. One day DM, Mitoff, Pat Broeker, Mike Eldridge and I were
sitting around and we all agreed to stop smoking, although Broeker was the
only non-smoker. Mitoff had a horrible time of it. He ended up on Skoal
Bandits, spitting disgustingly into a bucket while driving back and forth
to LA, and also addicting me to the little cusses. In the end, I was the
only one who stopped, making me wish we had put some money in a pool.

In the months I spent between the Creston and Newberry ranches, Pat and I
became good friends. He had been Hubbard’s closest and most trusted aide
and confident for those final years. With what I already  knew about
Hubbard, Pat and I had the greatest talks. Sometimes Pat and I were the
only ones at the ranch, so we eould chat while moving horses or going to
town to shop. I began to learn about the life Hubbard had lead while in
hiding for those last years, moving between towns in the Bluebird bus and
finally settling down in Creston. (BTIAS)

THE STRUGGLE STARTS – WHO WILL REPLACE HUBBARD?

Meanwhile, a power struggle was brewing to see who would take control of
Scientology and Newberry was the place where many of the discussions
occurred while DM stayed either in LA or in Hemet. (Jesse will have
something to say about that someday because he was seriously involved in
the ensuing explosion.) It would result in a number of people fleeing
(such as Jesse) or going to the RPF (such as me).

A key element in the power struggle was Hubbard’s last message to the
rank-and-file. Those who were in the cult back in 1986-87 will remember
this incident. It was a message from Hubbard that was issued as a Sea Org
directive. It said goodbye, wishing them well and establishing a new
rank/position called Loyal Officer or LO. (The term is taken from OT3.)
Pat was to be the  LO1 and his wife Annie was to be LO2 and it basically
turned the management of the Sea Org over to them. And since the SO ran
Scientology, that meant they were at the top of the heap. DM was not
mentioned in the directive. It was later was issued to all staff –
with DM’s approval and authority – reduced in size and put in a small
fram with a photo of Hubbard for the desk of every staff member.

In the meantime, Pat began to slowly take control. I would often get phone
calls from him. He would never identify himself on the phone, going back
to his years of tight security, but merely would say, “Hi, it’s me.”

I won’t try to give the details of the ensuing power struggle because I
was in LA and it was happened at Creston, Newberry and Hemet. (I leave it
to Jesse, who was there.) But the outcome was that Miscavige won. And
typical of any political coup, there was a sudden purge as he consolidated
his power. Anyone DM thought might be a friend of Broeker’s who would pose
a threat were sent to Scientology’s equivalent of Lubayanka Prison or
Siberia: the RPF, so I went. For 16 months and three escape attempts.

Now here is where it gets interesting, folks.

MISCAVIGE CANCELS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE

While I was on the RPF, a directive came out from Miscavige saying the
supposed final message from Hubbard that named Broeker was a forgery by
Broeker and it was being canceled. That same day, Annie Broeker appeared
on the RPF. This was not the Annie I had come to know. What stumbled into
the RPF was a completely broken person. She was pale and hollow and her
eyes were empty. There was no mistaking it. She had been broken and only
now was she being thrown away into the trash heap called the RPF. Even
then, she was kept under guard, just to be sure.

TWO IMPORTANT OMITTEDS

With the cancellation of the message from Hubbard, there were now two
vital things missing that were 100% Hubbard and 100% standard tech and
yet no one seemed to notice or, if they did, no one dared to remark on it.
But then, as Hubbard correctly pointed out, the hardest thing to notice is
the thing that is omitted.

What was now missing was (1) something from Hubbard to all Scientologists
saying goodbye and what he was doing and (2) something that passed his
hat, which is one of the most basic tenets in the organization. They had
been missing at the event announcing his death but with the cancellation
by Miscavige, they were missing more than ever.

WHERE WAS HUBBARD’S MESSAGE?

One does not require much knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard to know that it
would be completely unlike him to simply leave – especially if the story
about his going off to do more research were true – and not leave a
message. So if he HAD left as Scientologists were told, where was the
message if the other was a forgery?

But perhaps more importantly, where was the hat turnover? I don’t mean the
volumes of policies and bulletins. I mean something that says, I hereby
appoint Joe Blow to take over as… Would Hubbard leave the planet and not
pass on the command? Hardly.

Or let’s put it in one of the most basic tenets from Hubbard: if it isn’t
written, it isn’t true.

(Note: Hubbard’s will was hardly a Scientology hat turnover and has not
been issued to the rank and file as policy.)

So the question became (to those of us who wondered), if the LO directive
was a forgery, where was the real one? Where were Hubbard’s wishes IN
WRITING?

MISCAVIGE HAD NOTHING FROM HUBBARD

Of course, DM never provided anything and no one was willing to ask and
risk being sent to the RPF with the rest of us. He said it was a forgery
and that was that. End of discussion.

For the rest of my stay in the cult, Pat Broeker was never mentioned
because, in the cult, you learn what to not talk about. Pat became what in
Orwell’s “1984” is a non-person. He had been written out of history, with
anyone who cared (such as me) being sent to the RPF or interrogated
(security checked) until they got the point, which meant (per the head on
a pike policy) that everyone else got the message.

So without a shred of WRITTEN evidence from Hubbard and by canceling what
even DM had first agreed was from Hubbard, Miscavige was now in control
while Broeker had disappeared.

Can you say, “coup”?

But hold on! It gets better.

READING THE MATERIAL ANEW

After Stacy and I fled the cult in 1989, I put it all behind me. I simply
wanted my life back and the last thing I needed was to think about the
cult. They had taken enough of my life without my adding more. But after a
couple of years of drying out, Stacy and I were invited to help with some
legal cases and this gave us a chance to handle the material that once
handled us. We could now read Hubbard and TALK about the material, which
is completely forbidden in the cult. It was like back-flushing a radiator
and watching what comes out.

I came across a copy of Miscavige’s cancellation of Hubbards final message
and I began to kick it around with Stacy. As we talked, I started to
comment on the various little oddities, starting with the cancellation
itself. I began to remember a few others that I had packed away at the
time. We were having a conversation that Sea Org staff could no more do
than a loyal Communists might question the a change of power in the
Kremlin, and for the same reasons.

AN “ACCEPTABLE TRUTH” IS FED SCIENTOLOGISTS

In the weeks and months that followed, I couldn’t shake the events
surrounding Hubbard’s death and DM’s takeover. Little oddities took on
forms like pieces of a jig saw puzzle. I felt like an amnesiac trying to
recover his memory yet what was there to recover? I was there at the
ranch. I was there when Hubbard’s body was taken out. I was there when the
execs were called up the ranch and told to get an event together, but not
being told why. I was there when the attorneys reported his death and then
scurried to get the body through the coroner. Etc, etc, etc. So what was
the problem? Yeah, the next higher level of research story was the sort of
pap we used to feed the rank-and-file all the time but it wasn’t as if we
LIED to them. (Sort of the way Clinton said he didn’t LEGALLY lie.) We
didn’t LEGALLY lie, did we?

Per Hubbard’s policy, they were given an “acceptable truth” because of
“the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” What that means
in plain speak was that there would be panic and disaffection in the ranks
if it was thought that Hubbard – the OT of all OTs, of course – was not at
cause over life and death. If the tech couldn’t help him, how could it
help others? That was the myth that had to be protected at all costs and
that was what the story did when his death was announced. It fed the myth
that everyone so wanted to believe. (And it kept the money coming in.)

WORKING WITH PUZZLE PIECES

While in the cult, I had done a lot of investigative reporting and some of
the best I did was working on some of the CIA’s mind control documents
created under the code name MK ULTRA. When the CIA released them, much was
blanked out and working with a team of people hand-selected by Stacy, we
went through documents that the media had skipped past because they were
so fragmentary and so heavily deleted. In one file, for example, there
were receipts for the installation of mufflers on a 1953 Mercury, a tiny
battery-powered motor, elevator tickets to the Empire State Building, nose
plugs, a receipt for someone to attend a Microscropy convention, etc.

Bit by bit, we struggled to give them meaning until one piece cracked
another, like breaking a code. We came up with the experiment and got
national news on Operation Big City where bacillus were released (through
the mufflers) to test for bacterial warfare. (The elevator tickets were so
agents could go up and measure the amount of released bacteria.) It is a
story the cult still likes to cite, along with several others I did for
them, under my byline in the Freedom rag. Since then, per Orwell, my name
has been deleted, of course.

Pouring over those heavily deleted CIA documents was how I felt like while
I chewed on the oddities around Hubbard’s death, such as nothing in
writing from him, Broeker missing, the fact that Denk (Hubbard’s physician
at the time of death) had also disappeared, Annie’s appearance and little
things that I had seen and learned at the ranch.

THE BLUE FLASH

And then it hit me. It was what Hubbard calls a blue flash, the sudden
insight.

Hubbard didn’t die.

He was killed.

I fell back in my chair, completely stunned. In all of the years since
1986, I had never once considered that possibility. Even with my being
long out of the cult and directing criticism at various practices and
policies, the thought had never crossed my mind that Hubbard might have
been killed.

I got a sheet of paper and began to take notes, my heart pounding and my
breathing hurried. That nagging feeling had turned into an adrenaline rush
that I couldn’t explain.

Who was there at the Creston ranch when Hubbard died?

* Pat Broeker – MIA.

* Annie Broeker – broken, under their control.

* Two Scientology ranch hands. While trusted to work on the ranch, I
came to see how much they were kept out of the loop.

* Gene Denk – Hubbard’s personal physician. (And mine. Small world.)
Denk had disappeared for a year after the death, which was one of those
oddities, before returning to his practice up the street from the main
Hollywood complex.

End of list, a too-short list so I started to add who went up that night
in the three-car caravan that included DM, some attorneys and a couple of
us “gardeners and cooks.” Nothing there.

I looked at the list. Pat Broeker was the only possibility, if he was out
and alive. For all I knew, he was dead or locked up somewhere and in a
mental state that approximated cold oatmeal. There was no middle ground.
He wouldn’t have been given a safe back-lines job or I would have heard
about it.

SEARCHING FOR BROEKER

So how would I find Pat Broeker, if he was alive. I racked my memory,
trying to dig out some clue he might have given me in the months that we
were together but I came up with nothing. My tendency to not inquire about
a person’s personallife had just sold me short. I didn’t even know what
state he was from. Who might? Who would know where he came from or where
he was born? I needed some clue to start the search and the problem was
the security that Pat used for his job. He had explained to me how any
trace of him had been wiped out, to ensure that no one could find Hubbard
by finding him. Plus if Pat had escaped or fled, he was skilled enough to
hide from any search as that was what he had been doing for years to hide
Hubbard from the authorities.

I finally remembered one location he told me about and sent a message
there saying that I was trying to reach him but no reply came. After a few
months I sent another and waited. The months turned into nearly a year and
I basically gave up until one day when the phone rang.

“Hello?” I said.

“Hi,” came a voice. “It’s me.”

I paused, saying nothing.

“Pat?” I finally said with some incredulity. “Is that you?”

“Yeah,” he said, with what I swear was a twinkle in his voice. “How are
you?”

What a question!

RINDER WAKES UP

Let’s jump ahead a few years when I was in a deposition in Denver, in the
FACTNet case. The usual goon squad was there, including Mike Rinder, who
proudly heads up the criminal Dept. 20 where Scientology’s felons are
produced. Rinder was struggling to stay awake in the corner while the cult
attorney was going through a list of names, wanting to know if I had
spoken with any of them. Rinder’s head was bobbing as the attorney asked
monotonously, “Pat Broeker?”

I glanced at Rinder. I had to enjoy this one.

“Yes,” I said.

I couldn’t have gotten a faster reaction with a bucket of water. Rinder
jumped awake and looked at me in shock, fear and hatred. I smiled.

The questions about my involvement with Broeker were routine, from a list
that they asked for each person I named but Broeker wasn’t routine. They
soon stopped to take a break. Like the good sock puppet that he is, Rinder
dashed out of the room, obviously to call DM. (I so wish I could have
watched DM’s face too.) About 15 minutes later, Rinder returned and shoved
some questions at the attorney and the depo continued. But little was
gained and not one question was asked about what Pat might have told me
about Hubbard’s death, if he had at all. They clearly didn’t want it
on the record, under oath. I found it amusing, this great powerful cult
was so terrified of the subject, not to mention Broeker.

So let me tell you a little bit about Pat: he’s doing fine and his sense of
humor has improved. End of a little bit.

THE CORONER’S REPORT

Now lets back up a tad, before Pat and I spent several days together,
going over old times. I went to San Luis Obispo, the county seat for where
Hubbard died. It was there that I got the full coroner’s report from a
very friendly deputy sheriff. I poured over the pages and noticed that
something called Vistaril was found in Hubbard’s blood. Since the cause of
death was a stroke, I assumed it was a stroke medication so I didn’t
bother further. Several days later, I called a physician friend and was
going over the documents and the medical language.

“By the way,? I asked casually, “what’s Vistaril?”

“A psychiatric tranquilizer,” he answered matter-of-factly.

I nearly dropped the phone.

“Excuse me,” I said in near-shock, “but what did you say?”

“Vistaril is a psychiatric tranquilizer, usually injected through the
buttocks.”

I flipped to the document where the Coroner had examined Hubbard’s body. I
read it to my friend, about the needle puncture wounds found on the left
buttock, under a band-aid. “Could that be the Vistaril shots,” I asked.

“Probably,” he said. “That’s where they are usually given.”

I looked at the Coroner’s report and the blood sample report.

Holy shit, I said to myself, in my best French. Holy fucking shit.

THE AUTOPSY IS PROHIBITED

I pulled out another document, signed by Hubbard. It prohibited any
autopsy of his body on religious grounds, which was legally binding on
officials. DM and attorney Earle Cooley had shoved it at the coroner to
stop him, leaving him to take only blood samples, which turned up the
Vistaril.

So, I thought, L. Ron Hubbard, the man who fought psychiatry since 1950
and who railed against the dangers of any psychiatric drugs had died with
them in his brain while signing a new last will.

Plus even the coroner was suspicious of the will as it had been signed by
Hubbard just before he died. Coincidences like that tend to make coroner’s
worry. (I wonder what the coroner would have thought had he known that
Denk was gambling at Lake Tahoe when Hubbard had his stroke, as several
people can attest. The impression the coroner had was that Denk was “in
attendence” with Hubbard not only at death but was there at the stroke,
having stayed at the ranch for months. Hmmm….)

I fell back in my chair, trying to catch my breath.

OUTPOINTS? WHAT OUTPOINTS?

Okay, I said to myself, lets see if we understand this. Hubbard signs a
will while on the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril and then dies. The
coroner cannot conduct an autopsy because Hubbard also signed a paper
(also while on Vistaril?) prohibiting an autopsy on religious grounds. The
Scientologist doctor who was in attendance (except when he went to Lake
Tahoe and Hubbard had the stroke) signs the death certificate as the
physician attending to Hubbard and then disappears for a year. Then even
though David Miscavige has nothing else in writing from Hubbard, he
cancels Hubbard’s last message and hat transfer to trusted aide Broeker
and ousts Broeker, who disappears while his wife is turned into a
compliant vegetable, leaving DM in charge.

Nope, nothing wrong here, I facetiously thought. No outpoints, borrowing
Hubbard’s word for oddities.

I had to take a walk.

STARTING WITH A TITLE

I don’t know when it was but I clearly remember a particular moment when I
sat down at my computer keyboard. I am one of those writers who needs
either the opening words of the article or a working title in order to
really start. I had a working title, not for an article, but a book, and I
typed it out. Then I leaned back in my chair, took a deep breath and read
it. It said, “Who Killed L. Ron Hubbard?”

I leaned back and my eyes roamed over each word and letter. I took in the
question and then the words and letters and back to the question. I even
digested the tiny pixels on the screen, as if I hoped the answer would
leap from the phosphorescence but nothing changed but the black cursor
blinking at me, almost mocking my effort. Yes, I thought, it is a
pretentious question but it was the one I had to try to answer, if there
was an answer.

Then I had the exact moment for the opening words. It was on the night
that Terri Gamboa – former Executive Director of Author Services, Inc.
and now out of Scientology – called me to DM’s office where I was told
that Hubbard had died and that I would be going to his ranch.

THE WRITING STARTS

I leaned towards the keyboard and began to write. To my amazement, the
words and the scene poured out effortlessly. I wasn’t striving for
literature. I merely had to capture the scene.

As the cursor flitted across the screen, I began to remember how it
happened that night and into the days that followed. There was more that I
needed to remember but for now, this would do. Let it roll, I told myself.
Let it roll. It was as if I was regaining myself.

Perhaps six or so hours later, I finally stopped, exhausted and
sufficiently satisfied for the moment. But even then, I found it difficult
to sleep as my mind kept returning to the ranch, Broeker, DM, the RPF, the
Challenger disaster, Newberry, the ambulance taking away his body. I was
searching for pieces of a puzzle that had no comprehension.

And how could I possibly answer the question?

HOOKED ON HUBBARD

What ensued over the next few years was more of a personal journey than a
professional quest, meaning – as I came to learn very recently – because
it was as much a search for closure on part of my life as it was a search
for the story. But then, that is so often the case with writers, as anyone
who has studied literature knows.

As I pursued it/him/me, it took me around the country and into subjects
that I never expected, such as meeting with police who were involved in
the investigation of the odd suicide of Flo Barnett, David Miscavige’s
mother-in law. She was found with several shots to the chest with the coup
de grace to the temple, all from a rifle. (At one point, the cult grilled
me in a deposition about her death, asking if I had any evidence of any
foul play. No, I said, which made them happy. They failed to ask me if
anyone else has any evidence. Scientology: Knowing how to know. Yup.)

I even came across people who claimed to know about Miscavige’s
in-the-cult-sex life, via accounts from his wife Shelly. (Scientology
confessional methods have an interesting rippling effect.) If true, I felt
sorry for her.

THE WRITING STALLS

But when I tried to continue my writing, it stalled and I struggled. At
one point I became so disillusioned that I killed the idea for nearly a
year as a ridiculous obsession but then like a weed taking root, it
sprouted again but only to wither and die in my inspirational drought. Was
it the subject or was it me? Had my disregard of the Muse prompted a like
response?

I had not written anything truly worthwhile since 1991, when my article
for San Diego Magazine won two journalism awards, from the Society of
Professional Journalist and the San Diego Press Club. The article was
about the dangers in the flight pattern of the San Diego airport, from the
perspective of the pilots who flew it.

When we fled the cult in 1989, we settled in Ocean Beach, on the Point
Loma Peninsula because of the nearby Dog Beach where a hundred canines
would romp on any given summer day. The downside was that Ocean Beach was
in the westerly flight path of Lindbergh Field and the roar of the jets
above us garnered enough attention to prompt my learning that the flight
path was the target of a citizens group. They in turn introduced me to
pilots who were concerned about the safety of the eastern approach and my
journalistic tendencies took over and the magazine accepted my query.

The article was woven around a hypothetical flight approaching Lindbergh
Field that I had constructed from interviews with a dozen experienced
commercial pilots, moving the reader from cockpit to the airport back to
cockpit to FAA regulations and back to cockpit and then to buildings that
loomed in the pilot’s eyes as he seemingly navigated them like the cars a
few hundred feet below. The pilot’s called it a “white knuckle landing.”

Braiding these elemtns was a thrill and a challenge and the article drew
more letters of praise than anything the magazine had published in years,
the editor told me, prompting them to publish letters for the next three
months. They received only one critical letter, from a Coast Guard pilot
who liked the approach. I guess he loved the thrill.

WRITING FOR THE REAL WORLD

When my name was announced as the best news magazine article at the awards
banquet for the San Diego Press Club, I was stunned for two reasons. Yes,
winning was a thrill. But there was a more important reason: I had
succeeded as a writer. I hadn’t written it according to “policy” or to
fulfill some program step or as an amends project or to attack some
imagined enemy. My editor didn’t require that I include certain buttons and
attack phrases and the article didn’t need i/a or issue authority to be
certain that it forwarded the most current Party Line. It was MY article
and I had chosen the style and techniques and my professional peers
applauded as I walked to the podium to accept the plaque.

THIS was what writing was about, I realized: the freedom to write without
propaganda or Party Line, without a Big Brother looking over my
shoulder, as if I am the old Soviet Union.

Suddenly there was a separation between what I had been doing for 20 years
in the cult and what writing truly was about. All one has to do is pick up
any Scientology publication, especially their rag called Freedom and watch
the propaganda drip off the page like the rotting garbage it is. What
astounded me was how I had come to believe that this was writing, not
unlike how writers for Pravda probably felt during the Communist regime.
But writing for Pravda or Freedom is to writing what prostitutes are to
love and for the same reason.

RETURNING TO THE MUSE

And so I began to long to return to my greatest and dearest love and I
realized that just as the cult had drained my creativity by demanding
propaganda instead of art, so had my post-cult days. A piece that I wrote
for Quill magazine about how Scientology manipulates the media
(http://www.scientology.no.net/archive/media/young-quill.html) was
informative but it was hardly satisfying to me as a writer. Another that I
wrote for Der Spiegel magazine about the top secret Snow White program
(http://cisar.org/g50925ae.htm) was as satisfying as eating cardboard
because it appeared in German. How can a writer see and judge the final
piece if he/she cant even read it? At least it hd some photos.

I began to ask myself, what am I doing? In the cult they wanted propaganda
pieces attacking imagined enemies that made the cult executives feel good
when they read them. (That is always the most important audience for such
propaganda. It makes the members feel as if this is reality and truth when
it is nothing but one’s own sock puppet show.) And outside of the cult, I
was writing stories and giving sound bites about Scientology, whether it
be for a newspaper, magazine or TV show. Where was I as a writer, other
than as an email address? So I turned more to cats than cults. At least
they purred.

HOW IT WENT OFF THE RAILS

With some help, I began to see what had happened to me. During my nearly
21 years in the cult, I had sold my creative soul as certainly as if I had
worked for a money-grubbing ad agency, and in that regard, the two aren’t
any different. My proudest achievement – the San Diego story – came after
the cult and before I started consulting on Scientology cases and writing
about the cult. As a writer, I had moved from one cult to another. It was
no wonder that I had spun my wheels for years on that book. I realized
that if I am to regain that joy of writing so the Muse can inspire me to
the completion of any effort, it had to recapture what I was free to do a
few years earlier. But to do that, to entice the Muse to return, I have to
step away from this arena for as long as it takes, whether it be a month
or a year. The Muse works not by deadlines.

How did I come to all of this? At a little retreat called Wellspring in
southern Ohio, where I was able to relax and write and walk with Mac and
talk with friends about any subject I pleased. I could arise in the middle
of the night, as I often did, to pound out something on my laptop until I
wanted to crash until my next inspiration, whatever the hour. Meanwhile,
the kitchen downstairs was stocked for any meal or snack, or prepared for
me if I wanted to devote my time to my own recovery rather than making
dinner. Or I could walk the rolling hills with Mac and a few others of his
species and enjoy the fading purple Ironwood flowers, indicating the end
of summer. Or if the silence was too much, I could watch TV or go into
nearby Athens (a college town, for Ohio University) and enjoy a coffee
house, movie or a good used bookstore, the kind found only in college
towns.

CULTS VS. CREATIVITY

Yes, I realized, this is definitely the type of place that Scientology
would hate for it allows freedom and creativity. They would have to hate
it and pump the propaganda just as Pravda attacked the institutions west
of the Berlin Wall that represented the antithesis of the official Kremlin
Party Line. Any true freedom challenges boundaries, especially those that
pretend to be otherwise, as Communism pretended to be the bastion of true
peace and freedom. One can even find and measure totalitarian systems by
their knee-jerk party lines and Scientology is among the best. I know
because I did it for so very long from inside, and then became their
target from this other side.

Wellspring was important because they know what it is like to try to be
free in an abusive environment, whether it be a marriage or a cult or a
job. (They work with a lot of abused women.) Abuse is abuse. Terror is
terror. It differs by degrees and it rips away individuality and
creativity and future for the individual.

But at Wellspring, I was free to write and to peel away the barriers to my
own creativity that included not only the cult but post-cult and pre-cult
experiences, even back to the days when I wrote for school papers or for
the anti-war movement in San Francisco or a political campaign, of which
there were several for me in the 1960s. It was no wonder I was so
qualified to produce propaganda for an abusive cult. I had been writing
propaganda for years!

This is what my two weeks at Wellspring gave me, amongst other insights.
(Results will vary, as label disclaimers remind us.)(laugh) But it was
what I needed to regain a personal integrity that any abusive system,
especially a cult, despises.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

So that is what I was doing, am doing and going to do and it will require
concentration and reflection and time which is why I’ve not been on ARS
and won’t be, for as long as I must.

My apologies to many friends who have left messages or sent me mail and
gotten no reply. It’s difficult to explain why one is so involved with an
idea or a project or any creative effort, so that virtually nothing else
exists. I usually don’t even like to talk about it or discuss it. Stacy is
an exception because she has followed this journey since it started. It
was when she told me how many were reaching her to ask about me that I
realized it would be rude to continue to say nothing, given the role I
have played in this endeavor. (I even shared this post with her before
sending it.)

So don’t take it personal if you get no reply. Consider it just the
eccentricity that some writers get into when they latch onto an idea and
lock themselves away or take long walks or won’t talk to anyone and get up
at all hours of the night (it is 4:30 a.m. as I type this), chewing on an
idea, a style, a voice, a scene, a thread and then throwing it all away
and starting again or merely prowling for more information or even
traveling with a friend or a dog to take a break.

My intention is merely to restore and rebuild the creative self I touched
earlier and then decide on my direction. It is not a matter of disdain for
hack writing. That is snobbery. There is a place and time for classic hack
writing just as there is a place for great B movies. Few of us can live on
pure diets of Shakespeare, Mozart and Kant.

KEYBOARDS AND FREEDOM

What does this have to do with the original idea that I was writing about?
The best answer I can give is, we’ll see. Besides, there is more to write
about, including fiction. Or I might find another airport.

Besides, with HTML and the Net, writing (not to mention publication) has
changed. One no longer needs a footnote or an appendix with documents when
HTML can link to a document, a map, a photograph or even a video. A writer
who knows HTML – which I have had the good fortune to learn – has greater
opportunities and options and freedoms.

It used to be said that freedom of the press belonged to those who owned
one. Well, with the Internet, that freedom can now belong to anyone with a
keyboard and THAT is what dries the mouth, puckers the hole and strikes
fear in the heart of every tyrant. What Tom Paine could have done today!

So there you are, a writer’s account of himself, past, present and future.
It is long because it is easier than ever to write. Never has a keyboard
felt so clean and comfortable. I hope each of you, especially those in a
cult or out of a cult, have a chance to find YOUR true talent and purpose.
It is what the world needs.

Keep the faith.

Robert Vaughn Young
with a keyboard as a writer@eskimo.com

P.S Wellspring has a web page at <wellspring.albany.oh.us>.

Notes

 

Factnet interview with Jesse Prince (August 27, 1998)

[…] 1

L: Do you know any other executives who left Scientology who would have knowledge of Scientology’s criminal activities?

J: No.

L: Mark Yeager?

219

J: Has left?

L: I didn’t know if he was still in or not.

J: That’s the point.

L: Does anyone know if he’s still in?

J: Not me.

L: What about Terry Gamboa?

J: Terry Gamboa would know, Janis Grady would know.

L: They would have known?

J: Janis not so much, but Terry Gamboa would.

L: The type of criminal activity she would be most familiar with?

J: Finance, corporate shenanigans, corporate integrity.

L: Anyone else that you know or has heard of that has left that… Or let me ask this another way, when you were in, what factors were they most worried about?

J: Gerry Armstrong, Lawrence Wollersheim, that girl up in Portland, the Portland case…

L: Julie Titchbourne?

J: Julie Titchbourne?

L: Any other staff?

J: David Mayo.

L: David Mayo.

J: Bent Corydon.

L: Bent Corydon. OK. You have mentioned before that David Miscavige, Norman Starkey, Lyman Spurlock and Marty Rathburn are the four that are most knowledgeable and most involved in Scientology’s past and current criminal activities. Beside those four, you also mentioned a…

J: Ben Shaw.

220

L: Ben Shaw. What other executives are…

J: Jeff Schriver, as far as the black ops thing. Gary Klinger.

L: Gary Klinger. The people that deal with the most secret stuff in Scientology.

J: Marine Bergatti.

L: Marine Bergatti, she’s out of England?

J: Right.

L: She makes regular trips in and out of the United States, has a passport?

J: Wendell Reynolds would know finance. He could tell you, because he did the whole thing.

L: He would have knowledge related to the IRS.

J: Another secret little person in the back that’s right up there, that’s maybe a notch and a half below David Miscavige is Mark Ingber.

L: He would have knowledge about criminal activity?

J: Financial criminal activities.

L: Any of the other top executives that you know that would be the ones most knowledgeable or most involved in criminal activity going on inside of Scientology?

J: No, I think that covers it all.

L: Besides Marty Rathburn being the weakest link and most likely to possibly turn states’ evidence or leave, rather than go to jail himself when they start prosecuting these crimes, is there anyone else in that group of people that you think would be the second most likely person that would say, “I’m not going to jail for all this.”

J: Lyman Spurlock.

L: Lyman Spurlock, why do you say that?

J: Because he is loaded with crimes, he’s loaded with doing the corporate, I mean, as a matter of fact, Dave Miscavige and Norman could easily point their finger to him and say, “He did it.” It’s not real to people how these people operate under orders, but, because by his hand a lot of things happened.

221

L: Do you think they would set it up that way that if something happened, you know, the old Mary Sue was not following policy, this is the renegade in the organization. Do you believe that if David Miscavige or Starkey could avoid the criminal charges and frame one of these other people, would they be loyal or would the frame them?

J: They would frame them in a heartbeat. Like I said, Scientology has a theory, a bent theory. We’ve seen L. Ron Hubbard’s wife go to jail based on orders he was having her execute. So, there is no dignity.

Notes

Factnet interview with Jesse Prince (August 26, 1998)

 

L: OK. Let’s go on with the next one.1

J: [Reading] “Anyone who was fair game or had their reputation destroyed by Scientology.” The people that I know who were definitely fair game was even mentioned.

L: They actually said it within the organization, that somebody was fair game?

J: Yeah.

L: Who said?

J: Marty Rathburn, David Miscavige.

L: Who did they say was fair game?

J: Lawrence Wollersheim, Gerry Armstrong.

L: You actually heard that. What time did they say this? What year?

J: This was during the period of time where there was litigation going between these two litigates.

L: For years Scientology has been saying they canceled the fair game, they don’t do that anymore, that doesn’t exist, and you actually heard them call Lawrence Wollersheim and Gerry Armstrong fair game?

J: Yep.

L: Anything else on that, any other people that you heard them..?

J: Somebody re-wrote the fair game policy. I remember I was there when that happened, because the argument being is that, “Yes, there is still fair game, but public-relations-wise there are some things that are ‘misinterpreted’ in the original policy, so we’ll take them out, but the meaning is there, what you do to these people who are fair game.”

L: Was this altered with L. Ron Hubbard’s approval, or was he dead by them?

J: I was say he was pretty incoherent by then. That was right around all the probate time, all of this kind of stuff. I do believe that Vaughn Young is the person that wrote it, re-wrote it.

111

 

[…]

137
J: Okey Dokey. Let me just see where I am. Uh, Talking about #62 here. [Reading] “Scientology and/or its attorney using confidentialmaterials, disclosures, or confessionsgiven to Scientology by members for blackmail to silence or intimidate the individual?”
L: You already mentioned David Mayo.
J: Right, OK.
L: Anyone else? Did you ever hear them talk? Did you ever hear them say, “Go get his PC folders and get everything out of his folders that the PI’s can use”?
J: Yes.
L: Who said that to who?
J: Marty, I heard Marty Rathburn say it about you, and David Miscavige was sitting there. I heard him say it about Armstrong. Margery Wakefield. I heard him say, Marty saying he had some document that she was already crazy when she came in. Bent Corydon comes up too.
L: So, Scientology on the one hand says that these are confidential confessions and they will never ever use them. That’s what they tell the members who are confessing their most deep and intimate secrets, secrets that could damage their lives if they ever became public or known or completely humiliate and embarrass them.
J: Right.
L: Scientology says, “We’ll never do that.”
J: It willfully does it at every occasion.
L: And whenever these situations that you saw with Miscavige in the room and Rathburn ordering the contents of a person’s PC file, incriminating information being given to a —
J: The OSA people would go through and all the person’s OW write-ups would be pulled out of the person’s pre-clear folder.
L: His evil intentions?
J: Yeah.
L: His rock slams, his sec checks, his OW processing?
J: Right.

Notes

The Boston Herald: Scientology Unmasked: Judge Found Hubbard lied about achievements (March 1, 1998)

By JOSEPH MALLIA
Boston Herald
Date of Publication:3/1/981

The Church of Scientology’s late founder, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, left behind a $ 640 million fortune, and an estimated 25 million words in books and lectures that form the spiritual core of his controversial religion.

But some of those words are a legacy of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies, according to Hubbard’s son, court records and critics.

“The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflective of its founder LRH,” wrote California Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge during a top Scientology defector’s court suit against the church.

“The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements,” said Breckenridge, who ruled for defector Gerry Armstrong in the 1984 case.2

Some claims by L. Ron Hubbard are hard to refute, like his ideas about past lives. He said he was the reincarnation of Buddha, and of British adventurer Cecil Rhodes, the founder of the former Rhodesia.

Other assertions are transparent.

Hubbard – who died in 1986 – claimed to be a nuclear physicist who traveled into outer space without his body to explore the Earth’s Van Allen radiation belt. But his two-year stay at George Washington University in 1931-32 shows that he flunked his only course in nuclear physics.

One of Hubbard’s key declarations – that by mental powers alone he healed combat wounds he received as a World War II Navy hero – formed the basis of Scientology in the 1950s.

While recovering from war injuries, he “developed techniques which made possible not only his own recovery from injury, but helped other servicemen to regain their health,” the Church of Scientology claims in a 1992 edition of Hubbard’s book “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.”

As a Navy lieutenant, Hubbard commanded at least three ships during the war, including one in the Atlantic – a converted fishing boat, the YP-422, refitted during several months in 1942-43 at the Boston Navy Yard, Navy records show.

In early Scientology biographies it was claimed that Hubbard fought German submarines in the Atlantic. And as recently as January, the Church of Scientology’s official Internet site said Hubbard “saw action” in the North Atlantic during the war.

But, in an interview with the Herald, a sailor who served on Hubbard’s ship contradicted that claim.

“The YP-422 never saw combat,” said former Navy fireman Eugene LaMere, 78, an upstate New York native who now lives in Maryland.

The YP-422 was refitted as a freighter armed with only a 3-inch gun and two .30-caliber machine guns, said LaMere, the first former crewman with direct knowledge of the ship’s activities to publicly dispute Hubbard’s claim to have seen combat as commander of the YP-422.

And Hubbard’s claim of combat, or war wounds, is definitively ruled out by Navy records, according to published reports in Time and Forbes magazines, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, and books by critics and defectors Jon Atack, Russell Miller and Bent Corydon.

Hubbard was relieved of his command of the YP-422 soon after it set out from the Neponset River on a 27-hour shakedown voyage in September 1942, the reports say.

“Lt. L.R. Hubbard . . . is not temperamentally fitted for independent command. It is therefore urgently requested that he be detached,” the commandant of the Boston Navy Yard wrote in October 1942 to the vice chief of naval operations, the reports said.

According to a court affidavit written by his son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr., the elder Hubbard was “relieved of (military) duty on several occasions,” including once in the Pacific in 1944 when he “apparently concealed a gasoline bomb on board the USS Algol in order to avoid combat.”

The affidavit – obtained by the Herald – is on file in U.S. District Court in Boston in connection with a 1991 suit filed by Scientology against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI’s Boston office. The church had sued under the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to government documents.

And there were other incidents that marred Hubbard’s Navy career. He once ordered a depth-charge “battle” against nonexistent Japanese submarines off the Oregon coast, and he illegally fired on Mexican territory, according to published reports.

An admiral wrote in 1943 that Hubbard was “lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation,” and the U.S. naval attache to Australia wrote in 1942, “He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance,” the reports said.

The court affidavit by Hubbard’s son also describes some of his father’s postwar activities.

Hubbard practiced Satanic sexual rituals in the late 1940s in southern California, and suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, the son said.

“Drug addiction, venereal disease and impotency, wife beating, bizarre ‘black magic’ occult practices, forgery, writing bad checks, and miscellaneous fraudulent activities including bigamy” preoccupied Hubbard after his Navy discharge, said Hubbard’s oldest child – by the first of Hubbard’s three wives – who was trying to gain control of his father’s estate.

During the late 1940s, while Hubbard struggled to make a living as a writer, he told a group of science fiction writers of his plans to get rich, Pennsylvania writer Lloyd Eshbach wrote in his book “Over My Shoulder.”

“I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is,” Hubbard said in 1948, according to Eshbach.

Born in Nebraska in 1911 to a career Navy officer, Hubbard was described by friends as quick-witted, with great personal charisma and a gift for writing pulp science fiction.

He had a lifelong affinity for the nautical life and within Scientology he created his own paramilitary version of the Navy, wearing a white uniform with ribbons and gold braid, and appointing himself commodore over thousands of devotees.

By the summer of 1962, Hubbard felt confident enough to urgently request a meeting with President Kennedy, to discuss “his study known as ‘Scientology’ which he feels vital in space race,” according to a White House memo on file at the John F. Kennedy Library in Dorchester.

“Such an office as yours receives a flood of letters from fakes, crackpots and would-be wonderworkers. This is not such a letter,” Hubbard wrote to Kennedy. He offered to counsel U.S. astronauts for $ 25 an hour, saying he could increase their IQs and stamina.

Hubbard did not get the warm welcome he hoped for from Kennedy.

Apparently believing that Hubbard might pose a security threat to the president, a White House aide wrote a January 1963 memo saying, “Final disposition: respectfully referred to the protective research section” of the U.S. Secret Service, said Maura Porter a Kennedy Library staff member.

Kennedy later sent an indirect answer, Hubbard believed, when the Food and Drug Administration raided the Church of Scientology in Washington, D.C., and seized all its “E-Meters” – a device like a lie detector used by church counselors.

Notes

Declaration of Stacy Brooks Young (December 14, 1994)

CT 7437

I, Stacy Brooks Young, declare as follows:1

1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of Seattle, Washington.

2. I was a Scientologist for nearly 15 years, from January 1975 until I escaped with my husband, Robert Vaughn Young, in July 1989. From October 1975 until I left I was a member of the elite inner circle of Scientology, an unincorporated organization known as the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”) which rules the Scientology empire. Unbeknownst to the outside world, even to lower level Scientologists, the head of the Sea Org and of Scientology, David Miscavige, subjects Sea Org members to extremely abusive and degrading treatment, sometimes carried out directly by him but often carried out by his key aides.

3. Such abuses include sleep deprivation, an enforced diet of nothing but rice and beans for weeks or even months at a time, incarceration in Scientology prison camps known as the Rehabilitation Project Force (“RPF”) for months and sometimes years; sexual harassment and discrimination, requiring women to undergo abortions with the threat of losing their jobs if they refuse, enforced separation of parents and children, enforced separation of husbands and wives, and denial of proper medical care for people driven into psychotic episodes as a result of such abuse as described above.

4. A year and a half ago, in July 1993, my husband and I were asked by several attorneys to document the abuses we experienced and witnessed while in the inner circle of Scientology. These attorneys were defending people who were being sued by Scientology. Until that time we had kept totally quiet about our experiences because we were aware of how Scientology intimidates and harasses anyone who speaks out publicly about the abuses in this organization. We knew that if we began

1

CT 7438

to talk about what we knew our lives would no longer be our own, that Scientology would apply their “Fair Game” doctrine against us. The Fair Came doctrine directs Scientologists to lie, cheat and destroy anyone perceived as an “enemy.” They claim that Fair Game was canceled long ago, but they are lying. Because we had seen it done to others, we knew that they would send private investigators to talk to our family, friends and neighbors, that they would dredge up everything they could about our private lives, in short, that we would be subjected to a campaign of character assassination just as any other fascist political movement like Scientology would conduct against its critics. However, we made the decision that it was too important to make the truth known, no matter what the cost to our own privacy.

5. The Scientologists have lived up to our worst expectations and beyond. They have stolen our trash, kept us under constant surveillance, sent out libelous information, slandered us to friends and family, and done everything possible to make us “shudder into silence,” as Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard directed them to do with critics. Our home has also been burglarized twice, and while we cannot prove that Scientology was responsible, we pointed out to police investigators that only our in-home office computers and disks were stolen, while other valuables in the house were left untouched.

6. In July 1994, just this past summer, two high level Scientologists approached my husband and me and offered to pay us money if we would perjure ourselves by stating under oath that the information we have provided in sworn declarations is false, which it is not, and agree never to speak or write another critical word about Scientology again. These two Scientologists warned us that if we refused to agree to their terms they would increase the intimidation and harassment of us, break us financially, and ruin our reputations. We still refused to give in to their threats.

7. True to their promise, they have stepped up their campaign against us in the last several months. It is continuing as recently as Monday, December 12, when a

2

CT 7439

private investigator called my mother and, under the guise that he was doing an investigation of my husband, attempted to turn my mother against me with lurid tales about my sex life. His attempt backfired, however, when my mother made it clear to him that she does not care about my sex life and that his attempt at character assassination made her sick. She demanded to know his name and phone number, and when he refused to give it to her she hung up on him. What they don’t realize is that people outside of Scientology don’t adhere to their Draconian morality, which especially in the Sea Org is so intrusive that people are sent to the prison camp for their sexual practices (the only exception being Miscavige’s hand-picked aides, for whom these same laws do not apply). This same private investigator has already called one of my sisters and my other sisters are now expecting calls from him as well. Our family and friends are aware that this campaign is being waged against us and that it is being done because Scientology has not been able to silence us any other way.

8. I have been shown an extract of a motion made by Church of Scientology International in the case of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz, No. 91-6426-HLH (Tx) (C.D.Cal.) in which CSI falsely alleges that my husband and I committed perjury in certain declarations we have submitted for this case. The extract is entitled Two Other Defense Witnesses Signed False Declarations. XXX[initial SBY] XXX[initial SBY] The phrase “two other defense witnesses” refers to my husband and me. It is false.

9. The extract is based on a certain “Rinder Declaration,” submitted October 27, 1994, which is a wildly distorted, false representation of a series of meetings which occurred over an eight-day period in July 1994.

10. In June 1994, two high-level Scientology operatives, Mike Rinder and Mike Sutter, began to call me and my husband begging us to meet with them to “settle our differences.” These two people called one or the other of us nearly every day for approximately a month, insisting that we meet with them and assuring us that they

3

CT 7440

would make it very worth our while to do so, clearly implying that they wanted to pay us money to stop doing the legal consulting work that we have done for Mr. Graham Berry and other attorneys whose clients have been sued by Scientology.

11. My husband Vaughn had no interest in meeting with them at all and told them so in no uncertain terms. Rinder and Sutter continued to call him and even arrived uninvited at our house in Corona del Mar, California, (where Vaughn was finishing up some work in preparation for moving to Seattle,) to try to get him to agree to a meeting. When it became obvious that Vaughn would not agree, they began calling me at our house in Seattle.

12. Mike Sutter called me every day, telling me how important it was that we meet with him and Rinder. Both Mike Sutter and Mike Rinder were superior to me and had a tremendous amount of power over me when I was a member of the cult. Sutter in particular had been assigned to “handle” me after Vaughn and I had tried to leave the cult and had been persuaded to return. Because of this past relationship which I now understand was based on mind control, I was still afraid of Sutter even five years after leaving Scientology. I allowed him to engage me in conversation, and by intimidating me he succeeded in convincing me that Vaughn and I should hear them out. I then talked Vaughn into meeting with them.

13. My state of mind at the time was that I did not want to have anything to do with Scientology any more. Although I did not realize it at the time, I was still under the influence of the cult to the degree that they could still intimidate me, frighten me, and “trigger” strong emotional reactions in me. Scientology was particularly upset about the work my husband and I had done for attorney Graham Berry, advising him about the destructive practices of the upper echelons of Scientology and submitting a number of declarations relevant to CSI v. Geertz. As I explained earlier in this declaration, because of our work for Mr. Berry and other attorneys, Scientology considered us “enemies” and we became the targets of Scientology’s

4

CT 7441

Fair Game doctrine, meaning that we had been harassed and intimidated relentlessly by Scientology operatives. Although they attacked my husband much more viciously than me, it upset me very deeply and frightened me. I did not want to have my private life exposed and I did not want to see my husband’s private life being distorted and exposed and held up to ridicule the way Scientology had been doing.

14. Because of their relentless harassment and intimidation, I had made a decision not to do any more work to expose the truth about the Scientology cult and, indeed, had not done so for several months prior to the meetings with Rinder and Sutter. I was also strongly pressuring my husband to stop so that we could regain our privacy and peace of mind. I wanted Scientotogy to leave us alone.

15. It was in this frightened state of mind that I began to receive the daily phone calls from Mike Sutter. Sutter assured me that the harassment would stop and made it clear that Scientology would pay us a large amount of money if we would settle with them. Sutter also made it clear that if we did not agree to settle with Scientology, we would be subjected to even greater harassment than we had already experienced, although he said that he was “sorry” and that “it doesn’t have to be that way,” if we would only agree to talk to them. I felt extremely intimidated by his phone calls and strongly pressured Vaughn to agree to talk to them. Although Vaughn did not feel that they were being above-board about their intentions, he agreed to it because he knew that I was very afraid of them and he did not feel he should force me to continue in a situation that was extremely frightening to me.

16. Mike Rinder and Mike Sutter arrived in Seattle on Friday, July 8, 1994. Vaughn also flew to Seattle on that day. Vaughn and I met with them nearly every day for the next eight days. I was extremely gracious and cordial to both of these Scientologists throughout the meetings, inviting them to our home and doing everything possible to create an atmosphere of trust and honor. After reading Rinder’s declaration I feel betrayed and outraged that he has now perverted and

5

CT 7441

twisted things that my husband and I talked to them about during those meetings. I do not fault these two individuals. I know that they are under the influence of Scientology mind control and that the vicious lies Rinder has sworn to in his declaration are part of the campaign of character assassination that he is under orders to conduct against my husband and me.

17. However, I wish to correct the many lies and perversions of the truth that he has told about us. I also want to make it clear that I went along with much of what Rinder and Sutter said to us because I knew it would do no good to argue with them about much of what they were saying. Someone under the influence of Scientology mind control cannot change his mind about certain attitudes and beliefs, and I was aware that because these two people were still under the control of Scientology it would do no good to try to argue with them. Therefore, Rinder seems to have come away from the meetings thinking that I agreed with what he said simply because I did not refute it. The fact is that I did not bother to refute many things he and Sutter said because I knew it would be a waste of time. Furthermore, my husband and I had agreed to go along with them so that we could find out whatever it was they had to say to us that was so important that they had begged us to meet with them for over a month. The reason the meetings went on for so many days was that we kept waiting for them to get to the point and weren’t able to find out what it was until the eighth day. (When we did finally get them to get to the point, we walked out.)

18. First and most importantly, at the very outset of these meetings we made it clear that we would not perjure ourselves by recanting any statements made in our previous declarations, that what we had stated was true and we would not now lie by saying that what we had written was not true. Much to their dismay, we also made it clear immediately that we would not in any way denigrate Mr. Graham Berry. They tried to change our minds about Mr. Berry by suggesting that he had put us up to writing our declarations, but we were emphatic in stating that he never did any such

6

CT 7443

thing and we would not say that he did. At the end of the series of meetings we discovered that, indeed, one of their main purposes was to get us to discredit Mr. Berry, who has been extremely successful in litigating against Scientology. A key theme in the declarations they drafted for us to sign was that Mr. Berry had orchestrated every aspect of our “attack” against Scientology. We refused to go along with their character assassination of Mr. Berry.

19. Throughout the meetings they repeatedly suggested that we write declarations but were vague about what they wanted the declarations to say. When they would bring up the subject of these declarations we would repeat that we could not write anything that would in any way suggest that we had lied, since we had not. At one point Sutter asked me what I felt I would be able to say, and I replied that I would be able to say I had written declarations as an expert witness for the defense of Uwe Geertz and Steven Fishman and that I had written them in a way that would be helpful to their defense. lt is utterly false that “when the Youngs — especially Stacy Young — spoke frankly about what occurred here, they revealed that their declarations, too, had been falsified.” We repeatedly emphasized to both Rinder and Sutter that nothing whatsoever in our declarations was false.

20. Many of the statements in the Rinder declaration are entirely false, while others are treacherously misleading in the way statements we made are misinterpreted and deliberately twisted to make me or my husband appear to be dishonorable or unscrupulous.

21. It is completely and utterly untrue that “At the beginning of our discussion, both of the Youngs stated that they did not enjoy manipulating the facts to attack and embarrass their former religion, but that economic hardship had compelled them to embark upon that course.” Neither my husband nor I have ever believed that Scientology is a religion and would never refer to it as such. Furthermore, neither of us feel that we have manipulated facts. On the contrary, we have told the truth about

7

CT 7444

many destructive practices that are part of the Scientology empire in the hopes that exposure of these conditions will lead to their being changed.

22. Rinder’s opinion that “it was apparent that the reason they were talking to us was because they found it emotionally distressing to be involved in an occupation that required them to figure out how to manipulate and distort facts for use in litigation” is contrived and utterly false. Moreover, I never said that I “could not stand living a lie and wanted out.” As I have explained in a previous paragraph, what I found emotionally distressing was the campaign of harassment, intimidation and character assassination Scientology has been waging against us ever since we began to speak out about the abuses inside the cult.

23. Rinder’s statement that I said we “tried to live off various family members while Vaughn attempted to establish himself as a writer” is utterly untrue and a fabrication out of thin air, as is the comment that “the family eventually balked at that, and the Youngs were on their own.” We never “tried to live off” any of our family members and have been “on our own” all along.

24. Vaughn and I did have financial difficulties when we first left Scientology, as do many long-term members of Scientology’s inner circle (and any other totalitarian cult, for that matter) if they are fortunate enough to free themselves from the cult’s psychological, emotional and physical subjugation. Vaughn had been a Scientology staff member for 20 years and I had been one for 15 years. We had no résumé that we felt would make any sense to the “outside” world, nor did we have any references. We were considered “enemies ” by Scientology, so we knew that people still inside the cult would not say anything favorable about us. Since we had had virtually no professional contact with anyone outside the cult for many years, we had no references. It was literally as if we had just landed from outer space.

25. I am sorry that I told these two Scientologists about the hardships Vaughn and I experienced as we were struggling to come out of the cult experience. I should have

8

have realized that they would utilize these details of our personal life in their campaign to discredit us. Rinder has now taken this information and twisted it to support his false argument that we are exposing the truth about Scientology to make money. The Court should know that there are many, many other ways we could make a living that would be much more enjoyable and more lucrative. But we feel a moral obligation to do what we can to expose the civil and human rights violations and serious abuses which this cult is perpetrating on its subjugated mind control victims.

26. Rinder falsely states that “At one point in our conversation, Stacy broke into tears and said that she and her husband only began consulting with and selling declarations to Graham Berry because she and Vaughn were so desperate for money. Stacy said she had been willing to say under oath whatever Berry wanted her to say if it would result in getting paid, as she could not face continuing to live under the financial pressure she and Vaughn were suffering. There was one point during the meetings with Rinder and Sutter when I did, indeed, break into tears. It was certainly not, however, for the reason Rinder states. I began to cry at one point as Mike Sutter was attempting to address my concerns about staff conditions and certain specific abuses I suffered while I was in the cult. Something he said triggered some extremely painful memories for me, memories of being forcibly separated from my husband, having our mail intercepted, being kept under guard to keep me from escaping to find my husband, being deprived of sleep for days on end, being locked in a room and interrogated for days at a time, being screamed at and terrorized by Miscavige and his top aides.

27. For many former cult members, certain things someone might say or do can trigger painful memories from their cult experience and they may find themselves becoming very emotional at unexpected times. I found that simply being in the same room with two members of Scientology’s inner circle, two people who used to have

9

CT 7446

enormous power over me, stirred deep-seated emotions that I had not felt since I escaped from the cult. Of course, I did not explain this to these two Scientologists because I knew they would not understand. But certainly I was not upset for the reason Rinder has stated. He is trying to paint my relationship with Graham Berry in a scurrilous light but his accusations are utterly groundless and false. Mr. Berry never told me what to say in my declarations and certainly never drafted a declaration for me to sign the way Rinder and Sutter did for my husband and me. In fact it is the Scientologists who will say whatever will further their own agenda, regardless of whether it is true or not, just as Rinder has done in his declaration. They assume that people outside of Scientology have the same contempt for the legal system as they do, and that others are guilty of the same illegalities, such as perjury, which they commit themselves as a matter of course.

28. Rinder states that “both Mike Sutter and I brought up how we could not understand how they could tell so many lies in the declarations they had filed, especially those in the Fishman case. Neither denied that this was what they had done…” and repeats his character assassination of us as liars in the next paragraph where he states, “We challenged them to explain how they could justify lying as a way of life…” As I have stated earlier in my declaration, in fact my husband and I both repeatedly told them that we had not lied in our declarations, although throughout the meetings Rinder and Sutter did continue to characterize our sworn testimony as “lying.” The truth is that if either of these people ever admitted to themselves that our testimony is true it would break the spell that Scientology has over them. But Scientology has a self-policing mechanism built into its mind control techniques which makes it almost impossible for someone under its influence to break through. Rinder and Sutter both know that our testimony is true. They are both acutely aware of the abuses we have described. But they are loyal Party Members and are sworn to protect the Party at all costs.

10

CT 7447

29. Clearly the main intent of Rinder’s declaration is to discredit the declarations my husband and I have filed in CSI v. Fishman and Geertz. He seems most concerned with a declaration submitted by me on January 3, 1994, in which I detail how Scientology’s fraudulent negligence in selling Steven Fishman nearly $200,000 of Scientology materials and devices could have driven him into a psychotic episode. Rinder goes on for several pages, carefully reconstructing our conversations to make it appear that I somehow admitted to him that what I wrote was untrue. The subject of my January 3 declaration is extremely sensitive for Scientology and this is why Rinder has spent so much time trying to discredit it. But what I wrote in the declaration is true, and I attached many Scientology documents to prove it.

30. In fact, many people have been driven into psychotic episodes by Hubbard’s techniques, as Rinder well knows. Far from being “pure nonsense,” what I wrote about is one of Scientology’s darkest secrets. I have personal knowledge of many people who have been driven into psychotic episodes by Scientology’s techniques. Hubbard wrote precise directions about how to “handle” these people, including the “Isolation Watch.” Rinder is well aware of these occurrences but cannot admit to it because it would violate Scientology policy for him to tell the truth about this subject publicly. It would threaten his good standing as a Scientologist and might get him sent to the prison camp, known as the Rehabilitation Project Force, where he would be separated from his wife and children, kept under guard and forced to do hard labor for 12 or more hours a day. Scientologists will do just about anything to avoid being sent to the RPF.

31. Rinder falsely states that I admitted to creating a false impression in the January 3 declaration about Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard’s use of mind control techniques. In fact, it is my firm conviction that Hubbard developed extremely sophisticated mind control techniques, that he did so quite deliberately, and that Scientology practices can be very psychologically damaging because of this. I

11

CT 7448

did not pull quotes out of context for the declaration as Rinder asserts. I would be happy to provide more quotes from Hubbard in which he goes into even more detail about how Scientology can be used destructively.

32. Rinder also distorted a conversation I had with him concerning Scientology’s “upper level” materials. I do know that Hubbard wanted these materials kept secret, but I do not agree that they should be. People have the right to know that Hubbard’s science fiction story about the cosmos is what they can expect after they have been sold many thousands of dollars of Scientology services. I do not consider a science fiction story to be a religious scripture, nor do I believe (as Scientologists claim) that there is any danger that anyone will get sick by reading these materials “before they are ready.” This story has been published in many, many publications over a period of many years, and I have yet to hear of one person who has gotten sick from reading it. I think the only reason the Scientologists are so worried about keeping these materials secret is that they are afraid of losing money if people learn the truth. Certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

33. Rinder attempts to use me to further his own agenda in discrediting other former Scientologists. He falsely states that I think Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim are both psychotic. To set the record straight, I do not think either of these individuals is psychotic. Indeed, I think both are doing very well at recovering from their lengthy experience with Scientology mind control. However, I do know that Rinder and Sutter both think Gerry Armstrong and Larry Wollersheim are psychotic. I also know that they think my husband and I are psychotic, along with many other people who have come to their senses and left Scientology. This is because Hubbard said so. He repeatedly stated that anyone who leaves Scientology is psychotic. When I was still in Scientology and working for the Office of Special Affairs, it was accepted as a basic truth that anyone who left Scientology was crazy, especially anyone who left and then sued Scientology, which both Armstrong and Wollersheim

12

CT 7449

have done. The truth is that I consider Gerry Armstrong and Lawrence Wollersheim to be good friends and very courageous individuals.

34. Rinder also attempts to use me to discredit the testimony of another former Scientologist, Andre Tabayoyon. Rinder’s version of my relationship with Andre and his wife Mary is wildly distorted and is clearly an effort on his part to create bad feelings between us. This is a technique called “Third Party” in Scientology, in which someone deliberately tells lies about a person to turn friends against friends. I did discuss an incident involving Andre, but I did so in the context of voicing concern about a friend. I now regret ever having said a word and realize I should have known he would use it to try to destroy my friendship with Andre and his wife, Mary. The conversation was carried on at Rinder’s urging, of course, and I was naive not to see what he was doing. In fact, I value my friendship with Andre and Mary and think they are both extremely courageous to have testified about the outrageous abuses they were both subjected to while in Scientology. I hope they are progressing well in their recovery from Scientology.

35. My husband and I never agreed to “write declarations to set the record straight on points described above along with others.” In fact we never did write any declarations or even portions of declarations but rather waited until Rinder and Sutter presented us with their own declarations, drafted by Scientology, for us to sign. When we read them we discovered that they had drafted declarations which did exactly what we had told them repeatedly we would not do. The declarations they wanted us to sign were utterly perjurious, stating that we had lied about virtually everything we have ever stated in declarations submitted in CSI v. Fishman and other cases. Additionally they wanted us to sign a gag order which would have destroyed our freedom of speech as well as our freedom of association by forbidding us ever to speak about our experiences in Scientology or even to meet with anyone else who was speaking about their experiences in Scientology.

13

CT 7449.1

36. The motion which is based on Rinder’s declaration makes the wildly ridiculous claim that we were in “serious emotional turmoil over what [we] had done” and that we “agreed to execute new declarations undoing the false impressions they had created for Mr. Berry.” In fact, as I have already stated, we never did execute any declarations for them at all, and the declarations they drafted for us to sign were completely outrageous.

37. The truth is that when they showed us the declarations they wanted us to sign I told them they were completely wrong to think we regretted any aspect of the work we had done for Mr. Berry. Indeed, I told them in no uncertain terms that I am very proud of the work I have done for Mr. Berry, because I feel it is extremely important for the truth to come out about Scientology.

38. Finally, the motion claims that we “demanded” to be paid an outrageous sum of money but that “the Church was and is unwilling to pay the Youngs to tell the truth.” In fact, they offered to pay us nearly $200,000 to sign their false and perjurious declarations, but we refused. We told them that we would never sign their declarations no matter how much money they gave us, because we would never perjure ourselves nor would we become pawns in Scientology’s vendetta against Graham Berry.

39. Vaughn and I walked out of the meetings at that point, although they begged us to stay. They continued to call us repeatedly over the next several days, imploring us to meet with them again, assuring us that they would give us a “substantial financial settlement,” but I finally made it clear to them that there was no point in continuing the meetings. Vaughn and I have made our decision to continue to expose the truth about Scientology no matter the cost, and that is what we intend to do. Rinder’s blatantly false declaration is simply another part of their campaign to destroy our reputations and our credibility, which is what they warned us they would do if we did not give in to their demands.

14

CT 7450

40. During the course of our meetings Rinder commented that he couldn’t think of anything he wouldn’t do to silence an enemy of Scientology, that as far as he was concerned, the end would justify the means. Sutter and Rinder both made veiled threats during the course of the meetings, making it clear that if we did not settle with them Scientology would ruin our reputations, break us financially, and generally make our lives miserable. True to their threats, Scientology is now doing everything possible, including submitting perjured testimony to this court, to discredit me and my husband. But all of the testimony I have submitted to this court has been true, and it is extremely important that the information which has been submitted remain on the public record.

I swear under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Seattle, Washington, this 14th day of December, 1994.

[signed] Stacy Brooks Young
Stacy Brooks Young

Notes